CHAPTER FIVE: THE TRINITARIAN KEY

The basis for all correct biblical thinking is the foundational presupposition that unity is as equally ultimate as diversity. The principle of equal ultimacy is valid both within the Godhead and within the creation that he made to reflect his triune glory (see Van Til 1967a; Rushdoony 1971, 1978). Potgieter correctly terms this the Trinitarian key to biblical hermeneutics (Potgieter 1990).

Therefore the most vital question this dissertation must address is whether Church and Society relativizes true diversity and makes the principle of unity more important and of a better moral quality than true diversity. Does it thus in effect tamper with Nicea and Chalcedon as they apply to missiology, social theology, and ecclesiology? In other words, is C&S philosophically anti-Trinitarian, that is to say, covertly Modalist or Unitarian in its ecclesiology, missiology and social theology?

Although ethno-linguistic and other aspects of the God-created human diversity have a certain role to play within the unity of the church, C&S states that this diversity may not touch true unity.

For example, particularity, that is "geographical factors, social conditions, etc., can also be a factor in meeting specific [ministry] needs [bedieningsbehoeftes]." However, "the ministry must be structured in such a way as to enrich the unity of the church and to promote the fellowship of people" (C&S, 32). A little later, C&S states the church is a kerygmatic, Word-bound fellowship (see C&S, 32-33). One implication is that

On the other hand, C&S states:

C&S Claims the Primacy of Unity over Diversity

The logical conclusion of the above examples is that C&S makes unity primary over any diversity.

Example one

The first example seems somewhat ambiguous at first. Unity is primarily made visible through love, it states. However, disunity among churches of the same confession, without qualification, is termed a sin. Would this exclude, to use a North American example, a separate Korean classis in the Christian Reformed Church? It seems so.

Example two

In the above example, C&S seems to relativize true diversity and makes it secondary, of a lesser quality than the primary good of unity. C&S, 81 explains this primacy of unity in discussing individual gifts and the unity of the church:

The intention here is, of course, noble. The church must make its unity structurally visible in a world cursed by the divisions caused by sin. Furthermore, a true church of Christ in a specific people must never be subservient to the diversities of national identity (C&S, 117). The church is not "in the service of specific nations" (C&S, 120). It is the "church of Christ" (C&S, 117), an independent sphere under God.

The church of the New Testament is not Erastian, serving the "nation and chiefly . . . function[ing] to grant religious sanction to that nation’s values, ideals and ambitions" (C&S, 117). Indeed, it is also certainly true that no one can be righteously turned away who desires to hear the word (C&S, 67),

However, in appealing to the body and members figure, C&S seems to make an exegetical error. In the context of the passage referred to (1Co 12), Paul is discussing the diverse gifts of individuals within the local face-to-face community (plaaslike gemeente). No valid conclusion can be drawn from the relationship of unity and diversity of individuals in the local congregation that could be applied to the problem of ethnic diversity in the universal church.

Second, no conclusion can logically be drawn from this passage making unity primary and all inclusive ("wat verskeidenheid omvat" [see C&S, 78]) and diversity subservient. Indeed just the opposite conclusion is demanded. Each person is separate and apart as an individual. God has "divided" to him a gift different and unique from all others. This is a true and definite diversity that stands on its own.

However, just as within the triune God, this true diversity does not necessarily destroy unity nor does it serve it as secondary as C&S implies: "In the New Testament all differences and diversities among believers are regarded as subservient to this unity in the Triune God" (C&S, 75; see C&S, 120). On the contrary, true diversity is as primary as unity. Both are equally good and equally ultimate in the church. Both serve one another. Primary diversity works together with true unity so that both are preserved.

As a consequence, the former NGK, as an Afrikaner ethno-church (volksekerk), is not committing injustice and oppressive sin simply because it stands ethno-culturally separate from other churches and, with its own indigenous leaders, is adapted to a specific ethno-cultural group.

Only when "apartness" violates God’s specific command to love the alien does it become sinful. In other words, sinful "apartness" occurs when there are services and sacraments closed to some believers and a rejection of mutual discipline in an ecumenical synod.

Example three

Thirdly, C&S states that "under the Old Testament dispensation the emphasis was strongly on the separateness of God’s people" (C&S, 64). This means that the church was mono-ethnic. Now, however,

In addition,

And again,

In the above examples, C&S again shows a noble intention to reject "closed" churches that forbid other ethnic groups and racial groups from becoming members or attendees of the church. However, this can be accomplished using the Trinitarian principle and the specific commands in both testaments that regulate inter-ethnic relations (see "Moses, Law, and Culture").

C&S, however, claims that in the New Testament, ethnic distinction based upon God-created linguistic difference is less important and merely useful to or of service to ("subservient to" = diensbaar aan) the unity of the one people of God (C&S, 75; C&S, 120). On this inclusivist assumption no one can be excluded.

Granted, it is true that the new covenant church of God, fulfilling the Abrahamic covenant, is not now limited to one people (Ge 12:1-3; Ps(s) 22, 96; Rom 4; Gal 3). However, does the move from the Old Testament to the New Testament entail a metaphysical shift from divided and exclusive ethnicity to unified and inclusive non-ethnicity (i.e., from the group and the family to the individual) as C&S seems to imply (see e.g., C&S, 119)? It seems the contrary is true.

Lastly, C&S 116-122, completely cited below, seems to make the church as the sphere of unity something prior to and completely distinct from any created diversities. The church as a prophetic institution must be "in" (indigenous and contextualized) and yet, in a certain sense, "above" all nations and peoples. This seems conceptually close to the ecclesiocentric, medieval Roman doctrine with its nature-grace distinction, making the church a sphere above the specificities of nature. Further, if this is true, the ethnic and sphere sovereignty theologians described in chapter three were correct in calling this aspect of C&S out of conformity with Reformed thought.

Note, however, there is much good in these paragraphs concerning indigenization and not subordinating the church to national interest. However, the subtle subordinating of diversity to unity in a nature-grace dialectic is what is at issue:

Diversity Finds Its Reality Only in Unity’s Embrace.

As a further confirmation of the above thesis, C&S unequivocally states that diversity finds its reality only within the embrace of unity. Unity is of primary importance.

It is significant that the 1986 reading of the above describes unity as "transcending" diversity ("gaan alle verskeidenheid te bowe"), clearly reflecting a nature-grace dualism. However, the 1990 reading reflects more of a holistic philosophical emphasis.

Both the 1990 description of the relationship of unity and diversity ("verskeidenheid binne die eenheid") and the concept of unity "encompass[ing]" diversity come dangerously close to a key pantheistic New Age description of the relationship of unity and diversity: diversity-in-unity or unity-in-diversity. In saying this, no claim is being made that C&S is New Age. That would be irresponsible. However, the conclusion could be drawn that C&S shares a concept of the relationship of unity to diversity that is gaining a considerable following in Western culture.

Lastly, it is significant that C&S (1990) removes the reference to diversity among the creation. This certainly must imply that the church wanted to remove any vestige of so-called "natural theology" as it is defined by Barthians. Removing the reference implies that in the unique, new creation — that is, the church — created diversity is indeed being overcome. That this is implied is virtually certain when one remembers two things. First, the NGK leadership rejects the traditional justification of male only leadership (see chapter three). Second, the General Synod 1990 mandated that women should be ordained into all ecclesiastical offices.

In summary, then, diversity is not of the same importance and of equal ultimacy as unity. As we have seen, this rejects and denies Nicea and Chalcedon. To accept C&S, 78-79 would be to accept some sort of Sabellianism and modalistic Monarchialism.

Illustration from the NGK family

This process of subordinating diversity to unity is already beginning to appear in the NG Sendingkerk. Johan Retief, Allan Boesak’s former associate, included the following passage in his proposed Katkisasie for the NGSK (Bly by jou Bevryder [Remain with your Liberator]). Retief modifies the formulation of the Belgic Confession and the Nicean Council on the relationship of true unity [one essence] and real diversity [three persons]. Note his deliberate rejection of the orthodox wording of the relationship of unity to diversity within the Godhead:

What does Retief mean by the word "manner" (manier). He definitely rejects the orthodox meaning of "person" as a "separate identity," in other words, one possessing "a will, mind, emotions and unique identity."

Here the fundamental question must be asked: Is Jesus Christ, the eternal Son, only a "manier" (i.e., a ". . . way; . . . ; mode; strain . . . .")? (Bosman, Van der Merwe, and Hiemstra 1984)? No, according to confessional orthodoxy, he is definitely a "separate identity" with a "will, mind, emotions, and identity."

The same is true for the Holy Spirit and the Father. Yet the three are one essence or one being and not three beings or three gods. The three Persons are separate and have divided (aparte/afsonderlike) identities yet are still one. In other words, there is not just "a certain distinction in God." Instead there is an eternal and real diversity, distinction and

separateness along with true and eternal unity. Retief’s explanation is dangerously close to Sabellianism.

In the immediate context cited above, Retief distances himself from pure Modalism. In a later context, he repeats a biblical and orthodox sounding formulation and therefore cannot perhaps be accused of pure Sabellianism:

However, it seems Retief has not thought through the implications of the relationship between unity and diversity as it applies to the person of Christ and his relationship to the Godhead. However, if one applies Retief’s logic and his definition of the relationship between diversity and unity to the one Person of Jesus Christ, then he would not have two separate and distinct wills and two distinct and separate natures (i.e., without confusion or mixing), following the formulation of the Chalcedon. Instead of two natures, he would have only two "modes" or "manners." This leads to utmost confusion.

Is C&S Infected with Dialectical Holism?

Next in importance, after having established that C&S prioritizes unity, is the following question: Does C&S read into the Scriptures an anti-Christian, holistic definition of good and evil? The answer, again it seems, is yes.

Does C&S Consider Division Less than the Perfect?

In several paragraphs, the words "broken" (gebroke) and "divided" (verskeurdheid = "torn," "torn apart in pieces" hence, connoting "divided," or "fragmented") (see C&S, 71, 72, 81 as good examples) are used with other terms to seemingly indicate that a problem in the world and in "reality" is its dividedness, that is, its fragmented nature. The assumption would seem to be that nature is basically chaotic. Thus, the Holy Spirit working through the church will bring health and wholeness springing from unity.

If this is true, then the implication is that diversity, which is part and parcel of divided data of this world, is evil, or at least not perfect, and certainly not primary. This confuses all "division" with "sinful division" and "ruined and sinful" with "broken in two, divided, sinful and evil apartness."

Example one

An implication seems to be that the good (i.e., unity) must be sought after in the fragmented, torn and diverse world. Is this a statement of what the world is like in essence or as a result of a time-space Fall? Is "sinful and broken" inherent in the world or the result of something after the creation?

If it is the first, then clearly it is not accurate. Even after the Fall, this world does not lose all its created unities, else, for example, there would be no communication of meaning or of written, infallible revelation. This world now partakes of both creational unities and diversities, as well as that which is broken and fragmented by sin. If it be said that sin fragmented everything, this is not accurate. Sin has polluted everything but not fragmented everything in essence.

It seems that, subtly, C&S combines words connoting ecclesial and social "diversity" with negative words so that the total meaning connoted is social divisions are something that are inherently evil. These divisions "tear up" (verskeur) something good, healthy and whole.

Example two

A further example is similar:

Here the word "gebrokenheid" (see note 12) seems to be used as a synonym for "separated," and "divided" (geskei, verdeel). It is then coupled with "enmity and hate," "falsehood" (oor die leuen), "division" (verdeeldheid), "violence and confrontation."

It seems the connotation, again, is that the NGK as it now exists as an independent, indigenous church, is reflecting an old, "sinful, broken, passing [away] world" (sondige, gebroke, verbygaande wêreld) (C&S, 24, 25, 26). This is a world of hate, lies, violence, confrontation and division, torn-apartness, and broken-dividedness. Thus combining the concept of sin in the above phrase, with words and concepts defining various created social divisions (e.g., ethnicity, gender) gives a negative connotation to such social group diversities.

Therefore, instead of reflecting sin and division, C&S teaches that the church must reflect a coming new world of a unified humanity — "one new humanity [mensheid] in Christ" (C&S, 25). In this new world, unifying love, non-divisive reconciliation, and warm and accepting inclusive truth must conquer violent and confrontational division.

If this interpretation is accurate, then C&S would be accepting a myth without all the extreme conclusions, common since Plato, the Gnostics, medieval mystics, Anabaptist millenarian visionaries, and socialist Utopians. One form of this myth teaches that the ideal world is a unified and loving communal whole. All share in the communal property so all have enough. There is no inequality, nor hierarchy (not even between male and female).

This myth led many, such as Thomas Müntzer and Jan van Lyden, to preach and live out in practice the concept of communal property and wives. According to another form of the myth, the Fall and hence evil came with social distinction and hierarchy, one man above another, private property and private wives.

The answer to the Fall, in the myth’s doctrine of "redemption" (soteriology) is either to return to an idealized, holistic past (repristination) or move forward to a totally new and different future (futurism). Both forms of the myth believe history is moving toward a non-discriminating, non-ethnic, non-sexist, non-creedal (no creed above another), non-ageist, non-classist, unitary society.

Subtle Derogation of Created Diversity

In this connection it is interesting to note that C&S couples all the words concerned with diversity in the church, both those with negative and relatively neutral connotations, with the concept sin (sonde). C&S usually contends without qualification that division is sin and that God’s will is unity (implying an undivided unity). Thus in coupling words concerning any sort of division in the church with the words "sin" and "sinful," C&S leaves the reader, deliberately or not, with certain negative impressions. It implies that any and all division, distinction, particularity, or unique identity in the one body of Christ is at least imperfect, perhaps even evil. There are several examples of this.

Example one

After speaking about the spiritual and eternal oneness of the church, C&S states the following:

The document at this point appeals to the rebuke Paul gave to the Corinthians for their divisions in the church (1Co 1:10-13). However, this is an illicit appeal. In the close context, Paul is speaking about ethical divisions, that is, divisions created by sins such as quarreling (1Co 1:11, 3:3), jealousy (1Co 3:3) and pride in human wisdom instead of God’s wisdom (1Co 1:18ff).

Paul is not speaking here about the created, natural

divisions such as those between male and female, social classes, young and old, truth and falsehood, and various ethno-cultural groups. C&S does not give the exegetical evidence needed to transfer the rebuke about ethical divisions to social structural issues.

Example two

Immediately after the above (C&S, 80), C&S continues with the concept that diversity only finds its being within unity. The implication again seems to be that all "natural" distinctions are merely "givens" and hence to make them equally ultimate with unity is to cause the evil of verskeurdheid:

Now in the light of the General Synod’s 1994 decision to seek some sort of structural, visible unity with all the Reformed churches in South Africa, this passage definitely means that the present system of independent racio-ethnic based churches united by confession and councils at General Assembly level is sinful, divisive and evil. Hence, by extension, it seems that no attempt to justify any sort of self-governing ethno-church (volksekerk) is righteous. Indeed this seems to be one purpose of the document, as chapter two indicated.

Furthermore, the implication seems to be that Scripture demands some sort of holistic, structural unity of all Christian churches. This gives then the NGK a manifesto to engage in comprehensive ecumenicism. The following paragraphs state this point clearly:

C&S, 82, leading up to C&S, 84 also clearly states this principle:

The implication here seems to be that God-created ethnic identity absolutizes that which is imperfect and less spiritually good than the perfect, eternal good of unity.

Furthermore, "lovelessness," "sin," "carnal attitudes," "[theological] error" (dwaling), "refusal to accept one another," are all tied with "absolutising diversity." This diversity must certainly include ethnic and gender diversity when the 1990 General Synod decisions rejecting apartheid and mandating the ordination of women are taken into account.

Thus the paragraph illicitly connects negative sins and attitudes with the fact of ethnic and gender diversity as creational norms. This is a logical fault named colloquially "Poisoning the Waters." It is a false "guilt by association."

Example four

The consequence of this holistic doctrine is found in C&S, 85 and C&S, 93-95: "Christians may never be content with disunity among the churches, especially among those with the same confession, but must acknowledge and confess it as a sin" (C&S, 85).

Certainly it is necessary and true to seek some sort of visible structural unity among all churches of Christ, especially those of the same confession. However, these passages seem to imply something in addition to this noble effort. C&S here again seems to suggest that all present divisions based on ethnic and linguistic particularity are as evil as those caused by ethical breaches. Being evil, divisions based on ethnic diversity are to be "confess[ed] . . . as a sin" (C&S, 85),

Reformers and C&S Contrasted Concerning Ethno-Churches

This type of unity is not that which the Reformers taught. The Reformers allowed independent Reformed congregations in Geneva for the various ethno-linguistic groups such as the Dutch, English, and Scots who sought refuge there (Potgieter 1990).

They did not see the separateness of these groups as sinful so that they worked for unitarian structures. Nor did they agree with C&S’ ideal of unity: one structurally unified church with provisions in the structure for unity-in-diversity so long as the diversity serves that which is primary, good and eternal.

Note the following

The Reformers were content in confessional and disciplinary unity for each national church, whether in Geneva itself or in each country. They definitely did not want to return to a Romanized, monolithic, unitarian church structure.

They saw that such a holistic emphasis upon unity would eventually lead to the total swallowing up of the individual and every other distinction, including private property and separate wives, in the absolute rebellion against Trinitarian Christianity. This is exactly what happened in the most consequent of the Radical Anabaptists. This is why the Reformers so strongly fought against certain Radical Reformation biases and why the fathers included Article 36 in the Belgic Confession.

C&S and Church Unity in John 17

One foundational passage that C&S uses to justify its definition of the relationship of unity to diversity is John 17. C&S teaches that our Lord prayed for an undivided unity in the church in John 17. For example, C&S, 82 and 83, discusses the division and disunity of the church through the ages. It then cites our Lord’s prayer for church unity in John 17 as demanding "clearly visible" unity, implying "that the church bears the responsibility in so far as it is practically possible, to experience and make visible its unity [in structures] with all believers" (C&S 86).

A holistic presupposition would claim that Jesus asked the Father to destroy the evil of all church divisions. This indeed seems to be the intent of C&S, 83-86, and 93. The relevant paragraphs are as follows:

C&S here implies that any and all divisions in the church are sins that must be confessed, including those establishing gender and ethno-linguistic diversity. Thus the present, independent, self-governing NGK as an Afrikaner ethno-church is sinning.

This must be the correct conclusion considering the recent decisions to move toward structurally uniting with all the various ethno-racial daughter churches it has planted (see Crafford and Gous 1993).

Furthermore, it is certainly true that confessional diversion from the biblical norm is sin. However, assuming that unity is primary in the New Testament, confessions are themselves also ultimately evil because of their divisive characteristic. Pushed to its logical end, C&S would disallow even the division of the Reformation. At that time, the Roman church was declared a non-church to justify the schism (see BC, 27-29).

In conclusion, the implication of the above discussion as well as C&S’ use of Christ’s prayer (Jn 17) is that there should be only one church in each geographical location. Geographical separation, thus, being absolutely and immediately inescapable, is the only diversity allowed, not the other creational distinctions as linguistic, ethno-covenantal, gender, or cultural style. That in itself is not logically consequent. If one creational distinction (geographical location) is allowable, there is no compelling reason why others should not be allowed as well.

It must be emphasized again at this point that the Trinitarian principle agrees that visible structural unity is indeed demanded by John 17 so long as the unity structures allow for the fundamental expression of the equal ultimacy of true self-determining diversity along with structural unity.

NGSK catechism and John 17

Interestingly, the NGSK catechism by Johan Retief,

mentioned above, uses a very similar interpretation of John 17:21 as does C&S. Holistic thought is clearly expressed here:

A more correct understanding of John 17

However, in the context of John 17:21 Jesus does not ask the Father to create a monolithic, equalitarian church, the non-ethnic, non-sexist, non-ageist, and non-classist unified church (and state) ideal of the world ecumenical movement and the logical end result of C&S’ ecclesiology.

Christ prays:

Jesus is praying, first of all, for the whole church, on earth at that time, and all those who will believe in the future. In other words, the church across the generations. Second, he is praying for unity like that found in the Godhead, in other words, true unity and real self-determining diversity.

Wesley L. Duewel, in a paper read at Trinity Missions Consultation Number Two entitled "Christian Unity: The Biblical Basis and Practical Outgrowth," explains:

Again the Trinitarian principle corrects C&S’ view that Jesus demands a structurally unified church of all ethnic groups with the same confession (C&S, 86) as the only answer to his prayer. On the contrary, biblical Trinitarian teaching leads to the development of true federal or confederal structures in the ecclesiastical and civil government spheres.

C&S Concedes Necessity of Some Indigenization

Note that the previous paragraphs do not seem to contradict C&S 32, 38 which allows language and culture as legitimate ministry needs (bedieningsbehoeftes). The reason is that such diversity is relative to the absolute, the priority of the unity of the church. Therefore, diversity must be worked into the structural unity. This is impossible ultimately on any principle except the "equal ultimacy of the one and the many" (see C. A. Van Til 1967a):

The holistic assumption that C&S seems to accept here is that the NGK "fell" from "primal" unity into the present unjust system of churches divided by ethnic background. However, Redemption heals all such injustice and sinfulness, therefore Christ came to restore non-ethnic unity and hence to destroy ethnic divisions.

However, as a concession to reality, C&S allows a certain form of diversity, though that diversity is never specifically defined (see again C&S, 32, 38). C&S states, however, that unity must be only part of, enriching to, and encompassed by unity (C&S, 79-89). Therefore, it has no real and separate "ultimacy" equal to unity.

In C&S, diversity is always "diversity within unity" (C&S, 79). It certainly is not real self-determining diversity that, C&S seems to be claiming, is "used as a pretext for disunity" (as grond vir kerklike verskeurdheid)(C&S, 80) and "a threat to the church’s unity" (C&S, 81).

Note again C&S, 79-81:

C&S, 81-82 makes it clear that recognition of ethno-cultural diversity is only a concession because unity must be

confessed and lived out as a witness of unifying redemption against one major, if not the major, evil of this world, its divided state: "this broken and divided world" (see also C&S, 49: "in this fragmented [verskeurde], unjust and distrustful world").

"Sin," C&S, 82 clearly states, "endangered from the beginning" the unity of the church. This is certainly true. However, sin also endangers true diversity as collective man seeks to obliterate all human distinctives in the collective humanity. Ultimately humanity wants to remove the last true distinction, that between himself and his Creator (see Kuyper 1870).

Does C&S absolutize unity?

Could it not be then that C&S absolutizes unity and relativizes diversity, while accusing apartheid proponents of absolutizing diversity and relativizing unity? Clearly, that is what occurs when C&S prioritizes unity above diversity and something that encompasses diversity (see C&S, 73-89). However, the sword cuts both ways. To absolutize one or the other principle is idolatrous.

On this basis, C&S’ prophetic charge that "absolutising of the diversity" and "superficial and spiritualised conception of unity" is sinful, endangering true church unity, is hollow in this context. It is true, of course, that platonic concepts of spiritualized unity have been rampant in the church virtually since the beginning. It is also true that many have so over-emphasized diversity that, for example, the boundaries of "race" have become totally rigid.

However, a Scripture-taught emphasis upon true God-formed ethno-cultural, gender, age, even social class diversity is not absolutizing that created diversity to the sinful expense of unity. Both can and must exist in the church.

Therefore, dialectical theories, of which holism is one, tend like pietism and the Radical Reformation to define social division as evil. As seen, this results in social ethical radicalism. When these movements become politically engaged, they tend to assume that diversity in social, political, and church institutional structures is unjust and oppressive.

Dialectical, holistic theories assume that all borders and boundaries cause division and distinction. Distinctions, borders, and boundaries are either less than perfect or evil. In the final analysis, they are non-loving and unjust.

Therefore, pushing the logic of C&S’ bias toward unity and oneness brings one to the following non-biblical conclusions. Breaking down ethno-linguistic, cultural, gender, age,

socio-economic exclusiveness must be the long-term goal of the reconciling work of the church. Growing inclusiveness must slowly occur now, making the church an anticipatory "window on the future" (C&S, 72). Perfect, loving inclusiveness, of course, will happen only at the resurrection.

Therefore, those factors which lead to unified, group inclusiveness must be "good," "reconciling," "just," and "loving." Creational diversities are only tolerated now in the in-between-time until the end. All these groups, smaller than the whole, divide the unity of humanity in Christ. They must, therefore, be de-emphasized and slowly abolished.

The ideal of much of futurist dialectical theology and the most logically consequent of the descendants of the Radical Reformation, is that all individuals are to be stripped from a God created group. These individuals can then be united in a unitary church institute. There is little difference between this vision and that of modern humanism: "no discrimination on the basis of ethnic group, language, gender, sexual orientation, class, or age."

The late NGK missiologist David Bosch concurs with this sentiment (Bosch 1982). The Barthian-influenced, Alliance of Black Reformed Christians in South Africa (ABRECSA), among whom are several prominent theologians from the NGK family, agrees. The fifth article of its theological basis reads:

Mennonite Anabaptist, John Howard Yoder, in "The Social Shape of the Gospel," also explicitly agrees:

He concludes his critique of Church Growth missiology, which desires to plant self-governing ethno-churches, by saying: "‘If one is in Christ,’ there is a whole new world. Ethnic standards have ceased to count " (Yoder 1983, 283; see also Bosch 1982, 1983; Padilla 1985a).

There is only one logical conclusion. Because unity encompasses particularity, all diversity loses "equally ultimate" existence in itself. Thus, logically, even the individual has lost any permanent particular identity and self-determination. He must be encompassed by unity to participate in the good. Hence, the individual must "lose all of himself," that is "deny himself" even his very particular Afrikanerskap (diverse Afrikaner culture) to the "good" of the new humanity coming (see C&S, 72).

This type of presupposition works its way out into an elitist, centralized church structure. Marx and other social holists, correctly saw how this understanding of the relationship of unity to diversity inevitably leads to control by an enlightened, elitist leadership who understand the priority of unity over diversity. This top-down control almost inevitably is exercised with altruistic justifications, often in the form of Social Democracy with "free elections." It can also operate in the name of a presbyterial-synodal ecclesiastical system.

This type of social vision is fundamentally the same as that of the Gnostic heresy (Cohn 1970; Lee 1987; Vogelin 1990; Jones 1992, 1997). Gnostics, like other dualists and holists, drew inspiration from Plato’s Republic (see Plato 1955). Biblically, however, there is good division in the creation if it exists within the boundaries of the Decalogue which, in turn, is in-built into God’s created design-order.

Presupposing a type of church or social unity that rejects real gender role distinctions and true ethnic self-determination calls something a sin that God does not define as sin. Instead, it is a "commandment and doctrine of man," against which the Reformers mightily struggled. The resulting guilt is a false guilt. When submitted to, it logically leads to suicidal tendencies, personally and ethnically.

"He who hates me [wisdom], loves death" (Pr 8:36). God does not make suicidal demands. God desires individuals and

peoples to protect the good of created individual and group particularity. God created the internal instinct for individual and group self-protection. That instinct is good if God-designed priorities are followed: God, others, and yourself. If this were not true, no one would cloth, feed, or rest oneself. Neither would one care for one’s wife (see Eph 5:24ff).

Many medieval, solitary monks, Hindu mystics, and Buddhist recluses, however, have taken this philosophy to its logical extremes. The resulting filthy appearance, begging for money, forced wakefulness, and other extreme measures are an attempt to escape from this old, divided world into the bliss of a unifying vision.

The triune God does not make unity primary to real self-determining, ethno-covenantal diversity. This would deny his nature in which dwells unity and diversity as equally ultimate. Neither should his church prioritize one or the other. The evil in southern Africa and in the NGK family is not apartheid based, ethnic churches nor "this broken and divided world" (C&S, 82). Evil is disobedience to God’s law revealed in Scripture and especially the Pentateuch (see "Moses, Law, and Culture").

Several Practical Questions

Are One-Building, Several-Congregation Churches Sin?

First of all, assume the practical diversity C&S allows (see C&S, 32, 38, 80, 81) for the sake of the diaconal ministry of the church (C&S 51-63) and the fulfilling of the cultural and Great Commission mandates (C&S, 45-50). Would this allow truly indigenous, biblically contextualized, local congregations? Would multi-ethnic congregations in one building with several church councils reflecting ethnicity be allowed?

No, it seems. If C&S’ logic mandating the priority of unity over diversity is carried out to its extent, then all local congregations should be mixed. The age, sexual orientation, social-class, gender, and ethnic mix should reflect the geographic area surrounding the church building. In an ethnically mixed area one local church building would not be allowed to contain several cooperating yet ethnically diverse church councils and congregations. Instead, there should be one council and one pluralistically mixed body.

This then raises questions of geographic (parish, circuit, synod) versus gathered church polity. Which of these is biblically justifiable? After all, according to traditional NGK polity, no one from outside the local congregation’s geographic borders may vote or serve in the church council of that church. Is that discriminatory and exclusive? It seems so if the logic is pushed to its extreme. Significantly, the NGK has recently opened all boundaries, thus abolishing the parish church model.

Are Ethnic Based Gatherings Wrong?

Second, for the same reasons, would an ethno-linguisically indigenous (i.e., volkseksklusief), self-controlling circuit (classis) be allowed? What about an ethnically indigenous regional synod or ethnically distinct General Synod within a

National Synod of churches? Again, the answer seems to be negative. According to C&S 32-38, 67, and 85, the local church must include all within the boundaries of its parish. At the same time, it must make some adjustments to meet the pastoral needs of those having differing language and so forth.

When Does Ethno-Linguistic Diversity Endanger Unity?

Thirdly, at what point is the unity of the church "obscure[d] or endanger[ed] (C&S 1986, 53; see parallel in C&S 1990, 32) by true ethno-linguistic diversity? As seen, C&S does allow some sort of indigeneity. However, it never specifies what amount of indigeneity is good and justifiable.

Could groups of Afrikaners in English Rondebosch, Zulu hostel dwellers in Johannesburg, or Xhosa maids in Valhalla, Pretoria, meet separately to hear the word in their own language? Would this obscure unity (C&S 1986, 53)? Would this enrich the unity of the church and further mutual fellowship (C&S 1990, 32)? Or would these groups be accused of separatism and divisiveness when the logic is pushed?

Is the building of one new people that is neither Jew nor Greek the ecclesiastical parallel to the one new South African nation? What language would prevail in this one new people of God? Will English prevail as it seemingly is in the new South African and Namibian states?

These questions have yet to be definitively answered. However, Zulus, Afrikaners, or Xhosas who love their own language, culture and people, will probably dread that they will be required to give up their own God-created language and culture with the accusation that clinging to these is divisive.

Could Ethnically Distinct Congregations Be Planted?

Would C&S allow for the planting of ethno-culturally separate congregations? In other words, can evangelists justly seek to plant ethno-linguistically distinct, self-determining local congregations in order to help the growth and/or consolidation of the church? The answer is logically no. However, probably in practice the answer would be yes because most members of congregations and many leaders will not allow the logic of C&S to be pushed to extremes.

Therefore, would C&S’ logic allow for ethnically distinct congregations to separate from a mother church to help the discipling of a specific ethnos? The answer again is most likely negative. Self-determining, ethnically exclusive congregations, classes or synods would divide the church. In order to have an ethnically exclusive, indigenous church on classis and regional synod level, one lingual-cultural group must be preferred. In doing so others must be excluded on the basis of family, language, culture and historical grounds. This exclusion may be totally unintentional and may even occur with the best intention of drawing people from other groups into the fellowship.

Years of missiological experience show that when a church is truly indigenous (contextual) in language, vocabulary, liturgy, music, preaching style, organization, and emphasis in theology, people from other groups do not feel at home. They tend to leave an indigenous, contextualized church altogether or join a congregation of Our Kind of People (Wagner 1979).

The answer to this is not an implicit or explicit dialectical divorce between sociology (nature) and theology (grace) as advocated by Bosch and C&S. The answer is to accept the equal ultimacy of the unity and diversity principles as an inescapable, God-created reality. Then a church structure can be designed to express both visible unity and self-governing diversity within the biblical parameters discussed below.

C&S 122 also hints at parameters for determining the relationship of unity to diversity (cited above):

How this will look can only be inferred. Perhaps the

present South African constitution with its strong bias to a centralized, unitary state would be a model. That too rejects the equal ultimacy of unity and diversity.

Historically, however, the Reformers have seen a decentralized presbyterial-synodal system as adequate to express true unity in real diversity within volksverband (i.e., various national churches). This model is rejected by C&S, 117-122, etc.

Suggested Alternative Structure for Federal/Covenantal Unity

The following federal principles seem adequate to express visible, structural unity and real multi-ethnic diversity.

Three Mandatory Stipulations for Ethno-Churches

Each of the following biblical stipulations is mandatory for fellowship by ethnic-based churches in the proposed federation of churches. These principles imply a constant fraternal communication and formal gatherings of at least elders in local areas. Meeting together of parishioners of various linguistic and cultural groups is also highly commendable:

1. Open Community. Fellowship between individuals, families, and congregations, the proclamation of the word, and the Eucharist and baptismal font must be open to all true believers (Jas 2; Gal 2) (C&S, 36-37, 40, 90-92).

2. One Confession. All must accept one common Confession, that is the one common gospel which establishes the one law of God (see C&S 44, 95). This common confession should include the essence of the first five or six Ecumenical Confessions.

3. Mutual Recognition of Courts. All are under the same church discipline. Therefore the jurisdiction of each unit’s church courts/gatherings must be respected by all the other gatherings at all levels.

Concentric-Circle Shaped Federal Gatherings

The unity of church gatherings/courts is expressed in a series of federalized courts/gatherings structured as concentric circles, not as a pyramid (Kleynhans 1982, I:82-83). These gatherings exist in a common socio-politically defined, geographical area: congregation, classis/presbytery, regional synod, national synod, regional international synod, world synod (C&S, 93-95).

Each presbytery or classis would be a very compact geographic area with several congregations whose elders consider themselves one church (e.g., the church of Rome, Corinth, etc.). The regional synods are not a church (singular) but a federation of churches (i.e., presbyteries, classes) (e.g., the churches of Galatia, Macedonia). The same principle holds true for the other larger gatherings as well.

Appellate Jurisdiction Only

The progressively larger gathering only has appellate jurisdiction over the court/gathering immediately next to it and smaller than it. The larger gatherings do not have direct authority over all the other smaller courts nor over all individuals. No policy statements nor confessional changes can be originated in any other than a compact, geographically-based presbytery/classis. For the smallest level, policy statements such as, for example, a C&S replacement, would then be passed along to the larger courts. Thus all levels of synods would serve as appeals courts alone, not as a top down tyranny (see danger of such governments in Rev 13; see Breckinridge 1843/1988; also Smyth 1843, 79-107).

Ethnic Diversity at All Levels

The regional and/or national synods could consist of self-governing, self-theologizing ethno-churches and those churches that claim not to be ethnic-based. However, non-ethnic and ethnic gatherings at all levels could choose to meet judicially at any of the various levels if the following stipulations are met.

In practice, the synod will include Zulu, Xhosa, Sotho, Afrikaner, Anglo-South African and multi-ethnic churches in an ever ascending level. The region can be where the churches choose to meet (e.g., Western Cape) or a church such as a transformed Afrikaans Protestante Kerk may choose to meet with other synodical assemblies only on a national, or sub-continental (Southern African) level.

Multi-Congregations in One Geographical Parish

The federal or covenantal model allows for several ethnic based congregations to meet in one geographical parish. It would also allow for several ethnic congregations meeting in one parish building with different variations on the ruling body of the congregations.

Thus the Trinitarian principle rejects the Roman Catholic model of one congregation for each geographic area no matter what varying types of ethno-linguistic groups live in it. Note that this model does not exclude churches who choose not to be ethno-linguistically exclusive. Nor does it exclude fellowship between congregations, classes, and regional synods of various language and culture groups.

This model of federalism is the Reformed, Protestant presbyterial-synodal structure followed through logically to include peoples and to include the reality of true unity and real diversity. If "peopleness" is not evil in itself in Christ, then it is good both in the church invisible and visible.