Persverklaring 2 Maart 2012

  • Druk

PERSVERKLARING UITGEREIK DEUR DIE HERVORMDE KERKVERENGING OP 2 MAART 2012

 

  1. Hierdie persverklaring word uitgereik na aanleiding van die berig in Beeld van 1 Maart 2012 aangaande die steedsHervormers en die bewering dat hulle teologiese besware berus op leuens en dat hulle oneerlik en agterbaks is. 

 

  1. Die teologiese besware met betrekking tot vreemde teologie wat in die Hervormde Kerk ingebring is, het niks met die besluit oor apartheid te doen nie, maar het te doen met die teologiese grondslae en basis vir die besluit wat geneem is.

 

  1. Hierdie vreemde teologie het reeds beslag gevind in die Universiteit van Pretoria se teologiese opleiding en is reeds wyd aanvaar deur predikante in die Hervormde Kerk.  Dit het gemanifesteer in die boek van Prof Andries van Aarde “Fatherless in Galilee”, gepubliseer in 2001, en duur steeds voort tot vandag toe.

 

  1. Dr Daan van Wyk jnr, Voorsitter van die Algemene Kommissie van die Kerkvergadering van die Hervormde Kerk, het lede van die steedsHervormers persoonlik meegedeel, op Vrydag 10 Februarie 2012, dat hy Prof Van Aarde se standpunte in sy boek “Fatherless in Galilee” nie beskou as Godslasterlik nie en dat dit aanvaarbaar is vir die Hervormde Kerk.  Daar is ook ‘n argument in die kerk dat Prof Van Aarde slegs historiese geskrif geskryf het en nie sy eie menings gehuldig het in die boek nie.  Dit is nie korrek nie want hy het sy eie menings gehuldig, soos hieronder aangedui.

 

  1. Prof Van Aarde sê in sy boek presies wat sy siening van die historiese Jesus is.  Hy sê dat hy vaderloos was, dat hy daarom na God as sy vader gesoek het, dat sy storie skokkend was, dat sy wonders slegs metafories gesien moet word, dat Hy ‘n randfiguur in die samelewing was, dat Hy soos ‘n misdadiger gekruisig is, dat “no family or fictive  family took care of his body”, en dat indien Hy begrawe was, “It was certainly not in a respectable family tomb”.  Hy eindig dan af met die volgende woorde: “Jesus of Nazareth died as he was born, a nobody amongst nobodies.” (Hy ontken dus die Goddelike aard van Jesus).

 

  1. Hy stel die volgende as ‘n feit op bladsy 48: “Theologians and exegetes know that historical-critical scholars do not hesitate to admit that the nativity traditions about Jesus should be considered as legendary and mythical in nature, and therefore, not subject to historical research.”  (Hy ontken dus die maagdelike geboorte.)

 

  1. Hy verwys met goedkeuring na die volgende op bladsy 72: “Despite the absence of clear historical proof, 29% of the fellows of the Jesus Seminar judge it possible that Mary’s pregnancy might have been the result of either rape or seduction, while 4% are convinced of that.  Almost all of the members (99%) are convinced that the reports in Mathew and Luke that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit constitute not a historical statement but a theological one.  The majority of the fellows of the Jesus Seminar is also uncertain whether Mary was a virgin at the time of conception.  They argue that she probably became pregnant when Herod the Great was the ‘king of the Jews’.  Luke’s references to a worldwide Roman census, to Jesus being laid in a manger, and to shepherds being the first to acknowledge his birth, plus Matthew’s reference to “wise men”, must be declared unhistorical.  This also applies to the reports in both Matthew and Luke that the birth took place in Bethlehem, the references in Matthew that children were murdered by Herod the Great as a result of Jesus’ birth and that Jesus was taken to Egypt by his parents after his birth, and the references in Luke that John the Baptist was of priestly descent, that he was the cousin of Jesus, and that Jesus was taken to the temple as a child where Simeon and Anna saw him.  Undoubtedly, according to the majority of the Jesus Seminar, all of these references are unhistorical.”  (Hy ontken dus die maagdelike geboorte, die goddelike aard van Jesus en die drie-enigheid.)

 

  1. Prof van Aarde is ‘n lid van die Jesus Seminaar.  Hy het nog nooit gesê dat hy deel van die een persent is wat werklik glo in die maagdelike geboorte van Jesus nie.  Dit lyk eerder uit sy boek of hy met al bogenoemde saamstem.

 

  1. Hy sê op bladsy 76 die volgende: “Likewise, I am unconvinced that Jesus’ initial prophetic association with the Baptist, led to a self-consciousness of being a Joshua of old and an attempt to lead God’s covenant people over the river Jordan into a new promised land.  It does not seem that he perceived himself as the agent of God who forgave the sins of the people…we see an alltogether different portrait of Jesus emerging from that of a typical prophet.  It is a picture of a “sinner” away from his home village, trapped in a strained relationship with relatives, but experiencing a fantasy homecoming in God’s Kingdom.  It is probably within such circumstances that an imaginary reality (which the Spirit of God created) brought about Jesus’ altered consciousness of encountering the care of a Heavenly Father.”  (Hy ontken dus Jesus se goddelike aard en dus ook die drie-enigheid.)

 

  1. Op bladsy 103 sê hy: “The fact that the legend relating to the virginal conception was unknown to Paul does not necessarily prove that this was not a common idea in non-Pauline Christian circles even before Paul’s time.  Virginal conception was a common notion in non-Christian circles.”  (Hy ontken dus die maagdelike geboorte.)

 

  1. Op bladsy 118 sê hy die volgende: “To me Joseph is a legend.  Therefore the search for Jesus as child of God cannot avoid the issue of his fatherless.  Within Christendom the Joseph tradition clearly developed as a trajectory.  This line of thought was impelled by the anti-Christian calumny against Mary and the associated evolution of the idea of the “pure” (sinless) birth of Jesus.  This idea led to the conviction that Mary remained a virgin after Jesus’ birth, and even that she was herself the fruit of a divine birth.  However, there is no trace of a father in Jesus’ life in historical Jesus material.  For Jesus God filled this emptiness.”  (Hy ontken die maagdelike geboorte.)

 

  1. Op bladsy 183 sê hy: “We have seen that the myths of virginal conceptions, ascensions to heaven, and being adopted by the Gods are almost recycled ideas.  In this regard, Senecas’ tragedies of Hercules’ adoption and Ovid’s story of Perseus’ conception are most striking.  These stories were not only very familiar in the first century Greco-Roman world, but also came to mind when (Gentile) philosophers of that period reflected on what Christian said about Jesus, child of God.”  (Die maagdelike geboorte en hemelvaart van Jesus word ontken.  “Child” word met ‘n kleinletter gespel:  ‘n ontkenning van die goddelike aard van Jesus.)

 

  1. Op bladsy 187 sê hy: “We have seen that the origins of the Jesus movement in Jerusalem apparently lie in the claims of Peter and James, and probably also the sons of Zebedee, John and James, that they saw the resurrected Jesus.  We have seen that Mary Magdalene also had such a vision and that it was not brought up in the tradition of the Jerusalem faction.”  (Jesus se opstanding was dus ‘n “vision”, en nie werklik nie.)

 

  1. Op bladsy 88: “The historical Jesus did not foresee that an entity like the church will be built upon such an interpretation of his death.  However, Paul” altered vision of egalitarianism and cultural subversiveness was in continuity with Jesus’ altered relationship with God as the Father of ‘nobodies’.”  (Jesus het nie bedoel om ‘n kerk te stig op ‘n interpretasie van sy dood en opstanding nie.  Hy het dus nooit bedoel om vir ons sondes te sterf nie.)

 

  1. Hy sê op bladsy 194 ten opsigte van die huidige Christenwêreld: “Fifth, modern Christianity is confronted with institutionalisation and securitisation.  This “offence” too, can be overcome if we can share the consciousness that the cause of Jesus has the dynamics to provide meaning to disillusioned people living in depressing circumstances in a plural and multi-cultural, postmodern world.  But there are certain conditions:  the inhibitory effect of institutionalisation that dooms the church must be opposed and secularisation must be seen as an opportunity for the church to be church for the world.”  (Die kerk behoort dus ‘n sekulêre wêreldse organisasie in die wêreld te wees.)

 

  1. Die volgende gee hy ook weer as sy eie opinie op bladsy 79: “The fatherless Jesus grew up in Galilee of the Gentiles.  His God-talk consisted of imagery that expressed an alternative experience in God.  His stories about the kingdom of God and his healing acts became metaphors by which God’s limitless unmediated presence was expressed.  Jesus made use of a symbol, that, in his culture, signalled a most intimate bond – that of the father-son relationship.”  Verder aan: “Jesus expressed his own fundamental religious experience through this symbol.  As a fatherless figure Jesus saw himself as the protector of fatherless children in Galilee, as well as of women who did not belong to a man… As the cause of Jesus expanded, the metaphor “child of God” became part of the Christian vocabulary.  The people who experienced God’s presence in their life because of their embeddedness in the cause of Jesus now became “children of God” and therefore brothers and sisters of Jesus, the firstborn.”  (Hy ontken dat Jesus kind van God was en sê dat sy wonderwerke bloot metafories verstaan moet word, en nie werklik gebeur het nie.)

 

  1. Op bladsy 201 sê hy die volgende as sy eie gevolgtrekking: “The faith assertions about Jesus’ dual nature expressed in the New Testament made use of metaphors from mythology and the emperor cult.  Jesus, child of the Heavenly Emperor, described in his metaphoric stories God’s Kingdom in categories other than worldly hierarchies.  These metaphors were utilised to express the faith, based on the words of Jesus, that Christians were children of God even though they did not physically belong to the family of Abraham.  Thereby they emphasised the unmediated access to God.  The foundational experience in the life of Jesus underlying this faith is that he, as a fatherless person, experienced God as his Father… Another concern is whether the metaphor “child of God” is still relevant for a postmodern era.  A postmodern era has brought sensitivity for the disadvantaged, such as the street urchins who live in societies all over the world.  We have seen that such children were the symbol Jesus used to express God’s healing presence for disillusioned people.  When the church formulates it faith assertions today, the power of this symbol should not be violated.”  (Jesus as kind van God is ‘n metafoor en nie werklik nie.  Sy verwysings na Jesus as “child” en “he” is met kleinletters – hy ontken dus die goddelike aard van Jesus.)

 

  1. Dan bespreek hy “Jesus for today” op bladsy 202 tot 204.  Op bladsy 202: “Generally, we believe that this process of the handing down of tradition and writing of the Bible took place under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.  However, I do not picture or experience the work of the Holy Spirit in a mechanical way.  The Holy Spirit did not retract from the humanity of the writers of the Bible, or of those who, before them, had handed down the gospel or of those who, afterwards, interpreted it.  What was included in the canon has not lost its worldly or human character.”  (Die Bybel is dus nie deur die Heilige Gees geïnspireer nie.)

 

  1. En dan sê hy ten opsigte van sy eie opinie op bladsy 204: “I still find myself within the realm of the church and therefore would like to uphold the relationship between the historical Jesus and the kerygmatic Christ.  The Jesus kerygma (the faith assertions of the church modelled on the New Testament), however, seems to have increasingly lost its explanatory and heuristic power in the secular and postmodern religious age.  The twenty first century could be the time when the relevance of the church as an institution and the Christian Bible as its Canon become outdated for people on the street.  If and when the process of secularisation reaches its consummation, anther Christian generation will be called to reconsider the continued importance of the historical Jesus and to re-interpret that figure as the manifestation of God . . When times change the answers will change.”  (Die historiese Jesus is dus net denkbeeldige Christus.)

 

  1. Ons wil dit duidelik stel dat ons slegs opinies van Prof Van Aarde deur homself as sy eie uitgespreek in sy boek aangehaal het hierbo.  Daaruit is egter duidelik dat sy eie opinies die volgende is:

 

  1. Daar was geen maagdelike geboorte nie.

 

  1. Jesus het nie werklik opgestaan nie.

 

  1. Jesus is nie deel van die Drie-Enige-Godheid nie en was net ‘n gewone mens.

 

  1. Jesus het nie gesterf vir ons sondes nie.

 

  1. Jesus het nie opgevaar na die Hemel nie.

 

  1. Jesus se wonderwerke is bloot net metafore en het nie werklik plaasgevind nie.

 

  1. Jesus het bloot gegryp na God die Vader as ‘n vaderfiguur omdat hy na bewering nie ‘n vader gehad het nie.

 

  1. Die belangrikheid van Jesus moet heroorweeg word in die lig van die huidige postmoderne sekulêre wêreld, en “interreligious debates”.

 

  1. Jesus was “a nobody amongst nobodies”.

 

  1. Jesus was ‘n blote buite-egtelike kind en sy goddelike aard is eers later, met behulp van ondersteuning van mitologiese figure uit ander kulture, opgebou.

 

  1. Die kerk is nie dit wat Jesus bedoel het en die kerk het eers uit hoofde van tradisionele gelooftradisies sy ontstaan gehad.

 

  1. Ons het duidelik hierbo geïllustreer dat Prof Van Aarde elke enkele basiese beginsel en grondslag van die Christelike geloof, volgens sy eie mening en sy eie opinies, ontken het in sy boek.  Die feit dat hy die geloofsbelydenis onderskryf en ook voorlees in die kerk, doen nie afbreuk hieraan nie.  Solank as wat hy nie sy bewerings wat hy in sy boek gemaak het terugtrek nie, staan dit as sy menings en ontstaan die vraag waarom dit in die kerk geduld word.  Miskien is hy so invloedryk en belangrik dat die kerk nie oorweeg om teen hom op te tree nie.

 

  1. Ons is ongelukkig nie bereid om ‘n kompromie aan te gaan aangaande ons geloof, ons onderskrywing van die basiese Christelike geloofsbeginsels, en ons eie beginsels waarvolgens ons leef nie.  Daardie beginsels word gerig deur die Bybel.

 

  1. Ons weet nie tans van enige dosente en predikante wat nie deel is van die steedsHervormers groep, wat hulle van Prof Van Aarde se menings formeel gedistansieer het nie.  Bogenoemde moet dus aanvaar word as die algemene aanvaarde siening van Jesus in die Hervormde Kerk. 

 

  1. Ons is dus van mening dat die opinies uitgespreek deur Prof Van Aarde en die onaanvaarbare teologie tans in die Hervormde Kerk, soos uitgelig word en onderstreep is deur die steedsHervormers, strydig is met die belydenisskrifte van die kerk.  Dit wat die steedsHervormers dus sê, is nie leuens, verdagmakery, agterbaks of oneerlik nie.  Dit is gebaseer op feite wat die kerk weerhou van gewone lidmate.

 

Adv Renette du Plessis

Voorsitter

Hervormde Kerkvereniging

2 Maart 2012