Theologians, office-bearers, brothers and sisters,

In this address I use an ascending order of importance. For what really matters are the brothers and sisters — the church.

If that is what it is all about in theology, it is beneficial.   

If that is not the point in theology, it is dangerous.

However, it can also be the other way around: A theology that only looks at the church, trying to say what it wants to hear, is also dangerous.

Theology needs to speak to the heart of the church. That is something different. That is speaking according to the tone of the Word. That is speaking on the rhythm of faith.

Theology and congregation — there is necessarily some distance between the two. For theology is in some ways also a kind of craft. For those untrained in it, its speech is at first not easy to understand. But does the same not apply to a theologian (or any other person) who overhears two carpenters talking about their craft?   

Yet we cannot leave it at this. The distance between theology and the congregation may not become a closed border. It is the church that may — and must — watch over this. In this regard, we have wise regulations in our churches. Theological training stands under the supervision of the curators who have been called by our churches. Church council meetings, regional synods, and the general synod have the final say over the training of ministers of the Word and over the practice of theology.          

How can that be done? Already at the Synod of Dordt, in 1618-19 there was a good example of that supervision that the church exercised—and then I am not referring primarily to the way in which the doctrine of the church was at the centre of attention, with a lot of theological advice given (think of the Canons of Dort!). No, I am referring to a conflict that was brought to the table, one between two professors from the Franeker Academy: Lubbertus and Maccovius. The synod managed to speak with wisdom, such that the matter was “settled amicably” (Acta of May 4, 1619, 152^nd session). The discussion was accompanied by an ad-hoc commission report, which was accepted by all and which stated that Maccovius should not be accused of any major doctrinal error, but that he was nevertheless to be reproved for “his overly scholastic teaching methods and his one-sided supralapsarianism.”

It is not about what was substantively at stake there, but about the fact that the synod essentially admonished theology not to distance itself, through speculation, from the faith that the church needed to live from.

It was therefore also about the way in which the craft of theology was being practiced. One could put it like this: it was a signal from the church that theology was getting too far out of reach. The recognizability of the language of faith was at stake.

The church is rightly reining in theology when theology no longer speaks the language of the church!           

But there is also another angle to this, looking at the matter from the basis of theology giving direction to the church. I am thinking of the word of the Lord Jesus with a view to his disciples: “Therefore every teacher of the law who has been instructed about the kingdom of heaven is like the owner of a house who brings out of his storeroom new treasures as well as old” (Matthew 13:52). In the last period of his earthly mission, Jesus’ focus was to teach his disciples about the kingdom of heaven. They would be the teachers of the law. This is also evident from the denunciation we find in Matthew 23, where Jesus specifically reproaches the Pharisees and the teachers of the law. Here Jesus says to them, “Therefore I am sending you prophets and wise men and teachers...” (Matthew 23:34).          

Note how carefully the Lord Jesus describes the duties of these teachers of the law. They are those “instructed about the kingdom of heaven.” They are “like the owner of a house, who brings out of his storeroom new treasures as well as old.” I’m not going to fully explain that text here. At this moment it concerns this one aspect: the new and the old things. That represents the ground-breaking message of the gospel. How new has everything become, and how new will it still become, with Jesus Christ! It is the gospel of the New Testament, of the fulfillment. It was something astounding, and it should still astound: Theology and the church should regularly stand in awe of it. It pierces through all sinful and futile thinking and living. And faith alone understands it!

However, there is also the peace of what is known. Old things are also taken from the storage! The gospel was not a theological revolution. The old was not thrown overboard. The new treasures enabled one to look at the old treasures with new eyes. Thus, these teachers of the kingdom were used by the Holy Spirit as instruments to give us the New Testament. And they themselves received eyes that learned to see the old treasures anew.        

Herein we learn something about the style of God, which should also be the style of theology, the pedagogy of theology. This is how it should be in the relationship between church and theology, theology and church. It is not boring, and it is not anxious. It is not dead orthodoxy. It is alive and fresh.

Yet at the same time it is old. For faith is the rule of its recognizability, the faith that attaches itself to Christ and to his Word, feeding from it with a believing heart and mind.

What have we done today in this meeting? Have we practiced theology? No. Together we have looked up to the Lord, with this question in our hearts: Lord, how do you want to be served — by us as theologians, as office-bearers, and as church members? Ultimately, we are all office-bearers, called by the Word.

That Word does not belong to theology — it belongs to the church.

Christ has not been given to theologians, but to the church (Ephesians 1:22).

Likewise, the Holy Spirit has not been given to theologians, but to the believing church (Ephesians 1:13).

And why? In order that we may be prepared together for our highest calling: to sing the praises of the Lamb.