Covenanter Witness Vol. 86 - Rparchives.org

Another ViewAbout UrbanaDear EditorAfter reading "Sabotage at Urbana" by EugeneRubingh, and "Evangelism and the A.A.C.S." by RaymondJoseph (April 21, 1971 COVENANTER WITNESS), Iwondered if the writers were describing the same schoolof philosophy with which I am acquainted. Having been tothe Urbana Conference, visited the Christian Institute inToronto, and participated in several AACS (Associationfor the Advancement of Christian Studies) conferences, Iwould like to submit a different view. Both of the abovegentlemen have, in my opinion, missed the central thrustof VANGUARD'S "antics" at Urbana.Mr. Rubingh has misrepresented VANLrUARD tosay that the AACS advocates societal evangelization andthen individual evangelization. The whole point of theVANGUARD Urbana issues was that there should be nodichotomy at all in evangelization no societal and, orindividual dualism. From their "Law-Idea" perspective,evangelism should speak to the totality of man. (The Law-Idea philosophy is a Christian philosophy founded in theNetherlands and being developed by the Christian Institute,which emphasizes the sovereignty of God in allaspects of life.) Mr. Joseph shares Mr. Rubingh's feelingthat the AACS wants social and then individual change. Idid not read that at Urbana, nor do I now upon rereadingthose particular VANGUARD issues. Their position wasput forth rather clearly, I think, despite the academicterminology.Nowhere does VANGUARD support overthrowingexisting structures by violence or force. In fact, theypromote separation from but co-belligerence withhumanistic institutions, much as we Covenanters havedone in the area of politics. And I must disagree as to thetactics used and impact made by VANGUARD at Urbana.As I traveled around campus, I was able to observeVANGUARD'S peaceful distribution of material and tohear comments of students. It was largely the IVCF (Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship) administration that reactednegatively to VANGUARD'S critique. VANGUARDpublicly offered to meet with IVCF personnel when theyrealized they were coming across too strongly and beingmisunderstood. As far as I know, no action was taken. Thestudents were typically either interested in the new, orapathetic.For those interested, I would recommed an article"The VANGUARD at Urbana", (February 1971,VANGUARD) in which they evaluate their own presenceat Urbana. More general, perhaps, is this statement from aquestion and answer pamphlet, "The AACS in theChristian Community":Q. Why is there so much controversy and confusionassociated with the AACS?A. To be honest about it, ^we really aren't completelysure. Some say it is our tactics; some say it s ourarrogance; some say it's our personalities; some say it'sour foolishness in trying to stuff ideas down people'sthroats. There is, no doubt, a measure of truth in all thesecharges. Quite frankly we aren't all that hot at "Madisonavenue" public relations: we try to say exactly what wethink—not what will sound good in the community. Manytimes the quite unvarnished and unmanipulated truthabout a situation is presented, and, in our world of PRmen, that can be quite a jolt to the common man. Somepeople misinterpret this openness; our trying to presentthings as we really see them—as a careless arrogance inpresenting our ideas and viewpoint. We accept otherpeople's questions as honest, sincere, and we try to answerthem honestly. We recognize that some of us have strongpersonalities, and we are aware of the danger that thesepersonalities may get in the way of the Lord's work. Inshort, we recognize that we make mistakes and ask theforgiveness of brothers whom we've offended. However,our mistakes ought not to be used as excuses for peoplenot honestly considering important issues.We wonder if it is not the position which theAssociation has taken on basic issues rather than our wayof raising issues which leads to controversy. For example,we state—consistent, we believe, with Scripture—that theChurch as the whole Body of Christ is wider than thechurch institute. We emphasize the coming of Christ'sKingdom among us, and this has led some to think we areUtopian. But despite the presence of sin among us, webelieve deeply that our work in this world depends onunderstanding Christ as King, and ourselves as ambassadorsof His Kingdom. It should be understood thatwe do not stand primarily for organizations as such, butfor Christ's lordship over life in a differentiated (complex,interwoven) society. If we limit Christ's preeminence toinstitutional church, or to school, or to home, or to allthree, we make His Good News of no effect for such areasof life as politics and business. We believe such a stance tobe contrary to Biblical teaching. As a growing number ofbelievers affirm these basics, there is bound to be reactionfrom those who feel uneasy or threatened by our concernfor "total Christianity." This uneasiness is often expressedby condemning those who raise the issues instead ofopenly discussing those issues.The "Law-Idea" school has recently been the subjectof much harsh criticism hardly fitting the ideal of intra-Christain love. The VANGUARD people feel driven bythe Spirit to criticize the world around them — philosophyis the "janitor" of the sciences. And even though theydisagreed with some of the ideas at Urbana, they did feelthey were a part of the "thousands of Christ-believingstudents in North America who are ready to go wherevertheir Lord wants to send them." They do not claim to haveall the answers, and I have never met Christians morewilling to discuss in their search for truth. "Come now andlet us reason together, saith the Lord."Renwick AdamsJuniorGeneva College6 COVENANTER WITNESS