The Afrikaner are a Cowardly People, says Theologian

An article titled, The Afrikaner are a Cowardly People, by Prof. Yolanda Dreyer of the Faculty of Theology at the University of Pretoria, was published in the newspaper Beeld on 26 Nov, 2007. In this article she says:

The nation that crossed the Drakensberg barefoot has become anxious and faint-hearted. And an anxious cat makes anxious leaps.

I sat dumbfounded in a recent church meeting (synod) and beheld the commotion. I listened to my fellow-Afrikaners. They are afraid of fellow-believers. Not those far away – no, those who share the same confession of faith with them. The World League of Reformed Churches wants to “destroy the Afrikaner nation,” they say.

They are afraid of other races, as they also want to “destroy the Afrikaner people.” They are afraid of the international theological science. Rather stay away from universities and provide for your own training. In this way, other “dangerous” voices can be quietened. It will be so much safer if we can only hear ourselves. They are afraid of local theologians and regard the insights of learned people who studied widely as “trash.”

This is quite ironical. When it concerns their body, frightened people look for the best specialists in the country – those who have the highest qualifications and also attend international conferences. But when it comes to their faith, study is dangerous! The less you know and the less you share knowledge internationally, the better and safer.

They are afraid of love. They warn: beware of those who talk too much about love – they want to deceive you. And then, not least of all, my fellow-Afrikaners and fellow-believers are scared of gay people – scared to death. Just listen to their arguments. But God created everything – that also includes the bodies of gay people. God made people as sexual beings – also the gays.

For centuries, sex was regarded as evil and sinful – particularly by the church. Today it is celebrated as “a gift from God.” But beware! This gift is only meant for a specific group of people. Those who abide by the rules of the majority group: you have to be heterosexual. If you are not heterosexual (part of a minority group) you should remain celibate.

How cruel! To deliberately create people for such a double bind! You are not heterosexual – made in that way. You are a sexual being – made in that way. But you are not allowed to express your sexuality. You must suppress and deny it. Sentenced to a lifetime of deprivation. Is God so cruel? No, no. It is again people who do cruel things to one another – particularly when they are frightened. Then they kill, judge, and impose unbearable burdens on one another. Burdens which they are not prepared to carry themselves. As far as they are concerned, heterosexual believers in the Protestant tradition have rejected the celibacy as Roman Catholic. But they impose it on others. Celibacy is enforced upon gay Protestants. Double standards.

Physically sick. Emotionally dejected. Spiritually dark. That was how I felt after the gay fiasco in the meeting. Many of the delegates experienced sadness and sorrow…

The more afraid the Afrikaner people become, the more cruel they use the Bible. Against gays and then against theological professors. But the same Bible also contains the good news, the gospel of Jesus Christ. He is the way, the truth and the life – the light of the nations. May this light again shine in the darkened existence of frightened people. May fear and cruel applications of the Bible be expelled by love and be replaced by trust in God… Love is the greatest commandment in God’s law, according to Jesus. Does Jesus still count in “the church of Christ?” (End of quotation form Beeld).

Comments

Christians should rightly be afraid of the modern breed of liberal theologians. The following are the most important reasons for questioning their truthfulness to the Bible:

The “love of Jesus” which Yolanda Dreyer refers to, is not related to the death of Christ on the cross as she cannot accept the fact that the Father could surrender His Son to so much torture and suffering. In a lecture she said, “I have a problem with the dogmatic construct that Jesus had to pay with His life to satisfy God because of our sin. I can imagine the problems that people would experience who are not theologians.” She completely denies the Biblical doctrine of atonement. Yolanda only proclaims an unconditional and generic love of God for all people – the complete acceptance of everything and everybody without being negative or judgemental.

Evangelical Christians clearly do not fit into her frame of reference because they are the ones who Biblically expose her deceitful theological views. She now describes us as cowards since we don’t have the courage to accept postmodern, ecumenical ideas that do not comply with fundamental Biblical truths. But the real problem lies with the wayward, liberal theologians who openly question and deny Biblical statements on the devil, sin, the deity and virgin birth of Jesus, His suffering, death on the cross, resurrection, ascension and second coming.

The modern trend among theologians is that they do not commit themselves to the fixed and timeless truths of the Bible. When the Bible states that Jesus is God, that He rose bodily from the grave, and that there is a devil and a hell, they reject these tenets since they have allegedly been derived from an ancient and obsolete worldview. According to them, the truth should be subjectively determined in terms of a postmodern worldview. While doing so, they rely heavily on the natural sciences, philosophy, psychology, as well as the fancy ideas of other theologians – including the aberrant members of the Jesus Seminar.

A theologian such as Sakkie Spangenberg of the University of South Africa even goes as far as to state that the heretics of modern times are those people who think that the truth is fixed and should be believed exactly as it has been revealed in the historical books of the Bible which, according to him, have been conceptualised and written in terms of an ancient worldview. But how does he account for the fact that modern man’s integral worldview also accommodates other religions (some of them very ancient and primitive), as well as the agnostic theory of evolution, mystical New Age practices such as meditation, hypnotic therapy and other holistic practices? Liberal theologians say that we should only experience God as a source of love and then find our way though life by using modern science and constructing a Jesus who fits into our own worldview. In African cultures He can even become an ancestral spirit!

It is conspicuous that the scribes (theologians) of the first century experienced similar problems of accepting the Messiahship of Jesus and understanding His exposition of Biblical truths. In spite of their knowledge of the Scriptures, Christ’s deity was an unacceptable dogmatic construct to them, simply because they did not have any spiritual discernment (John 8:24; 10:33). Their theological traditions and humanistic reasoning about the Messiah and the doctrine of salvation led them to conclusions which are contrary to the clear teaching of Scripture.

This typical approach of the scribes has been, to a lesser or greater degree, perpetuated throughout the centuries. Today, it is still with us. The Lord Jesus warned against the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees (Matt. 16:6,12). The biggest error of these two groups of believers was that they did not believe that Jesus was the Messiah. The Sadducees also denied the resurrection of the dead. Doesn’t that sound familiar?

All these “scribes” rejected the Lord Jesus and also denied the deep spiritual significance of His crucifixion and resurrection from the dead. They alleged that His disciples have stolen His body from the grave. These lies are still proclaimed by modern “scribes.” It is obvious that those who deny these basic truths are not born again since they do not believe in the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus on the cross for the atonement of our sins. They also deny His deity and virgin birth.

In stead of the Biblical doctrine on atonement they only proclaim a vaguely defined form of generic love which demands that no judging of people or their lifestyles should be done in terms of Biblical norms. According to them, it is wrong to be negative and critical. The reason for their disposition is that they have become victims of a humanistic form of positive thinking in which hardly anything is regarded as sin. They only regard the rigid insistence on observing Biblical values as sinful or evil as it is perceived to be divisive and devoid of tolerance and true love. Their intellectual rationalising of religion does not lead them to discovering the deep spiritual truths of the Bible. These truths are foolishness to them because they are spiritually discerned (Luke 10:21; 1 Cor. 1:19; 2:14).

Yolanda is right in one instance: evangelical Christians are scared of following the wrong ways on which deceived theologians want to lead them astray. We fear the consequences of their teachings and practices, as “there is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death” (Prov. 16:25; cf. Matt. 23:13).

Theological training

Every effort of returning to fundamental, evangelical standards and the recognition of the authority of Scripture is determinedly opposed by the New Reformers and their accomplices. The Dutch Reformed Theological Seminary in Pretoria persists with their postmodern reinterpretation of the Bible. Many articles to this effect have been posted to their website www.teo.co.za

One of the recent articles written by James Kirkpatrick, is titled, Does the devil exist? In it, he says: “Prof. Yolanda Dreyer gave a few good reasons why a discussion of this nature should rather be avoided. One runs the risk of being ridiculed as a fool or a heretic… The gospel, as I understand it, is in its deepest essence a positive message. Those who have listened to a talk by Rodney Seale or Kobus Jonker [on Satanism] would know how scary it is to talk about the devil. It is almost like the pastor in my childhood days who preached on the second coming of Christ in such a way that you became terrified with cold sweat on your hands. I understand the gospel as a message of peace and not of fear… I considered acting in the same way as the group that were strongly opposed to infant baptism. They produced a booklet with the title: What the Bible Teaches on Infant Baptism. When the booklet was opened it only contained a few blank pages. Something similar would be very fitting as a form of protest against the emphasis that is placed upon the devil in certain circles… I do not believe in the existence of a personal being with the name devil.” James Kirkpatrick only believes in an impersonal element of evil.

There are also various articles by Prof. Julian Müller on the DRC website. He promotes a panentheistic worldview in which theism (a transcendent God who is elevated above His creation) and pantheism (an immanent, impersonal God who is present everywhere in His creation) are reconciled to become pan-en-theism. This doctrine supports an integral worldview. Müller says that God is present everywhere in nature and also in human beings. He shares our fate and saves humanity “from inside.” God’s world and our world converges, and for that reason he does not see Jesus as a kind of an astronaut who travels between different worlds – neither as a half-god who bodily rose from the dead.

The integral worldview provides for syncretism and a multireligious orientation. In an article, Panentheism: a new perception of God, Prof. Müller says: “This worldview is supported from different sources: the new physics, new developments in theology, the process philosophers, the Eastern and African worldviews, and others.” The Bible is no longer recognised or accepted as a fixed source of revelation of God.

Prof. Müller is sincere enough to admit that much speculation lies at the heart of his theories. They have been conceived in ignorance: “We ultimately have to accept that all our efforts to talk about God and explain the relationship between God and His creation are defaulting. Everything is tentative.” One of his colleagues said in a class: “The Bible is the product of wangling by people.” Another one said: “All those who belong to the Lord see only in a mirror, dimly.”

That is the inevitable consequence when the Word of God, which reveals the knowledge of God, is not accepted as the beginning of wisdom by us (cf. Prov. 1:7; 9:10; Col. 2:2-3). Then, we will not understand anything in the proper way, even though we may be very learned and clever in our own eyes (1 Cor. 3:19-20). Theological knowledge is of absolutely no use if we do not unconditionally accept the Bible as God’s inspired Word. We must also have enlightened eyes of the mind through the presence and guidance of the Holy Spirit (Eph. 1:18). Without that, we cannot understand the Bible.

A former postgraduate student in theology at the University of Pretoria, Ferdie Mulder, submitted a comprehensive document on deception in the training courses of pastors to the management of the DRC Seminary in Pretoria. He also sent copies to various DRC pastors in South Africa. In it, he systematically exposed all the false teachings which are in conflict with the Bible and also with the formal creeds of the church. All his arguments and objections were discounted and the door was slammed in his face to become a DRC pastor. He is presently in England where his wife obtained employment. If that is how the truth is suppressed and resisted in this country and its “reformed” churches, unchallenged spiritual deception will be imposed upon millions of church goers.