The 454-page Agenda for the Synod of the Christian Reformed Church (meeting this month) deals with several issues of great importance. The delegates are indeed charged with heavy responsibilities as they go about the tasks to which they have been appointed; and, as such, they are urgently in need of the fervent intercession of all who arc concerned. To pray intelligently for them to rise to meet this challenge, we who look on should also be informed about the challenge that confronts them.
No doubt, it is Report 36 in the Agenda that brings Synod face to face with the issue that is more crucial than any of the others. In an attempt to spell out this matter as clearly as possible, we follow the question-and-answer method, hoping thereby to bring this crucial issue clearly into focus.
1. Precisely what is this crucial issue?
The answer: the nature and extent of Biblical authority. The issue is then, in what sense and to what extent we are to acknowledge the whole Bible as our only rule for faith and life. Authority, according to the first meaning given by The Random House Dictionary of the English Language, is “the power to determine, adjudicate, or otherwise settle issues or disputes; jurisdiction; the right to control, command, or determine.”
So, the question is, in what sense and in how far docs the Bible have authority to tell us what to believe and how to live? Very closely related to this question about the Bible’s authority are questions about its inspiration, infallibility, inerrancy, and historicity.
That the authors of Report 36 recognize this matter of the authority of Scripture to be crucial is evident from what they write: “At the risk of saying what probably needs no saying, we remind the churches of the crucial importance of holding fast our common confession of Biblical authority. We emphasize this point in view of the fact that the historic Christian doctrine of Biblical authority is in crisis in our times. This crisis lies especially in the area of hermeneutics. . . . The hermeneutical problem is the pivotal point of much contemporary theological controversy. Involved is a right understanding of Scripture, which is a matter of paramount importance today for the entire Christian church, including those churches which stand within the Reformed tradition” (Agenda, pp. 296, 297. Italics added).
In view of this seriousness of the situation, one can only wish that the committee had avoided the ambiguity from which their report appears to suffer and that it had addressed itself directly to specific instances of bad hermeneutics within Reformed circles to which the report obviously refers only in general.
The authority of Scripture – this then is the issue. And let there be no mistake about it; it is precisely at this point that conservatives and liberals always come to a parting of the ways. Synod and the Church are now at the crossroads since we must say in no uncertain terms what we believe about the Bible.
2. What is the mandate this committee received? The Synod of 1969 decided to “appoint a committee to study the nature and extent of Biblical authority, and in particular the ‘connection between the content and purpose of Scripture as the saving revelation of God in Jesus Christ and the consequent and deducible authority of Scripture,’ to evaluate critically in the light of the above mentioned study and our confessional standards the manner of interpreting Scripture presently employed by some contemporary Reformed scholars italics added). and to serve the churches with pastoral advice in these matters. . . .”
The following were appointed to this committee: Dr. A. Bandstra, Rev. J. Croen, Dr. D. Holwerda, Dr. F. Klooster, Rev. J. Vos, Dr. M. Woudstra, Dr. C. Spykman.
The grounds for the appointment of this committee with this mandate were the following: (a) Our sister church in The Netherlands (Gereformeerde Kerken) has expressed a desire “for a continued joint discussion of these questions.” (b) The Reformed Ecumenical Synod has asked for such a study. (c) The consistory of the Fruitland (Ontario) Christian Reformed Church asked in 1968 and again in 1969 that a study be made of views on Scripture being expressed by professors in The Netherlands.
3. How does the committee interpret its mandate?
Was it too much to expect that the committee would feel called upon by its mandate also to address itself to specific views and utterances of persons (Kuitert, Lever, Augustijn, Baarda, De Boer) whose thinking on this issue has become a matter of public concern? It seems so—at least if the committee interprets its mandate correctly. Reading and rereading this report, we fail to find any explicit and definite pronouncements about the teaching and writing of any specific person or persons.
One looks in vain in this report, for example, for an explicit and specific pronouncement or recommendation about the expressed view of Dr. Willis P. De Boer, who, notwithstanding the material presented by the Central Avenue (Holland. Mich.) consistory. was reappointed with permanent tenure as professor of religion and theology at Calvin College last year. In taking this action, the Synod of the Christian Reformed Church, strangely enough, put the cart before the horse by going right ahead with a permanent tenure reappointment and then adding “that permanent tenure does not preclude investigation and study of views held by members of the teaching staff and action on them by Synod.”
The committee in its report recognizes that the Dr. Boer matter was given to it for they state: “In addition to the materials contained in the mandate and grounds listed above, the Synod of 1970 referred to this committee the documents involved in the matter which the Central Avenue consistory had raised concerning Dr. Willis De Boer’s interpretation of the first chapters of Genesis. These documents were referred to the committee ‘for their consideration in making their report.’”
After this reference to Dr. De Boer this 37-pagc report makes no further mention of him or specifically of what he has written about the opening chapters of Genesis. What will now become of the “investigation and study” of Dr. De Boer’s views . . . “and action on them by Synod” that were not to be “precluded” in giving him a reappointment with permanent tenure last year is not stated. For that matter, the committee in its report mentions no names of persons and the specific views they have espoused. The committee judged that the mandate did not require this. The committee states:
“The second part of our mandate requires us ‘to evaluate critically in the light of the above-mentioned study and our confessional standards the manner of interpreting Scripture presently employed by some contemporary Reformed scholars: Our task is not to adjudicate charges brought against any person nor to assess the acceptability of any particular book, but to evaluate methods or principles that are visible in the interpretation of Scripture by some contemporary Reformed scholars” (p. 280. Italics added).
And when the report comes to discussing the interpretations being advocated concerning the first chapters of Genesis, the committee states once again: “We would remind the church that our task is not to assess the correctness of detailed exegesis, but to comment upon methods and principles employed and to test these in the light of our confession concerning Scripture and its authority” (p. 291; italics added).
4. Where does this report now leave us?
The adoption of the recommendations of this report will leave us with a set of conclusions about the authority of Scripture, but with nothing concrete being recommended to implement or to apply these conclusions with respect to specific persons and their teachings.
Obviously, the committee must have had specific persons and teachings in mind. The mandate given the committee charged that a critical evaluation be made of “the manner of interpreting Scripture presently employed by some contemporary Reformed scholars” (p. 268. Italics added). Moreover that the committee did have specific persons and statements in mind is evident when the report states:
“The second part of our mandate requires us ‘to evaluate critically in the light of the above-mentioned study and our confessional standards the manner of interpreting Scripture presently employed by some contemporary Reformed scholars: Our task is not to adjudicate charges brought against any person nor to assess the acceptability of any particular book, but to evaluate methods or principles that are visible in the interpretation of Scripture by some contemporary Reformed scholars” (p. 280. Italics added).
And when the report comes to discussing the interpretations being advocated concerning the first chapters of Genesis, the committee states once again: “We would remind the church that our task is not to assess the correctness of detailed exegesis, but to comment upon methods and principles employed and to test these in the light of our confession concerning Scripture and its authority” (p. 291; italics added).
4. Where does this report now leave us?
The adoption of the recommendations of this report will leave us with a set of conclusions about the authority of Scripture, but with nothing concrete being recommended to implement or to apply these conclusions with respect to specific persons and their teachings.
Obviously, the committee must have had specific persons and teachings in mind. The mandate given the committee charged that a critical evaluation be made of “the manner of interpreting Scripture presently employed by some contemporary Reformed scholars” (p. 268. Italics added). Moreover that the committee did have specific persons and statements in mind is evident when the report states:
“No one in the Reformed community would basically disagree with this interpretation of the principle that Scripture is its own interpreter and the implications. that follow from that principle. Those whose writings constitute the new hermeneutics, in so far as they address themselves to this principle, say essentially the same thing. Yet certain statements are made which raise the question whether the principle is being maintained. [Italics added]. For if the principle is correct, then one should exercise caution regarding the way in which he speaks about certain reinterpretations of Scripture. If one asserts, for example, that science makes it impossible to believe any longer that there was historically an original man and woman who were the ancestors of the human race, then it is no longer apparent that one is maintaining the principle that Scripture is its own interpreter . . .” (p. 283).
The committee speaks about the if of such an assertion. However, anyone who is familiar with what is being written (as the members of the committee certainly are!) knows very well that there is no if about this being asserted. Why then should the committee not say who are asserting this? We arc right now confronted with a concrete, actual situation in which the church is badly in need of pastoral advice that is pointed and specific. Why then does the committee not give concrete instances by mentioning chapter and verse as well as the names of the “contemporary Reformed scholars” whom they must have in mind?
When Scripture is under attack, the situation is urgent; and a report that does not hesitate to be concrete about personal views expressed is sorely needed.
Either the report has definite persons or utterances in mind or there was no need for it to speak as it does. The actual context in which the committee was given its mandate calls for something more pointed and specific than what the church is now being offered.
5. But are the guidelines offered by the committee not clear enough to dictate what action should now be taken?
Of course, the proof of the pudding is still to come; but there is reason to think they arc not. There is at least an apparent ambiguity in Report 36 that could lead to more compromise in the church rather than clear-cut, forthright and unified convictions. It is for this reason that both sides in the dispute about the opening chapters of Genesis may think they can find cover under the umbrella of this report. There is nothing we need less as we face this crucial issue than a both—and instead of an either—or position.
To preclude possible misunderstanding let it be said that appreciation for the scholarly efforts of the committee to deal with this difficult issue is in order, and also that we are not to expect a statement about Scripture so simplistic that respectable scholarship goes out of the window. But the fact is, we are confronted with and hard pressed by an actual situation, and we are so sorely in need of a clear sense of direction.
A concrete and urgent question facing us is this: are the opening chapters of Genesis really historical or are they not? Unfortunately, after reading and rereading Report 36, I am still groping to know in how far the committee wants to say Yes to this pressing question and in how far it wants to say No.
1. On the one hand, the committee seems to affirm the history of these Genesis chapters. Consider, for example, the following excerpts from their report:
a. “If one asserts, for example, that science makes it impossible to believe any longer that there was historically an original man and woman who were the ancestors of the human race, then it is no longer apparent that one is maintaining the principle that Scripture is its own interpreter. Scientific evidence may never dictate the interpretation of Scripture . . .” (p.283).
b. “These confessional statements [taken from the Heidelberg Catechism, Belgic Confession, Canons of Dort] have been interpreted traditionally as teaching an historical fall at the beginning of human history with its disastrous consequences for the history of mankind. It is clear from these statements that the denial of the historicity of the fall of our first parents at the beginning of human history cannot be harmonized with the confessions. We are also convinced that the confessional perspective reflects perspectives garnered from Scripture itself. We have in mind not only Romans 5, but also the way in which Genesis 1-11 is tied to and prepares the way for the history of Abraham” (p. 293).
All this looks good so far.
2. But on the other hand, as we read on, the committee makes statements that leave us wondering what we are really at with respect to the actual historicity of the Genesis chapters. Consider, for example, what the committee has to say about “two different attitudes toward the kind of the historical reporting contained in Genesis 1-11.” Note the following excerpts from their report:
a. First view – “Within this view it is possible to suggest, for example, that although Genesis 3 communicate; an event, i.e., the fall of man at the beginning of human history, it does so making use of concepts or symbols familiar to Abraham and to tile world of that time. Similarly Genesis 4, which describes the environment of Adam’s immediate descendants in terms which fit approximately the period from the seventh to the fifth millennium B.C., is not to be read as a palaeontological report, but as a description of Adam’s descendants using concepts from the picture of ancient man held in the second millennium B.C. This position therefore makes a distinction between the event being reported and the form in which that report comes to us” (p. 295. Italics added).
b. Second view – About the second view (“the traditional interpretation of these chapters”) the committee states that “basically it argues that these chapters as historical records are not essentially different from the rest of Genesis” (p. 295).
This would now seem to place us squarely before the issue. One might think that there could be no hesitation about rejecting the first view and endorsing the second (“the traditional interpretation of these chapters”). But not so. The committee tells us that the confessional umbrella has room for both. The report says:
“Our confessional statements, as well as our basic confession concerning the authority and reliability of Scripture, do not force us to choose for one or the other [ltalics added]. Both positions preserve the intent of the confessional statements, both function on the basis of principles considered acceptable in the interpretation of Scripture. Therefore the church need not decide concerning the correctness of either. Just as the church should not adopt a particular theory concerning the synoptic problem, so it should not adopt a particular theoretical position concerning the first chapters of Genesis. The church makes pronouncements on confessional matters, but where theological and exegetical differences of opinion exist, they must be tolerated so long as they do not conflict with that confession. Over periods of time some of these differences may be resolved. Therefore. the theological discussion concerning the kind of historical reporting contained in these first chapters of Genesis should continue.”
It is our fervent hope and prayer that every delegate to Synod may take a long, hard look at this inclusive or both—and position and really count the cost before he becomes responsible for its adoption!
No doubt, it is Report 36 in the Agenda that brings Synod face to face with the issue that is more crucial than any of the others. In an attempt to spell out this matter as clearly as possible, we follow the question-and-answer method, hoping thereby to bring this crucial issue clearly into focus.
1. Precisely what is this crucial issue?
The answer: the nature and extent of Biblical authority. The issue is then, in what sense and to what extent we are to acknowledge the whole Bible as our only rule for faith and life. Authority, according to the first meaning given by The Random House Dictionary of the English Language, is “the power to determine, adjudicate, or otherwise settle issues or disputes; jurisdiction; the right to control, command, or determine.”
So, the question is, in what sense and in how far docs the Bible have authority to tell us what to believe and how to live? Very closely related to this question about the Bible’s authority are questions about its inspiration, infallibility, inerrancy, and historicity.
That the authors of Report 36 recognize this matter of the authority of Scripture to be crucial is evident from what they write: “At the risk of saying what probably needs no saying, we remind the churches of the crucial importance of holding fast our common confession of Biblical authority. We emphasize this point in view of the fact that the historic Christian doctrine of Biblical authority is in crisis in our times. This crisis lies especially in the area of hermeneutics. . . . The hermeneutical problem is the pivotal point of much contemporary theological controversy. Involved is a right understanding of Scripture, which is a matter of paramount importance today for the entire Christian church, including those churches which stand within the Reformed tradition” (Agenda, pp. 296, 297. Italics added).
In view of this seriousness of the situation, one can only wish that the committee had avoided the ambiguity from which their report appears to suffer and that it had addressed itself directly to specific instances of bad hermeneutics within Reformed circles to which the report obviously refers only in general.
The authority of Scripture – this then is the issue. And let there be no mistake about it; it is precisely at this point that conservatives and liberals always come to a parting of the ways. Synod and the Church are now at the crossroads since we must say in no uncertain terms what we believe about the Bible.
2. What is the mandate this committee received? The Synod of 1969 decided to “appoint a committee to study the nature and extent of Biblical authority, and in particular the ‘connection between the content and purpose of Scripture as the saving revelation of God in Jesus Christ and the consequent and deducible authority of Scripture,’ to evaluate critically in the light of the above mentioned study and our confessional standards the manner of interpreting Scripture presently employed by some contemporary Reformed scholars italics added). and to serve the churches with pastoral advice in these matters. . . .”
The following were appointed to this committee: Dr. A. Bandstra, Rev. J. Croen, Dr. D. Holwerda, Dr. F. Klooster, Rev. J. Vos, Dr. M. Woudstra, Dr. C. Spykman.
The grounds for the appointment of this committee with this mandate were the following: (a) Our sister church in The Netherlands (Gereformeerde Kerken) has expressed a desire “for a continued joint discussion of these questions.” (b) The Reformed Ecumenical Synod has asked for such a study. (c) The consistory of the Fruitland (Ontario) Christian Reformed Church asked in 1968 and again in 1969 that a study be made of views on Scripture being expressed by professors in The Netherlands.
3. How does the committee interpret its mandate?
Was it too much to expect that the committee would feel called upon by its mandate also to address itself to specific views and utterances of persons (Kuitert, Lever, Augustijn, Baarda, De Boer) whose thinking on this issue has become a matter of public concern? It seems so—at least if the committee interprets its mandate correctly. Reading and rereading this report, we fail to find any explicit and definite pronouncements about the teaching and writing of any specific person or persons.
One looks in vain in this report, for example, for an explicit and specific pronouncement or recommendation about the expressed view of Dr. Willis P. De Boer, who, notwithstanding the material presented by the Central Avenue (Holland. Mich.) consistory. was reappointed with permanent tenure as professor of religion and theology at Calvin College last year. In taking this action, the Synod of the Christian Reformed Church, strangely enough, put the cart before the horse by going right ahead with a permanent tenure reappointment and then adding “that permanent tenure does not preclude investigation and study of views held by members of the teaching staff and action on them by Synod.”
The committee in its report recognizes that the Dr. Boer matter was given to it for they state: “In addition to the materials contained in the mandate and grounds listed above, the Synod of 1970 referred to this committee the documents involved in the matter which the Central Avenue consistory had raised concerning Dr. Willis De Boer’s interpretation of the first chapters of Genesis. These documents were referred to the committee ‘for their consideration in making their report.’”
After this reference to Dr. De Boer this 37-pagc report makes no further mention of him or specifically of what he has written about the opening chapters of Genesis. What will now become of the “investigation and study” of Dr. De Boer’s views . . . “and action on them by Synod” that were not to be “precluded” in giving him a reappointment with permanent tenure last year is not stated. For that matter, the committee in its report mentions no names of persons and the specific views they have espoused. The committee judged that the mandate did not require this. The committee states:
“The second part of our mandate requires us ‘to evaluate critically in the light of the above-mentioned study and our confessional standards the manner of interpreting Scripture presently employed by some contemporary Reformed scholars: Our task is not to adjudicate charges brought against any person nor to assess the acceptability of any particular book, but to evaluate methods or principles that are visible in the interpretation of Scripture by some contemporary Reformed scholars” (p. 280. Italics added).
And when the report comes to discussing the interpretations being advocated concerning the first chapters of Genesis, the committee states once again: “We would remind the church that our task is not to assess the correctness of detailed exegesis, but to comment upon methods and principles employed and to test these in the light of our confession concerning Scripture and its authority” (p. 291; italics added).
4. Where does this report now leave us?
The adoption of the recommendations of this report will leave us with a set of conclusions about the authority of Scripture, but with nothing concrete being recommended to implement or to apply these conclusions with respect to specific persons and their teachings.
Obviously, the committee must have had specific persons and teachings in mind. The mandate given the committee charged that a critical evaluation be made of “the manner of interpreting Scripture presently employed by some contemporary Reformed scholars” (p. 268. Italics added). Moreover that the committee did have specific persons and statements in mind is evident when the report states:
“The second part of our mandate requires us ‘to evaluate critically in the light of the above-mentioned study and our confessional standards the manner of interpreting Scripture presently employed by some contemporary Reformed scholars: Our task is not to adjudicate charges brought against any person nor to assess the acceptability of any particular book, but to evaluate methods or principles that are visible in the interpretation of Scripture by some contemporary Reformed scholars” (p. 280. Italics added).
And when the report comes to discussing the interpretations being advocated concerning the first chapters of Genesis, the committee states once again: “We would remind the church that our task is not to assess the correctness of detailed exegesis, but to comment upon methods and principles employed and to test these in the light of our confession concerning Scripture and its authority” (p. 291; italics added).
4. Where does this report now leave us?
The adoption of the recommendations of this report will leave us with a set of conclusions about the authority of Scripture, but with nothing concrete being recommended to implement or to apply these conclusions with respect to specific persons and their teachings.
Obviously, the committee must have had specific persons and teachings in mind. The mandate given the committee charged that a critical evaluation be made of “the manner of interpreting Scripture presently employed by some contemporary Reformed scholars” (p. 268. Italics added). Moreover that the committee did have specific persons and statements in mind is evident when the report states:
“No one in the Reformed community would basically disagree with this interpretation of the principle that Scripture is its own interpreter and the implications. that follow from that principle. Those whose writings constitute the new hermeneutics, in so far as they address themselves to this principle, say essentially the same thing. Yet certain statements are made which raise the question whether the principle is being maintained. [Italics added]. For if the principle is correct, then one should exercise caution regarding the way in which he speaks about certain reinterpretations of Scripture. If one asserts, for example, that science makes it impossible to believe any longer that there was historically an original man and woman who were the ancestors of the human race, then it is no longer apparent that one is maintaining the principle that Scripture is its own interpreter . . .” (p. 283).
The committee speaks about the if of such an assertion. However, anyone who is familiar with what is being written (as the members of the committee certainly are!) knows very well that there is no if about this being asserted. Why then should the committee not say who are asserting this? We arc right now confronted with a concrete, actual situation in which the church is badly in need of pastoral advice that is pointed and specific. Why then does the committee not give concrete instances by mentioning chapter and verse as well as the names of the “contemporary Reformed scholars” whom they must have in mind?
When Scripture is under attack, the situation is urgent; and a report that does not hesitate to be concrete about personal views expressed is sorely needed.
Either the report has definite persons or utterances in mind or there was no need for it to speak as it does. The actual context in which the committee was given its mandate calls for something more pointed and specific than what the church is now being offered.
5. But are the guidelines offered by the committee not clear enough to dictate what action should now be taken?
Of course, the proof of the pudding is still to come; but there is reason to think they arc not. There is at least an apparent ambiguity in Report 36 that could lead to more compromise in the church rather than clear-cut, forthright and unified convictions. It is for this reason that both sides in the dispute about the opening chapters of Genesis may think they can find cover under the umbrella of this report. There is nothing we need less as we face this crucial issue than a both—and instead of an either—or position.
To preclude possible misunderstanding let it be said that appreciation for the scholarly efforts of the committee to deal with this difficult issue is in order, and also that we are not to expect a statement about Scripture so simplistic that respectable scholarship goes out of the window. But the fact is, we are confronted with and hard pressed by an actual situation, and we are so sorely in need of a clear sense of direction.
A concrete and urgent question facing us is this: are the opening chapters of Genesis really historical or are they not? Unfortunately, after reading and rereading Report 36, I am still groping to know in how far the committee wants to say Yes to this pressing question and in how far it wants to say No.
1. On the one hand, the committee seems to affirm the history of these Genesis chapters. Consider, for example, the following excerpts from their report:
a. “If one asserts, for example, that science makes it impossible to believe any longer that there was historically an original man and woman who were the ancestors of the human race, then it is no longer apparent that one is maintaining the principle that Scripture is its own interpreter. Scientific evidence may never dictate the interpretation of Scripture . . .” (p.283).
b. “These confessional statements [taken from the Heidelberg Catechism, Belgic Confession, Canons of Dort] have been interpreted traditionally as teaching an historical fall at the beginning of human history with its disastrous consequences for the history of mankind. It is clear from these statements that the denial of the historicity of the fall of our first parents at the beginning of human history cannot be harmonized with the confessions. We are also convinced that the confessional perspective reflects perspectives garnered from Scripture itself. We have in mind not only Romans 5, but also the way in which Genesis 1-11 is tied to and prepares the way for the history of Abraham” (p. 293).
All this looks good so far.
2. But on the other hand, as we read on, the committee makes statements that leave us wondering what we are really at with respect to the actual historicity of the Genesis chapters. Consider, for example, what the committee has to say about “two different attitudes toward the kind of the historical reporting contained in Genesis 1-11.” Note the following excerpts from their report:
a. First view – “Within this view it is possible to suggest, for example, that although Genesis 3 communicate; an event, i.e., the fall of man at the beginning of human history, it does so making use of concepts or symbols familiar to Abraham and to tile world of that time. Similarly Genesis 4, which describes the environment of Adam’s immediate descendants in terms which fit approximately the period from the seventh to the fifth millennium B.C., is not to be read as a palaeontological report, but as a description of Adam’s descendants using concepts from the picture of ancient man held in the second millennium B.C. This position therefore makes a distinction between the event being reported and the form in which that report comes to us” (p. 295. Italics added).
b. Second view – About the second view (“the traditional interpretation of these chapters”) the committee states that “basically it argues that these chapters as historical records are not essentially different from the rest of Genesis” (p. 295).
This would now seem to place us squarely before the issue. One might think that there could be no hesitation about rejecting the first view and endorsing the second (“the traditional interpretation of these chapters”). But not so. The committee tells us that the confessional umbrella has room for both. The report says:
“Our confessional statements, as well as our basic confession concerning the authority and reliability of Scripture, do not force us to choose for one or the other [ltalics added]. Both positions preserve the intent of the confessional statements, both function on the basis of principles considered acceptable in the interpretation of Scripture. Therefore the church need not decide concerning the correctness of either. Just as the church should not adopt a particular theory concerning the synoptic problem, so it should not adopt a particular theoretical position concerning the first chapters of Genesis. The church makes pronouncements on confessional matters, but where theological and exegetical differences of opinion exist, they must be tolerated so long as they do not conflict with that confession. Over periods of time some of these differences may be resolved. Therefore. the theological discussion concerning the kind of historical reporting contained in these first chapters of Genesis should continue.”
It is our fervent hope and prayer that every delegate to Synod may take a long, hard look at this inclusive or both—and position and really count the cost before he becomes responsible for its adoption!