It is with some hesitation that one attempts, on necessarily very short acquaintance, to formulate some editorial reactions to our massive 500 page Agenda for the June Synod of the Christian Reformed Churches.
Revised Report on Biblical Authority
The biggest and most important issue the Synod will have to face is that introduced by the revised report (now number 44) on The Nature and Extent of Biblical Authority. That report has undergone a very extensive “face-lift,” Many of the features that elicited critical responses from some of the 97 churches and 61 individuals who corresponded with the committee have disappeared. The whole section on Genesis 1 to 11 which presented two views one of which held that though basically historical this must not be taken as a literal description of events no longer appears in that form. The new report seems more readable than the earlier version. The strong points of the old report. its warning against letting one’s understanding of the Bible be controlled by scientific theories, or historians’ ideas. or the radical views of some of the form critics. or of those who would reduce its history to “teaching models” are still there. Are the churches now ready to gratefully accept this arduous labor of the committee and lay the issue to rest? I do not think that they are or ought to be.
The Need of Time for Study
It ought to be observed that the time between the appearance of the Agenda at the beginning of May and the meeting of the Synod early in June is hardly long enough for consistories, much less whole classes. and church members, to carefully study the report and formulate a response to it. And what the churches officially say about the authority of the Bible is much too important an issue to permit a hasty decision.
Furthermore. it ought to be observed that the Synod’s Interim Committee assumed the right to refuse to accept for the printed agenda any overtures which reacted to this report on the somewhat questionable ground that the report was being revised! The result is that the Agenda being sent to the churches contains only the committee report and not one of the various overtures which reacted critically to it. Would an immediate move to accept the report under these conditions be wise?
The Heart of the Matter
But we need to turn from these technical considerations back to the material of the Report. Is the new report with its extensive revisions and improvements what we need to meet this troublesome problem? I do not believe that it is. Despite the much improved presentation the Report states. “After continued study and reflection the committee feels compelled to maintain the major thrust of its original report, convinced that the main lines of that report are true to Scripture and the creeds. Right at that point I and others feel that we must differ sharply from the view of the committee on at least one major point one may say the main point (p. 363). I am convinced that the main thrust of the report is wrong and that it can be shown to be contrary to the Scripture.
The Source of the Mandate
The position which the report takes is that which may be said to have been assigned it by the mandate of the 1969 Synod. As one analyses that position carefully it becomes apparent that it is one of having to try to face in two opposite directions at the same time. The Synod of 1969 faced pressure from two opposite directions with respect to the problem of the Bible’s authority. On one hand it, like the previous Synod. faced an overture expressing con~em about the increasing liberalism invading our SIster churches in 11le Netherlands and the urgent request to do something about it. At the same time the Synod was confronted by an official reaction from those sister churches, passed on by the Reformed Ecumenical Synod. objecting to the strong statement of the Reformed Ecumenical Synod in 1958 on the inspiration of the whole Bible as the word of God. The Dutch churches’ criticism was that this RES statement did “not make sufficient distinctions in dealing with the nature and extent of the authority of the Scripture . . .” and “in particular” with 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.” Now the peculiar wording of the mandate given our study committee was taken directly from that negative reaction of the Dutch churches to the strong report on inspiration.
Combining Opposites?
The earlier report (pp. 464 and 465) informs us that the committee faced the possible view that this mandate (which told it 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 or Scripture”), might be wrong -that the authority. of the Bible depends on God. its Author and not on Its content. Although a few critical comments were made on the wording of the mandate. it was decided that these two views could be combined -in other words the view that the authority of the Bible depends on its Author and the view that its authority depends on its content as “saving revelation of God in Jesus Christ” could be brought together. in fact are “two sides of the same coin” (new Report. p. 374).
It seems to me and others that that position is wrong and that trying to maintain it, confuses the whole issue. The editor of The Banner aptly observed that the report is an attempt to mix two positions as incompatible as oil and water!
The issue, it ought to be observed. is not whether the Bible’s message is saving. Paul said, “I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth” (Rom. 1:16). None of us is questioning that. But the issue is whether its authority depends on its Author or depends on its contents and purpose as “saving revelation of God in Jesus Christ.” And it seems to me that the Bible answers that question very plainly and in a way opposite to the view of the Dutch churches which the report tries to accommodate.
What Does the Bible Say?
Dr. Norman Shepherd in a recent lecture pointed out that the command given to Adam and Eve to refrain from eating the forbidden fruit, judged merely by its content must have appeared “nonsense” to them, but that they had to obey it not because they were impressed by its content (was that “saving”?) but just because God said it! We observe that it was the devil who misled them from obedience because it was God who commanded them into an attempt to critically evaluate the command from its content and by that route to disregard its authority! Similarly, Dr. Shepherd pointed out that the command to Noah to build an ark must have appeared nonsense if evaluated by its contents, but Noah had to obey it just because it was God’s order. James 2:11 directs us to God as the Authority for each and all the commandments.
We observe that Jesus recognized differences in the importance of commandments. There were “weightier matters” (Matt. 23:23) and “least commandments” (5:19) but even these “least” were authoritative right down to the last “jot” or “tittle” (18).
Jesus commended the Roman centurion as an example of faith when he stated so clearly the nature of authority, “I am a man under authority, having soldiers under me: and 1 say to this man, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it.” A soldier who, receiving a command would say, “Aye, aye, Sir,” but would add, “Of course, I will have to study your order to determine for myself the nature and extent of its authority in the light of its purpose in the national defense” would not be commended for his profound understanding of authority; he’d be in trouble for mutiny! When each soldier has to critically determine whether or how his order to peal potatoes or clean the barracks is contributing to national defense to decide on its authority, the real authority has been rejected, and the result must be anarchy—the kind of anarchy that the same procedure is bringing into the churches in the much more serious business of their faith.
This shifting the ground for the authority of the Bible from its Author to its content is not, as the Report tries to argue, just another way of saying the same thing; it is actually shifting that authority from God who gives the revelation and commands to the man who is studying to determine for himself how much or what kind of authority he will permit the revelation or command to have! That is what liberal theologians in a number of churches, including our Dutch sister churches have been doing. Is it any wonder that many in the churches no longer know what to believe or preach?
If the authority of the Bible really depends on its content and purpose as “saving revelation of God in Jesus Christ” as the committee wants to maintain, then it would seem that Karl Barth had a perfect right to say that “we do not have to believe in hell or eternal death” and Dr. Kuitert has the right to say “we do not have to believe in Adam, but only in Christ.” The committee if it really accepts that principle has no right basis on which to deny them that right. 1t is only because the Bible teaches its authority depends on its Author and not on its content that this “right” must be denied. The Bible indeed teaches that it is “saving,” but where does it teach us that everything it contains is saving? Did not the Apostle Paul point out that he in his preaching was “to the one . . . the savour of death unto death; and to the author the savour of life unto life” (II Cor. 2:15).
Let us not walk into the dilemma of trying to maintain that God’s condemnation of the unbeliever which the Bible so plainly teaches is (1) either in some way “saving”; (2) or without authority! As some of us see it, at the beginning the report accepts a wrong principle and then again and again tries to curtail the application of that principle. If that principle were rejected everything would be much clearer.
A Warning of the 1961 Synod
Our Synod Report of 1961 (Acts 1961, p. 193) properly warned against this shift of the basis of authority from Author to content and of the consequences that must result if the church attempted such a shift. “Moreover, to suppose that the fact of infallibility is to be learned from the self-testimony of Scripture but that the nature and extent of infallibility is to.he learned only by way of an exhaustive examination of the phenomena of Scripture is to misunderstand the nature of scripture’s self-testimony . . . Ultimately this leads to total dependence on fallible human investigation.” We must take to heart the warning that is placed at the end of the scriptures themselves: “If any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book” (Rev. 22:19). We can see how that has been happening in churches. Let it be our prayer that as our synod faces this fundamental issue, He may save us from being trapped into this increasingly common misuse of His Word and its terrible consequences.
It seems to me that there are other new elements introduced into the revised report which raise questions and would seem to demand further explanation such as “the divine plenary authority of ‘general revelation!’” And the relationship between Scripture and the creeds needs clarification. The main issue however, appears to be the dependence of the Bibles authority on its Author.
Other Matters on the Agenda
A number of other items which catch the reader’s interest in the new Agenda may be briefly noted:
The Board of Foreign Missions after “agonizing reappraisal” now “acknowledges the existence of the Tiv ‘Churches’ Reformed Theological College and has decided to cooperate with it by authorizing delegates to its board, provision or a teacher and contributions to its building program.
The Report of the Committee on Interchurch Relations calls attention to continuing correspondence with the Reformed Churches of The Netherlands regarding doctrinal developments in those churches and to a move on the part of the Orthodox Presbyterians to question the right of those Netherlands churches to remain in the Reformed Ecumenical Synod.
The Committee of Closer Relations with the Orthodox Presbyterian Church speaks of its continued problems as the Orthodox Presbyterians remain apprehensive about what they see as evidence of trends toward liberalism among us. Organic union of the two churches does not appear to be coming closer.
A divided report appears on the delegation of deacons to major assemblies, a majority opposing it, a minority favoring such a change.
The Agenda contains a 59 page report on Ecclesiastical Office and Ordination, which will demand extensive study.
The six page report on Abortion while taking a strongly negative attitude toward the practice appears to want to leave a little leeway where there is difference of opinion among Christians. One wonders about the legitimacy of that kind of leeway where murder is involved.
Regarding Lodge and Church Membership a majority of the study committee would maintain that these are incompatible, as we have traditionally done. A Minority Report, while acknowledging the incompatibility in principle wants to leave some room in practice to permit receiving as members people who reject lodge principles but have not yet completely separated from such organizations.
A Report on the “Improvement of Method of Calling Ministers” would establish a Ministerial Information Service, declare legitimate the seeking of calls by ministers and the advertising for ministers by churches and publish only announcements of calls accepted. Although one can appreciate the problems of calling churches, the susceptibility of such a Ministerial Information Service to political misuse is disturbing.
Among the Overtures a number deal critically with the Race Committee’s financing of a lawsuit for damages against the Timothy Christian School. A tong Protest from Classis Chicago North deals with the same problem. Overture 20 asks that the Race committee be retired. One wonders whether the appointment of a permanent committee with such a broad mandate was not inviting the very kind of abuse that has now been demonstrated.
An overture (Number 7) from Classis Pacific Northwest, addressing itself to the current issue of biblical authority asks that the Synod simply and plainly, in line with previous synod decisions, reject the “New Hermeneutic” (“Hermeneutic” means “interpretation”). Perhaps, as an alternative to increasing entanglements with the problems of the extensive committee report, the Synod may consider moving in the direction of this overture. On the other hand, many of the valuable observations and criticisms of the new hermeneutic in the committee report ought not to be lost. Let it be our prayer that the Lord may grant our churches His guidance in dealing with these matters and may keep them faithful to His Word and diligent in obeying and proclaiming it.
Peter De Jong is pastor of the Christian Reformed Church of Dutton, Michigan.
Revised Report on Biblical Authority
The biggest and most important issue the Synod will have to face is that introduced by the revised report (now number 44) on The Nature and Extent of Biblical Authority. That report has undergone a very extensive “face-lift,” Many of the features that elicited critical responses from some of the 97 churches and 61 individuals who corresponded with the committee have disappeared. The whole section on Genesis 1 to 11 which presented two views one of which held that though basically historical this must not be taken as a literal description of events no longer appears in that form. The new report seems more readable than the earlier version. The strong points of the old report. its warning against letting one’s understanding of the Bible be controlled by scientific theories, or historians’ ideas. or the radical views of some of the form critics. or of those who would reduce its history to “teaching models” are still there. Are the churches now ready to gratefully accept this arduous labor of the committee and lay the issue to rest? I do not think that they are or ought to be.
The Need of Time for Study
It ought to be observed that the time between the appearance of the Agenda at the beginning of May and the meeting of the Synod early in June is hardly long enough for consistories, much less whole classes. and church members, to carefully study the report and formulate a response to it. And what the churches officially say about the authority of the Bible is much too important an issue to permit a hasty decision.
Furthermore. it ought to be observed that the Synod’s Interim Committee assumed the right to refuse to accept for the printed agenda any overtures which reacted to this report on the somewhat questionable ground that the report was being revised! The result is that the Agenda being sent to the churches contains only the committee report and not one of the various overtures which reacted critically to it. Would an immediate move to accept the report under these conditions be wise?
The Heart of the Matter
But we need to turn from these technical considerations back to the material of the Report. Is the new report with its extensive revisions and improvements what we need to meet this troublesome problem? I do not believe that it is. Despite the much improved presentation the Report states. “After continued study and reflection the committee feels compelled to maintain the major thrust of its original report, convinced that the main lines of that report are true to Scripture and the creeds. Right at that point I and others feel that we must differ sharply from the view of the committee on at least one major point one may say the main point (p. 363). I am convinced that the main thrust of the report is wrong and that it can be shown to be contrary to the Scripture.
The Source of the Mandate
The position which the report takes is that which may be said to have been assigned it by the mandate of the 1969 Synod. As one analyses that position carefully it becomes apparent that it is one of having to try to face in two opposite directions at the same time. The Synod of 1969 faced pressure from two opposite directions with respect to the problem of the Bible’s authority. On one hand it, like the previous Synod. faced an overture expressing con~em about the increasing liberalism invading our SIster churches in 11le Netherlands and the urgent request to do something about it. At the same time the Synod was confronted by an official reaction from those sister churches, passed on by the Reformed Ecumenical Synod. objecting to the strong statement of the Reformed Ecumenical Synod in 1958 on the inspiration of the whole Bible as the word of God. The Dutch churches’ criticism was that this RES statement did “not make sufficient distinctions in dealing with the nature and extent of the authority of the Scripture . . .” and “in particular” with 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.” Now the peculiar wording of the mandate given our study committee was taken directly from that negative reaction of the Dutch churches to the strong report on inspiration.
Combining Opposites?
The earlier report (pp. 464 and 465) informs us that the committee faced the possible view that this mandate (which told it 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 or Scripture”), might be wrong -that the authority. of the Bible depends on God. its Author and not on Its content. Although a few critical comments were made on the wording of the mandate. it was decided that these two views could be combined -in other words the view that the authority of the Bible depends on its Author and the view that its authority depends on its content as “saving revelation of God in Jesus Christ” could be brought together. in fact are “two sides of the same coin” (new Report. p. 374).
It seems to me and others that that position is wrong and that trying to maintain it, confuses the whole issue. The editor of The Banner aptly observed that the report is an attempt to mix two positions as incompatible as oil and water!
The issue, it ought to be observed. is not whether the Bible’s message is saving. Paul said, “I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth” (Rom. 1:16). None of us is questioning that. But the issue is whether its authority depends on its Author or depends on its contents and purpose as “saving revelation of God in Jesus Christ.” And it seems to me that the Bible answers that question very plainly and in a way opposite to the view of the Dutch churches which the report tries to accommodate.
What Does the Bible Say?
Dr. Norman Shepherd in a recent lecture pointed out that the command given to Adam and Eve to refrain from eating the forbidden fruit, judged merely by its content must have appeared “nonsense” to them, but that they had to obey it not because they were impressed by its content (was that “saving”?) but just because God said it! We observe that it was the devil who misled them from obedience because it was God who commanded them into an attempt to critically evaluate the command from its content and by that route to disregard its authority! Similarly, Dr. Shepherd pointed out that the command to Noah to build an ark must have appeared nonsense if evaluated by its contents, but Noah had to obey it just because it was God’s order. James 2:11 directs us to God as the Authority for each and all the commandments.
We observe that Jesus recognized differences in the importance of commandments. There were “weightier matters” (Matt. 23:23) and “least commandments” (5:19) but even these “least” were authoritative right down to the last “jot” or “tittle” (18).
Jesus commended the Roman centurion as an example of faith when he stated so clearly the nature of authority, “I am a man under authority, having soldiers under me: and 1 say to this man, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it.” A soldier who, receiving a command would say, “Aye, aye, Sir,” but would add, “Of course, I will have to study your order to determine for myself the nature and extent of its authority in the light of its purpose in the national defense” would not be commended for his profound understanding of authority; he’d be in trouble for mutiny! When each soldier has to critically determine whether or how his order to peal potatoes or clean the barracks is contributing to national defense to decide on its authority, the real authority has been rejected, and the result must be anarchy—the kind of anarchy that the same procedure is bringing into the churches in the much more serious business of their faith.
This shifting the ground for the authority of the Bible from its Author to its content is not, as the Report tries to argue, just another way of saying the same thing; it is actually shifting that authority from God who gives the revelation and commands to the man who is studying to determine for himself how much or what kind of authority he will permit the revelation or command to have! That is what liberal theologians in a number of churches, including our Dutch sister churches have been doing. Is it any wonder that many in the churches no longer know what to believe or preach?
If the authority of the Bible really depends on its content and purpose as “saving revelation of God in Jesus Christ” as the committee wants to maintain, then it would seem that Karl Barth had a perfect right to say that “we do not have to believe in hell or eternal death” and Dr. Kuitert has the right to say “we do not have to believe in Adam, but only in Christ.” The committee if it really accepts that principle has no right basis on which to deny them that right. 1t is only because the Bible teaches its authority depends on its Author and not on its content that this “right” must be denied. The Bible indeed teaches that it is “saving,” but where does it teach us that everything it contains is saving? Did not the Apostle Paul point out that he in his preaching was “to the one . . . the savour of death unto death; and to the author the savour of life unto life” (II Cor. 2:15).
Let us not walk into the dilemma of trying to maintain that God’s condemnation of the unbeliever which the Bible so plainly teaches is (1) either in some way “saving”; (2) or without authority! As some of us see it, at the beginning the report accepts a wrong principle and then again and again tries to curtail the application of that principle. If that principle were rejected everything would be much clearer.
A Warning of the 1961 Synod
Our Synod Report of 1961 (Acts 1961, p. 193) properly warned against this shift of the basis of authority from Author to content and of the consequences that must result if the church attempted such a shift. “Moreover, to suppose that the fact of infallibility is to be learned from the self-testimony of Scripture but that the nature and extent of infallibility is to.he learned only by way of an exhaustive examination of the phenomena of Scripture is to misunderstand the nature of scripture’s self-testimony . . . Ultimately this leads to total dependence on fallible human investigation.” We must take to heart the warning that is placed at the end of the scriptures themselves: “If any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book” (Rev. 22:19). We can see how that has been happening in churches. Let it be our prayer that as our synod faces this fundamental issue, He may save us from being trapped into this increasingly common misuse of His Word and its terrible consequences.
It seems to me that there are other new elements introduced into the revised report which raise questions and would seem to demand further explanation such as “the divine plenary authority of ‘general revelation!’” And the relationship between Scripture and the creeds needs clarification. The main issue however, appears to be the dependence of the Bibles authority on its Author.
Other Matters on the Agenda
A number of other items which catch the reader’s interest in the new Agenda may be briefly noted:
The Board of Foreign Missions after “agonizing reappraisal” now “acknowledges the existence of the Tiv ‘Churches’ Reformed Theological College and has decided to cooperate with it by authorizing delegates to its board, provision or a teacher and contributions to its building program.
The Report of the Committee on Interchurch Relations calls attention to continuing correspondence with the Reformed Churches of The Netherlands regarding doctrinal developments in those churches and to a move on the part of the Orthodox Presbyterians to question the right of those Netherlands churches to remain in the Reformed Ecumenical Synod.
The Committee of Closer Relations with the Orthodox Presbyterian Church speaks of its continued problems as the Orthodox Presbyterians remain apprehensive about what they see as evidence of trends toward liberalism among us. Organic union of the two churches does not appear to be coming closer.
A divided report appears on the delegation of deacons to major assemblies, a majority opposing it, a minority favoring such a change.
The Agenda contains a 59 page report on Ecclesiastical Office and Ordination, which will demand extensive study.
The six page report on Abortion while taking a strongly negative attitude toward the practice appears to want to leave a little leeway where there is difference of opinion among Christians. One wonders about the legitimacy of that kind of leeway where murder is involved.
Regarding Lodge and Church Membership a majority of the study committee would maintain that these are incompatible, as we have traditionally done. A Minority Report, while acknowledging the incompatibility in principle wants to leave some room in practice to permit receiving as members people who reject lodge principles but have not yet completely separated from such organizations.
A Report on the “Improvement of Method of Calling Ministers” would establish a Ministerial Information Service, declare legitimate the seeking of calls by ministers and the advertising for ministers by churches and publish only announcements of calls accepted. Although one can appreciate the problems of calling churches, the susceptibility of such a Ministerial Information Service to political misuse is disturbing.
Among the Overtures a number deal critically with the Race Committee’s financing of a lawsuit for damages against the Timothy Christian School. A tong Protest from Classis Chicago North deals with the same problem. Overture 20 asks that the Race committee be retired. One wonders whether the appointment of a permanent committee with such a broad mandate was not inviting the very kind of abuse that has now been demonstrated.
An overture (Number 7) from Classis Pacific Northwest, addressing itself to the current issue of biblical authority asks that the Synod simply and plainly, in line with previous synod decisions, reject the “New Hermeneutic” (“Hermeneutic” means “interpretation”). Perhaps, as an alternative to increasing entanglements with the problems of the extensive committee report, the Synod may consider moving in the direction of this overture. On the other hand, many of the valuable observations and criticisms of the new hermeneutic in the committee report ought not to be lost. Let it be our prayer that the Lord may grant our churches His guidance in dealing with these matters and may keep them faithful to His Word and diligent in obeying and proclaiming it.
Peter De Jong is pastor of the Christian Reformed Church of Dutton, Michigan.