Dear Sir:

I fully agree with Jelle Tuininga’s statement that seminary presidents should “say it straight!” (Sept. issue, p. 2)

So should writers for Outlook!

Accurate reporting begins with careful listening. Here Tuininga fails. My comment that I do not think “the church is ready for this yet” occurred in the content of observations about women in the diaconate. It does not apply to women in the offices of elder and minister, to which Tuininga wrongly extends it. Such has been my consistently held, published position for at least five years. Thus, Tuininga’s remarks about the “political” nature of my interview answer on this issue are highly offensive and uncharitable.

Readers of The Outlook deserve a far higher level of ecclesiastical journalism than either Tuininga or the editor gave them in the paragraph “Seminary Presidency.” Despite this, I assure the paper’s writers and readers that I both covet and will gratefully accept their responsible, constructive criticism on seminary matters.

Sincerely,

James A. DeJong President-elect Calvin Theological Seminary

 

Reply to Dr. DeJong:

To be frank, the letter of Dr. De Jong catches me by complete surprise. I simply didn’t expect such a response because I reported honestly and truthfully what I heard him say. I don’t believe in misrepresentation at all; fact is, more than once I have warned against it. We must be honest with each other. And that’s exactly what I intended to be when I wrote what I did. It is possible that I heard wrong, but what I reported is what I heard. And what is more, there were other delegates to whom I talked after the interview who had heard the same thing, on this same issue.

So Dr. DeJong may be convinced in his mind that what he said about the church not being ready for it had reference to women in the diaconate, but that certainly did not come through very clearly to some of the listeners. We say sometimes that we must write so that “he who runs may read.” Well, in this case “he who runs” could not hear. I’m sorry about that, but that’s something different than deliberate misrepresentation. On that score I am innocent. (As an aside, the statement, “It’s simply not in the docket” doesn’t apply to women deacons anyway: that has been “in the docket” for the last decade or more.)

Three concluding remarks:

1. I stand by my “impression” that both interviews were somewhat “political” in nature. 2. I can’t understand De Jong’s implicating the editor of Outlook in this connection. He simply printed what I wrote. I alone am responsible for that. 3. In a friendly and open discussion I had recently with De Jong, I told him that as the new Seminary president he had better be a bit more open to criticism than has sometimes been true of the presidency in the past. “Don’t be so defensive right away,” I said. (That’s a trait that seems rather common in Grand Rapids.)

J. Tuininga Lethbridge, Alberta

 

Dear Pastor DeJong,

I was happy to see my testimony in behalf of inerrancy printed in the October issue of The Outlook. I was especially pleased that your editor eliminated the first sentence in the third paragraph of the article as it appeared in Christian News. He must have realized that the first sentence of the paragraph contradicted the last sentence in the same paragraph. What I had actually written was:

. . . verbal inspiration and inerrancy do not mean that the Bible mentions every little detail which could possibly have been included in the description of a certain event. The report does not mention every person who was present nor does it report every word of what was said.

However, the article as published contains a misrepresentation of what the Norwegian translation of my English article said. It is, of course, a contradiction to say, “If there were two, there surely could have been only one.” What I had written, and what the Norwegian translation says, is “Om det var to, var det helt sikkert en.” or “If there were two, there was most certainly one.”

The second last sentence in the article as published is also not true. Something that is unlikely may very well be a contradiction. What should have been said is: “A difference is not necessarily a contradiction.”

The enemies of inerrancy should not be given a basis for showing that defenders of inerrancy cannot think logically, and therefore I would appreciate it if somehow your readers might be alerted to what I did not say.

Thank you for any consideration that you might be able to give to my request.

Sincerely yours, Siegbert W. Becker Wisconsin Lutheran Seminary Mequon, Wisconsin