In our August 1983 Outlook’s Christian Reformed Synod Report it was reported that the Calvin Board of Trustees and the synod had dismissed the case of recent years against the views of seminary professor John H. Stek about the first chapters of Genesis as not and never having been a disciplinary matter (Acts 1983, pp. 521–23, 644–46). This plainly did not harmonize with the committee report to the 1981 synod that “Professor Stek’s present theory brings him into conflict with the church ‘s standing confessional view . . .” (Acts 1981, pp. 147, 148).

Now Rev. Neal Hegeman, Christian Reformed missionary in the Dominican Republic, who as a student in the seminary, had felt he must in good conscience object to the wrong views of Genesis and, following proper procedures, brought the matter to the board, has sent the Outlook his reaction to the recent actions of the board and synod.

“Mal hecho” is the Spanish word for “badly done.” That was my response to the report of the Board of Trustees to the 1983 Synod concerning the research being done concerning the historical Adam. I do not know what the response will be from the concerned Christians, consistories, classes and church groups who have expressed concern about recent thinking concerning Gen. 1–3 and particularly the historical Adam. My response is very disheartening. What type of political game are we playing in the Church when at Synod the professor involved was present but did not have to speak on the matter? Why can’t the man give a clear testimony? After all, he’s a teacher of the church and should have these matters well in hand. Mal hecho. Then we read that the study committee seeks to be relieved of its duty to study the situation. Even though the professor has it totally befuddled as to extra-Biblical, archaeological and geological data, shouldn‘t the committee itself come to confessional conclusions about what is being studied? How can they dump all these loose–end theological questions onto the church without comment? Now there have been people who have said to me, “How could you as a student question one of your professors like that?”—“unethical,” “unfair,” “judgmental,” “unChristian,” “trouble–maker,” “liar,” etc.

In order to compare notes with fellow concerned Christians to see what was ‘mal hecho’ I wish to present the evidence in two columns and then ask some questions.

1. Board of Trustee Report – Acts 1983 “The theories which have occasioned concern were never a part of Professor Stek‘s classroom presentation.

Student‘s diary who was involved in issue 1. During a Pentateuch class, 3rd quarter, 2nd year course in 1978, Professor Stek would not directly answer questions concerning the historicity of Genesis 1–3 and specifically concerning the historical Adam and Eve. With his silence, of course, no defense of the historical Adam was taught and the issues raised by the GKN (the Reformed Church in the Netherlands) were not dealt with.

2. During the winter of 1980, the then Senior student had an interview with Professor Stek about his views. During that interview Professor Stek said it was fine that the student believed in the historical Adam, but that he didn’t have to believe that.

3. Dr. Kromminga (president of the seminary) was consulted and the Board of Trustees was informed. The student was assured that the matter would be properly dealt with and that he was using the proper channels to deal with the situation.

Question: Although other professors have stated clearly their position on the historical Adam in class and have presented some defense or apologetic against the heresies in the GKN, Professor Stek begged the question. Is not a teacher of the Church supposed to help the students fight against heresy according to the Form of Subscription? Is heresy a reality or just a matter of unimportant opinions? At the time of this writing, having only the Acts of Synod on hand, we have still no indication that Professor Stek believes in the historical Adam as a man, a person like you and me, the first person whom God created, not from animal, not from a sub-human race, but uniquely in His own image. The Acts of Synod report does not make that clear, that is, the one man character of Adam (Romans 5:12, Mt. 19:4).

2. Board of Trustee Report – Acts 1983 “The research is appropriate and in keeping with the responsibilities of a theological professor.”

Board of Trustee Minutes – Feb. 1981

“. . . The Board advised Professor Stek in his teaching office, to correlate the fmdings of his research and the event character of Genesis 1–11 with a view of doing full justice to the church‘s confessional view.

Question: What are these “findings”? How has Professor Stek correlated these “findings”? Why hasn‘t the Church at large been informed? Why the secrecy? Even as the original protestor of the professor’s questionable handling of Genesis 1–3, I don’t even know what the professor believes.

Stek’s Affirmation – Acts of Synod 1983 “Genesis 1 and 2 speak of history, specifically of the history of the God–man relationship from creation to the call of Abram.”

Question: What does “God-man relationship” mean if it does not involve a personal and clearly defined beginning? If we become hazy as to our creational beginning, what will that do to our salvational or redemptive need? If Jesus and Paul clearly affirm the one-man character of Adam, his personhood and human responsibility, what are we to say about the one-man character of Jesus (Romans 5:12, Mt. 19:4)? Were Jesus and Paul culturally bound in their thinking? Were they limited in their knowledge? Do we really know more than they about Adam?

4. Board’s decision – Acts of Synod 1983 “(it is) not a disciplinary matter but is an appropriate matter for scientific research, the board hereby terminated its direct involvement in the matter.”

Question: Has the original protest really been dealt with? I have read in certain reports that the whole matter was not properly before Synod. What does the Board of Trustees represent? Should they not oversee matters of teaching at the seminary? The original letter read: “As a student I ask the board to deal with Professor Stek’s conclusion about the historicity of Adam. As a church member I ask the board to urge Professor Stek to publish his conclusions so that the Church whom he serves will know where he and the Church stands on these matters.” I would now add, that the findings be published in a way the Church member can understand and not becloud the issue with academic and technical “gibberish” (I Tim. 1:3–5).

Dear Reader, at the heart of this issue lies a deep gospel concern: repentance and reconciliation. Either I as a former student and now a CRC missionary, have falsely accused a minister of the gospel and need to publicly repent and reconcile or the professor indeed is in error and needs to do likewise (Mt. 5:37). A Church which does not see to such “discipline” is not being a true Church (Belgic Confession 29) and will continually be plagued with events “Mal hecho.”