The April Conference of Concerned at South Holland, Ill., was probably the most spirited and best attended such meeting yet held. In view of the merit and importance of the major addresses, the OUTLOOK’s board decided to publish them as provided by the speakers. They are included in this and coming issues.
“To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, they have no light of dawn.” Isaiah 8:20
INTRODUCTION
The topic assigned, “The Bible in the CRC Today,” is difficult to address, especially because there is a great and growing diversity today within the church on the subject of the Bible, and because our church is in a period of transition.
Let’s take as standard for comparison the “classical” or “confessional” view of the Bible that has been and continues to be the “official” view of the CRC. Specifically, this means that I will set forth three of what have been called in Reformed theology “attributes” or “perfections” of the Scriptures, and consider in each case where we stand in respect to each of these today.
1. The Confessional View of the Bible
This involves (1) its divine authority, (2) sufficiency, and (3) perspicuity or clarity.
a. The Divine Authority of the Bible:
The first attribute concerns the authority of the Bible as the written Word of God. In Article in of the Belgic Confession, on the “Written Word of God,” “We confess that this Word of God was not sent nor delivered by the will of man, but that men spake from God, being moved by the Holy Spirit, as the apostle Peter says; and that afterwards God, from a special care which He bas for us and our salvation, commanded His servants, the prophets and apostles, to commit His revealed Word to writing . . . . Therefore we call such writings holy and divine Scriptures.” And in Article V, the authority of the Bible is beautifully affirmed in the following terms, “We receive all these books, and these only, as holy and canonical, for the regulation, foundation, and confirmation of our faith; believing without any doubt all things contained in them, not so much because the Church receives and approves the m as such, but mo re especially because the Holy Spirit witnesses in our hearts that they are from God . . . .”
It is not difficult to ascertain the thrust of this confession concerning the authority of the Word of God. The authority of the written Word of God derives from its divine origin and authorship. Thus, Calvin, in his Commentary on 2 Peter 1:20, remarks on the authority of the Scriptures: “You will never come to read it well prepared unless you bring to it reverence obedience, and willingness to learn. A proper reverence arises from the conviction that it is God who speaks with us and not mortal men . . . . They did not blab their inventions of their own accord or according to their own judgments. The gist of all this is, that the beginning of a proper understanding is when we gjve His holy prophets the same trust that is due to God.”
b. The Sufficiency of the Bible
A second attribute or perfection of the Scriptures, one which is especially high lighted in the Belgic Confession, Article VII, is its Sufficiency. Here the emphasis is placed upon the sufficiency of the Bible as an “infallible rule for faith and practice.” We have in the written Word of God a complete and sufficient revelation of God’s will, next to which all other authorities are subordinate and of lesser value.
The confession of this in the Belgic Confession, Article VII, is again worthy of quotation: “We believe that those Holy Scriptures fully contain the will of God, and that whatsoever man ought to believe unto salvation is sufficiently taught therein. For since the whole manner of worship which God requires of us is written in them at large, it is unlawful for any one, though an apostle, to teach otherwise than we are now taught in the Holy Scriptures: nay, though it were an angel from heaven, as the apostle Paul says. For since it is forbidden to add unto or take away anything from the Word of God, it does thereby appear that the doctrine thereof is most perfect and complete in all respects. Neither may we consider any writings of men, however holy these men may have been, of equal value with those divine Scriptures, nor ought we to consider custom, or the great multitude, or antiquity, or succession of times or statutes, as of equal value with the truth of God, since the truth is above all: for all men are of themselves liars, and more vain than vanity itself. Therefore we reject with all our hearts whatsoever does not agree with this infallible rule, as the apostles have taught us, saying, Prove the spirits, whether they are of God. Likewise: If anyone cometh unto you, and bringeth not this teaching, receive him not into your house.”
This was a great dividing point in the Reformation time and continues to be so today. Who has the last and final word in the churches ofJesus Christ? Bishops? Synods? Classes? Ministers? For the Reformed, the Scriptures alone were the first and the last Word for the regulation of the faith and practice of the churches.
c. The Perspicuity of the Bible:
In traditional Roman Catholicism, the Bible was a “closed” book, whose meaning was obscure and inaccessible. Only by means of the church’s official teaching and interpretation was it possible to have access to the message of Scripture and to its revelation of the mind ofGod. In this respect, the church through its teaching office assumed the status of “priestly mediator” of God’s truth in the church.
Against this doctrine of the obscurity and inaccessibility of the Scriptures, the Reformers confessed the clarity and perspicuity of the Scriptures. Although they did not deny the difficulty of interpreting certain passages in the Bible, nor the necessity and usefulness of the office of “teacher” in the churches-they insisted that the written Word of God was accessible in the main, to all who read it in faith and in the company of the faithful This is the reason the Belgic Confession speaks of the Bible, as contrasted with the relatively more obscure revelation in creation, as a book in which God “makes Himself more clearly and fully known to us . . . , that is to say, as far as is necessary for us to know in this life, to His glory and our salvation.” It also accounts for the confession’s confidence that the Scriptures may serve the church as an “infallible rule” which serves “for the regulation, foundation, and confirmation of our faith.” Even the Reformed churches’ practice of supervising the preaching and administration of the Word by the Elders, assumes the perspicuity and clarity of the Bible to those who read it submissively and humbly.
These are the attributes or perfections that are clearly confessed by all Reformed churches that maintain a substantial and unbroken tie with the Reformers. We believe that the Bible is of divine origin and therefore has the authority of God Himself; we believe that the Bible alone is a sufficient and infallible rule for the regulation, foundation and confirmation of our faith, and we believe that it is clear and perspicuous in revealing the holy will of God.
2. The Bible Today in the CRC:
This brings us to the main question before us –where do we find ourselves in the present situation? What do we believe today about the Bible—about its authority, its sufficiency, and its clarity?
My general thesis, which I hope to elaborate in the following, is that we are facing an erosion on all fronts. Though it may well be true that our “official” statements and declarations are generally consistent with the confessions, there is a great deal of evidence that those who occupy positions of leadership and influence in the church, particularly those who teach at the colleges and Seminary, have departed from this confessional standpoint.
a. Where We Stand In Respect to the Bible’s Authority:
As many of you are aware, we have been debating as a denomination for a number of years the question of the “extent and the nature of Biblical authority.” During the course of this debate, we have been moving in the direction of a view of Biblical authority that attenuates our historical confession by limiting the authority of Scripture to its “saving content.” Whereas our historic confession speaks of “believing without any doubt all things contained therein,” we are now faced with a view which only believes that which directly concerns redemption through Christ, however and by whatever arbitrary means this is discerned. We are witnessing the triumph of a “Christomonistic” delimitation of Scripture’s authority—that which concerns Christ and only that is authoritative, all else being the “form,” the “husk,” or the “packaging” of this divine content.
Those who are acquainted with the discussion of Biblical authority in the CRC over the last decades, know that these discussions were occasioned in the late fifties and then the early seventies by views of Scriptural authority which argue for just such a distinction—better, separation—between the “husk” and the “kernel” of the Bible, and which limited the Scripture’s authority to its so-called “saving content.” Sadly, this history has witnessed a remarkable degree of similarity to events in other churches, particularly the Dutch GKN, where the same view, even the same respect to the Scripture generally and the Genesis account in particular was used in describing Scriptural authority. (see H.T. van Bochove, Gemeente in Veelvoud (Franeker: T. Wever, 1981; p. 85).
This Christomonistic reduction of the authority of Scripture, though evident at various points in this history, is most evident and radically described in Howard Van Till’s treatment of Scripture in The Fourth Day (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986). For example, consider the following descriptions of what it means to “take the Bible seriously’”: “The primary purpose ofScripture is, in my judgment, to bring the reader into a right relationship with God, with fellow human beings, and with the rest of Creation. This is the kerygmatic heart of Scripture’s proper function-the bringing of the gospel message” (p.12). “Yet another function of Scripture, of considerably less importance than the primary and secondary functions, is to provide the reader with information concerning things in themselves. I say ‘in themselves’ as opposed to ‘in relation to God’ or ‘in their function as vehicles of divine revelation. Such information, is incidental to the principal themes of Scripture and is drawn solely from human experience. This includes information about persons . . . , information about events, or information about the material world expressed in the prescientific language of the day.” Consequently, Van Till goes on to distinguish the divine content of Scripture, the revelatory meaning which the Bible “carries,” from the packaging in which it is contained. “To press the model still further, we might note that when goods are carried by a vehicle, it is wise to package the goods appropriately in order to protect the contents from damage and to provide convenient units for handling and delivery. Similarly in the Scriptures, each vehicle is loaded with its content (God’s message) contained in appropriate packaging-the specific story or account of an event” (p. 15).
Thus, for those who adopt this Christomonist view of Scriptural authority, the only thing(s) to which the Belgic Confession refers when it speaks of “believing without any doubt all things contained therein” is the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ. There should be no mistaking the consequence of this approach. It is the end of any meaningful affirmation of the Bible’s divine authority. It renders any claim truly to know the “Christ of the Scriptures” (the only Christ accessible to us!) impossible. And though we may still retain the semblance of piety by referring to the Bible politely as “God’s Word,” these words no longer mean what they say!
3. Where We Stand on the Sufficiency of the Bible:
It is not difficult to notice that this view of the authority of Scripture has also brought about a shift on the issue of the sufficiency of the Scripture. For, if the authority of the Bible is limited by and extends only to that which touches directly upon its kerygmatic function and center, then the Bible is only sufficient to regulate our believing in this limited sphere of concern. It cannot be considered regulative and sufficient as a rule to govern our conduct in a wide variety of areas touching the life and practice of the churches or the Christian.
This is precisely what is taking place. Whereas the Reformers and the Confessions assume that the Bible is a sufficient rule for the regulation of things pertaining to our faith and practice as churches and as Christian believers, there are many signs that we are rapidly moving to other authorities in determining the pattern of our faith and practice as churches. Whereas the Confessions reject an appeal to “tradition,” to the “leading of the Spirit,” to any human authorities, and the like, contrary to the Word of God, we are finding today that many are happy to make their appeal, not alone to the Scriptures, but to any one of such alternative authorities.
This is true, when it concerns the view of many in the church of the decisions of church assemblies. Quite apart from the fact that it is becoming less and less customary for any direct appeal to Scripture to be made in connection with these decisions, there is an increasing assumption that these decisions are “settled and binding,” whether they agree with the Word of God or not! It is even alleged that those who resist unBiblical decisions are “congregationalists!” “Synod has decided” is becoming the CRC counterpart to the historic Catholic view of its papal pronouncements and Councils, causa finita sit! (that ends the case!)
Consider the issue of women in office. H ow often are we not faced with arguments whose substantial appeal is not to, but outside of, the Scriptures? Seldom in our denominational discussions of this issue is much interest any longer expressed in listening to the text( s) of Scripture. It is enough that the church’s tradition (“look at these Synodical Study Committees which show that the Scriptures are at best unclear on this issue and at least allow for the possibility . . .”), the sociological trends of the time, and the findings of modern psychology (not to mention the fear of embarrassment!), seem to open the way to a new view.
But perhaps the most striking instance of a denial of the sufficiency of Scripture to regulate our faith and practice, is the view which, having limited Scripture’s authority to its “saving content,” treats the findings of science (which reads the “book of creation”) as a separate and independently valid authority. Whereas the confession speaks of the Written Word of God as a “more clear and full” revelation than the book of creation (and thus the “spectacles” by which we see this book properly), it is now argued that the allegedly sure findings of modern science must serve as the “spectacles” and standard by which to see and measure what we know from the Scripture. Consequently, another me re sure and sufficient rule for our faith and practice is to be found in “enlightened science,” and it is by this rule that the Scripture is to be governed.
Here again we are witnessing considerable evidence that our confessional view of the sufficiency of Scripture to regulate and norm the faith and practice of the church is in jeopardy.
4. Where We Stand on the Perspicuity ofthe Bible:
However, perhaps the most obvious and often times frustrating evidence of an erosion in our commitment to the confessional view of the Bible is the rejection today by many of the perspicuity of the Bible. More and more appeal is made to the fact that the Scriptures are unclear, that multiple interpretations are possible and therefore legitimate, and that one cannot begin to understand them apart from the intermediation of sophisticated scholarly techniques and approaches.
Most of us sense how this is happening. It will not do any longer to say in the church, “the Bible clearly teaches,” “the only proper interpretation of this passage,” “the plain and obvious sense of the text”—are rejected outright. Accusations of “obscurantism” and “fundamentalism” are quickly hurled at those who think the Scriptures clearly teach such things as the creation of all things, complete and perfect from the beginning, by the Word of God; the creation ofAdam from the dust of the earth and Eve from Adam; the historical rebellion and fall of our “first parents in Paradise” . . .
This denial of the perspicuity of the Scriptures can be easily demonstrated. Take the issues of women-in-office or the Biblical account of creation again.
When it comes to the issue of women-in-office, perhaps the single most frequently met argument for opening all the offices to women is the one which cashes in on the alleged lack of clarity in the relevant Biblical passages. Furthermore, it is considered useful to present a variety of alternative historical hypotheses about circumstances which may have influenced the author to write as he did. These introduce the possibility that the directives in the text may only have been fitted to a situation no longer present in the church, and therefore they are not to be considered binding upon us today. This “hermeneutic” or approach to the interpretation of Scripture (following the rule-what was conditioned by circumstances then cannot be considered binding upon us now) effectively takes the Bible out of the hand of the church member who is not privy to the “historical scholarship” of the teaching priesthood. What concerns us here is not the doubtful assumption that, because something is historically conditioned it cannot be continually binding, but the scholarly conceit and arrogance which underlies this “hermeneutic.”
The same difficulty occurs in respect to the Biblical account of the creation and Fall. One would be hard-pressed to establish from the Bible that this account is not intended to describe events or occurrences that took place. It would not be too far fetched to assert that the whole Biblical record of creation, fall, redemption and consummation, is founded upon and essentially dependent upon the historicity of these events. There is ample evidence throughout Old and New Testaments that these events are not to be construed as “pictures” of “poetic fiction” and the like. And yet, this is precisely what is being argued. Not now because the Bible demands it, but because those who are privy again to the latest scholarly and scientific theories about origins, think themselves compelled to adjust and accommodate the Bible to those theories.
At this point again the churches are left in a fog of pseudo-scholarship and “high-level gossip” about the Bible. Not able to engage in the sophisticated forms of genre-criticism and “de-mythologizing” (for, if you once adopt the dichotomy between form and content in your view of Scriptural authority, you must utilize the interpretive approach of demythologizing, discriminating between “husk” and “kernel”), and ignorant of the latest in scholarship when it comes to cultural anthropology and evolutionary theory—the presumably “unenlightened” Elder or Teacher in the church who finds these views contrary to the plain and obvious teachings of Scripture is treated with haughty disdain. To appeal to the confessions is likewise treated with a measure of bemused condescension—after all, these confessions must also be treated and interpreted according to the same scholarly techniques. They are “sixteenth century documents,” and we ·should not expect to discover in them a binding interpretation of the Scriptures.
It is quite legitimate, therefore, to ask what becomes of the clarity of the Bible in this situation? Here again there is evidence of a marked decline and manifest erosion in our historic, confessional view of the Bible.
CONCLUSION
The concluding question is—does this really matte r?
Let me say to that question—Yes, indeed, and more than most of us realize! Undermine the divine authority of the Scripture (treat it as the opinion of men in all areas but that called its “saving content”), deny the sufficiency of Scripture (set alongside it other rival authorities and sources of truth), or reject its clarity (say that only the scholarly experts understand or are able to discern its “hidden” meaning)—and the church has no future! For the church lives out of and upon the basis of the Word of God! Without that Word it must necessarily perish. Is this not the clear and compelling sense of our text—“To the law and to the testimony! If they speak not according to this word, they have no light of dawn.”
The reason this is so, is not hard to discover. How can the church be “the pillar and the ground of the truth,” when its own words are unreliable? It is a very bad situation, when the church compromises and equivocates on her own confession of faith about the written Word of God. But it is a situation made the more evil, when this is done contrary to her own public commitments and claims.
For it is our integrity as churches in respect to our good confession before and in the world that is finally at stake in this. We have all pledged together as office-bearers before God and His church that we believe that the confession’s doctrine of Scripture “fully agrees with the Word of God.” Does our “yes” mean “yes,” our “no,” “no”? Nothing less than this is at stake today in the present situation—our integrity, the truth of our confession. It is a pitiful and lamentable situation we face that we who are beneficiaries of the testimony of the Belgic Confession, made by its Confessors with a willingness to “offer their backs to stripes, their tongues to knives, their mouths to gags, and their whole bodies to fire” rather than to deny its truth, should have to insist upon the simplest fidelity from those who “with the mouth” claim it to be their own.
Cornelius P. Venema is the pastor of the Ontario (California) CR Church. 17tis address was given to the Conference of Concerned at South Holland, Ill., April 28, 1988.