In the CRC discussions concerning the Verhey case a strong point was made of Dr. Verhey’s “honesty.” He frankly avowed some of his deviant views when he might have remained silent or sidestepped acknowledging them. (The same observation could be made regarding his dealings with the consistories and classis in t his matter.) After t his point was made in the synod discussions, two of our seminary professors, Dr. B. Van Elderen and Dr. J. Stek rose to defend the way in which Dr. Verhey “interpreted” the Bible passages then under discussion, it seemed with almost an eagerness to manifest the same “honesty.”
An Improper Claim
While such frankness is to be appreciated. unfortunately in the way in which the advisory committee and.the synod were dealing with the matter the real point of the case was being obscured. That point has never been the personal bearing or the formal confession of Dr. Verhey. The appeals of the Dutton consistory were not directed against that but against the way in which after having affirmed the authority and infallibility of the whole Bible, he goes on to contradict what it plainly says.
Dr. Verhey, along with every office holder in the Christian Reformed churches has confessed his commitment to the Scriptures as the Word of God said that he believes “without any doubt all things contained in them” (Belgic Confession, Art. V). When he or anyone else who makes that confession then in his teaching or preaching “interprets” the Bible in such a way that he contradicts what it plainly says, whether he is frank or not in doing so, he is dishonest.
Accepted Dishonesty
A consistory member observed that in the business world failing to live up to ones promises will not be tolerated. Our problems arise out of the fact that in the intellectual and theological world of our time this kind of dishonesty has become so common t hat it is widely accepted as the mark of an upto-date scholar. Dr. Machen already 50 years ago observed that formerly an unbeliever would frankly say that he did not believe that Christ arose from the dead the third day as the church confesses in the Apostles‘ Creed. The Modernist of his time, however, would say, “Of course I accept the Apostles’ Creed. But then, do you not see, every generation has the right to interpret the Creed.in its own way. And so now of course we accept the proposition that ‘the third day he arose again from the dead,’ but we interpret that to mean,’The third day He did not rise again from the dead’” (Stonehouse, J. Gresham Machen, p. 358). In the 50 years since Machen’s time this kind of double–talk has become even more characteristic of the theological world. The old Modernist way of dealing with the Bible continued with Barth and his followers, although they were called “Neo-orthodox,” and now it is becoming commonplace in our own and other formerly orthodox churches (sometimes claiming the name “Neo-evangelical”). So widespread has this become in our churches that anyone who objects to it is labeled “simplistic,” “literalistic” or “biblicistic.” Today people who would not dream of picking your pocket will teach your children to contradict the Bible which they confess to believe and are being paid to teach, and even pride themselves in their “honesty” in doing this.
This Practice is not Limited but All-Inclusive
It is alleged. in defense of Dr. Verhey (as it also is of others among us who deal with the Bible in this way) that he does not want to carry this procedure “too far.” The synod’s advisory committee observed, “in each of the passages under consideration it is a detail which is questioned.” Presumably he does not want to apply it to the Resurrection or other fundamental doctrines. This presumption is incorrect, however. The exception clauses in Jesus’ teaching about divorce in Matthew 5 and 19 are no mere details. And Dr. Verhey in his defense (Agenda, p. 482) wrote
Incidentally, I do not “except” the resurrection from this kind of investigation. Indeed, if this kind of investigation demonstrated that Jesus had not been raised, I would become a Jew. The gospels stake their case on history, after all. But such an investigation, while it cannot “prove” God took Jesus from the dead, clearly demonstrates it is not historically unreasonable to accept such a claim.
Notice that if, as Dr. Verhey insists, (1) “the gospels stake their claim on history,” (2) “this kind of investigation” determines what we are to believe in that history, and (3) “such an investigation . . . cannot ‘prove’” the resurrection but only show that “it is not historically unreasonable to accept such a claim”, there can be no positive assurance about the resurrection. Using Dr. Verhey’s clearly explained and defended “kind of investigation” makes every gospel fact and teaching debatable. It should, at least, be obvious to all at this point that we are not dealing with incidental details, but with a way of interpreting all of the Bible and everything it teaches.
The Real Point
The point with which we are now concerned is not how far Dr. Verhey or others do or do not go in applying their procedure, but that the procedure by which anyone can say that he believes all of the Bible as God’s Word and then “interprets” Matthew, one of the Lord‘s chosen and inspired “witnesses” (acts 10:41) to have been lying, is dishonest.
Noble Intentions Don’t Justify False Teaching
All this is not to say that everyone who is confused and carried along by this prevailing way of thinking is deliberately dishonest. Simon Peter, when he contradicted the Lord was not that either (Matthew 16:22, 23), but the Lord did not because of his good intentions condone what he did. He exposed Peter’s way of thinking and speaking as the destructive work of the devil, the “father of lies” (John 8:44), and warned all of his followers against it.