Will there be a new Reformed Seminary? Needless to say, only God knows for sure.

All that we know for sure is that eight CRC ministers in northwest Iowa have voiced their conviction of the urgent need for such a seminary, that at a meeting in Chicago on April 21 it was decided to proceed with the formation of the Mid-America Reformed Seminary, that an association was organized for this purpose, that officers for this association have been or are now being elected, and that an adequate building in the vicinity of Orange City, Iowa has been purchased, and that charter membership in the association remains open until December 31, 1981.

Beyond this, all depends on Deo volente—or, the Lord willing. A few questions and answers are in order.

   

1. Does this movement have any chance of success?

To be sure, there is no ironclad guaranty.

However, let the skeptics who doubt and the critics who hoot at any thought of success bear in mind what we read in Zechariah 4:10 about despis

ing the day of small things. Also, let others who go forward with their heads in the clouds and their eyes closed to unavoidable hurdles take to heart what Jesus once said about first sitting down to count the cost when one desires to build a tower (Luke 14:28ff).

Any chance of success?

That’s what they must have wondered when over a hundred years ago now a new Theological School began holding classes with one teacher and seven students in the upstairs above the Williams Street Christian school. Did anyone in his wildest dreams ever envision at the time that out of this would come today’s Calvin College and Seminary with its imposing campus? But God willed it, and so it came to pass.

You may be sure that there were also those who had the same misgivings when over forty years ago some of us launched the little Reformed Bible Institute with Miss Johanna Timmer as the only teacher. That day of small things found no approval at Synod in those early days and it was given no place on the approved list. However, it did somehow find a place in the hearts of the Lord’s people and, because God willed it, out of it there came forth the Reformed Bible College with today‘s enrollment, splendid facilities, and beautiful campus.

To mention but one more example in which we also had the privilege of helping along about forty years ago—the opening of the Pella Christian High School with just a handful of students—forty the first year, fifty the next, and so it kept on growing. The critics may have wished it would sink to the bottom of the sea but that never happened. Instead it continued to grow so that today with a large staff of instructors besides the principal, it is also housed in a modern structure—all because God willed it.

What about the future of the Mid-America Reformed Seminary? With God all things are possible. Deo volente, it too will grow and prosper. And if not it is always better to have tried and failed than never to have tried at all. As we attempt great things for God let us also expect great things from God.

2. Does a second seminary have a right to existence?

Think, for example, of the expense and effort required. You just don’t start a seminary on a shoestring.

To proceed responsibly, a generous financial outlay must be available, a reasonably qualified teaching staff should be assured, an adequate theological library ought to be at least in the vicinity if not on hand, proper facilities must be obtained, and some assurance of continued moral and financial support should be at least somewhat in sight.

There was a time when Calvin College also as “onze school,” enjoyed an exclusive claim to CRC financial support for the training of our college students. This arose out of the situation that Calvin provided a pre–seminary course for the training of the church’s future ministers. However, today Calvin no longer enjoys a monopoly on the claim to CRC financial support. Dordt College and Trinity College in the U.S.A. as well as King’s College and Redeemer College in Canada also look to the CRC constituency for such support even though, in distinction from Calvin, they are not subsidized by an ecclesiastical quota. Obviously, there are no serious objections or obstacles as Calvin now shares the responsibility and honors with these other schools. Is it not warranted to expect the same of Calvin Seminary now that another seminary is being proposed?

There are also other denominations, with which the CRC has had a close affinity, that recognize more than one seminary for the training of their ministers. The Reformed Church in America has both Western Seminary in Holland, Michigan, and New Brunswick Seminary in New Jersey. The Reformed Churches in the Netherlands have for many years supported both Kampen and the Free University in Amsterdam as training schools for their ministers. Why should it not be warranted to provide a similar choice for ministerial training in the CRC even though Calvin has the exclusive claim to being the official seminary of the denomination?

3. But what is the rationale for another seminary?

Unless a real need can be established for another Reformed seminary we are not justified in asking our constituency to put this extra drain on their stewardship and neither does it then make sense to spread out or extend our theological teaching talent.

Now it will not do for me to try to conceal from you my inescapable conviction that this need does exist. Since my time as editor of The Banner and also following this the conclusion has haunted me that there is no future for the CRC unless in God’s gracious providence we are given a new “school of the prophets.” Ten years ago in an address given in North-West Iowa I aired this conviction. At that time mine was a voice crying in the wilderness and it fell on deaf ears. At the time I also spoke else· where along the same line. Consequently, when I was asked to write on this matter now, contrary to my inclination, I was not free in my conscience to refuse to do so.

The basic or rock-bottom concern in our controversies within the CRC and also with respect to Calvin Seminary is to be found precisely in our view of Scripture and in the matter of hermeneutics as the study of the proper interpretation of Scripture. Is the Bible infallible and inerrant? Are, for example, the first eleven chapters of Genesis literal history or something less than that?

Our differences as to creation or evolution, homosexuals, women in church office, the nature of God’s love for all men, divorce, lodge membership and church membership—these are to be traced largely if not altogether to our differences in our view of the Bible.

Our view of Scripture is of number one importance because it is precisely at this point that the direction in which the CRC or any denomination will go is determined. And now it is precisely here that, as we see it, Calvin Seminary is falling down on the job. Mind you, we do not say this about every member of the faculty, but we cannot escape the conclusion that this is true of those on the faculty who set the pace. Meanwhile we are grateful to learn that “even though he (Libolt) was endorsed by the faculty of Calvin Seminary, and by the Board of Trustees . . . there was significant opposition to his candidacy both by one member of the faculty and by several board members” (The Outlook, August ’81). Now we must face up to this situation and tell it the way it is. An elder in the CRC expressed himself to me recently to this effect, that to advocate a new seminary one must be willing “to bite the bullet.” Disagreeable as this task may be, we are without excuse if we refuse to do so.

When I was still editor of The Banner, more than ten years ago now, there came a request to Synod to investigate the disturbing reports about trends in the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands. During the discussion Rev. Bastiaan Nederlof addressed Synod to assure the delegates that to do this was the work of the Calvin Seminary professors and that they would take care of it.

On November 12, 1970, in an address at Hudsonville, Michigan, I reported on this as follows:

“We may content ourselves by recognizing and stating our conviction that we are not receiving from Calvin Seminary the united, militant, and the enthusiastically Reformed leadership over against the attack on Scripture to which we are entitled. Consider the following matters to point this up.

“1. Why is it that we are not receiving thorough enlightenment for the rank and file of our membership from the Calvin Seminary Faculty members concerning the new hermeneutics being wafted over here from Amsterdam? I mean enlightenment to equip and fortify us over against this pernicious teaching that assails the historicity of the opening chapters of Genesis?

“On July 16, 1968 I sent the President of Calvin Seminary the following request: The Publication Committee has decided the following: ‘That the Calvin Seminary faculty be asked to provide a series of six or more articles on the teachings of Kuitert, Baarda, Augustijn, and possibly others (at the Free University) to begin the first of October if at all possible, and that the first article or two take up the matter of Kuitert’s view of the interpretation of Scripture in general and of his view of Genesis 1–3 in particular. Also that, out of courtesy, copies of these articles be sent to the men involved.

“This action has been taken in view of the decision of Synod 1968 ‘to assure the Fruitland consistory that Synod has full confidence that the professors of theology at Calvin Seminary will carefully study all new developments in theology and evaluate them in the light of Scripture and the creeds, and serve the churches with the results of their research and discussion. It is the continuing obligation of these professors to vindicate sound doctrine according to Article 20 of the Church Order.’”

“On October 9, 1968 Dr. Henry Stob, Faculty Secretary, replied to inform the Publication Committee that the Faculty:

a. Thanked the Publication Committee for its request;

b. Recognized with appreciation the resolution of Synod and acknowledged its responsibility as therein expressed;

c. Expressed its desire to engage in extensive Faculty discussion of the teachings referred to—with a view to receiving mutual assistance in evaluating them—prior to the publication of articles on them;

d. Judged that it is not appropriate to engage corporately in the project proposed by the Publication Committee, although it recognizes the right of any of its members to address himself publicly to the issues.”

When on September 1, 1970, two years later, I had still not received even the first article in such a series I wrote the President of Calvin Seminary once again about the matter. I am still waiting for a reply from him.”

The deplorable developments in the Dutch Churches since that time are known to all who are abreast of what has been taking place. The result was that I was left with the growing conviction that there could be no future for the CRC unless there would be a new “school of the prophets.”

Another matter that calls for attention is the disappointing position the Calvin Seminary Faculty and Calvin’s Board of Trustees took in recommending for candidacy Mr. Clayton Libolt notwithstanding the view of Scripture to which he held. Notice that once again it was the Bible that was involved and that both the Calvin Faculty and the Board of Trustees were minded to let it pass. Excerpts from the report on Synod 1981 (signed by AJH) in The Banner of June 29, 1981 (p. 16) tell the story:

“Libolt, a graduate of Calvin Seminary who completed additional studies at the University of Michigan, had been recommended by Calvin’s faculty and Board. But Synod’s advisory committee dealing with candidates decided to interview him. Six of the thirteen committee members were unhappy with what they heard. The remaining seven, a majority of one, recommended that synod approve Libolt’s candidacy after interviewing him on the floor of synod . . . For an hour and a quarter the would–be candidate, described by one delegate as a ‘most promising Old Testament scholar’ attempted to explain what he believed especially regarding how one should read and understand the Bible . . . When asked by one delegate how the Bible can be distinguished from books regarded by other religions as ‘holy’, he responded directly: ‘It’s inspired by God.’

“But the dismay of some delegates was evident when, on several occasions, Libolt expressed his belief that the opening chapters of the Bible are ‘not transparent to the event’. Here the chairman of the advisory committee that had earlier interviewed Libolt—Rev. Peter Brouwer, delegate from Classis Minnesota South –zeroed in on the young scholar’s views: ‘When in Genesis 3 it tells us there was a Garden of Eden, was it a real garden? When it tells us there was a tree, was it a real tree? When it tells us there was a voice speaking to the woman, was it a real voice? After wondering aloud what was meant by the questioner’s use of the word real, Libolt explained that ‘because of the kind of God we have, it’s quite possible that the events happened just that way’.

“But he would go no further than possibility, although he was invited to do so several times over. At each point, he noted that ‘because of the kind of literature we have been given at that place in Genesis I don’t think the (Genesis 1–3) narrative says or means to say that these things are ‘real’ in the sense of your question’. The kind of writing one finds in Genesis’ early chapters, he insisted, is ‘not like a newspaper report’. Despite continuing questions, none—with one glaring exception—of a hostile character, Libolt persisted in holding his commitment at the level of possibility.

“When asked to interpret a New Testament passage from Paul’s Letter to the Romans (the fifth chapter in which ‘the one man. Adam’ is compared with ‘the one man Jesus Christ’), Libolt argued that the purpose of that passage was to teach that ‘in one man, Christ, there is the possibility of life’, but in his view the passage would not require the presence of a historical character named Adam . . .

“. . . At 7:30P.M., the synod reentered closed session to consider what it had heard and what it should do. An hour later, Calvin Seminary president John Kromminga came out of the session looking all of his sixty-two years. He took Libolt aside to explain that the delegates had reached their decision.

‘By a majority the delegates to the Synod of the Christian Reformed Church had decided that Clayton Libolt would not become a preacher in this denomination in 1981.”

It is to the credit of Synod that it regarded Mr. Libolt’s position on Scripture as very serious and that he was refused candidacy, as a delegate informed me, by the large majority vote of 95 to 58. An elder delegate told me that he had been lukewarm about the idea of a new seminary until he heard members of the Calvin seminary faculty in connection with the Libolt case. Obviously, that proved to be an eye-opener to him. It is not without reason to believe that there can be no good future for the CRC unless we face up to the need for a new “school of the prophets.”

4. Are the professors at Calvin Seminary not simply entitled to our full confidence?

It would be a mistake to blithely and naively assume that this is so. They too must not expect such confidence unless they earn it. It is only when they teach and preach and write and act in such a way as to inspire full confidence that they have the right to expect this from the church.

This is true especially at such a time as this when so many religious leaders are betraying the trust placed in t hem by unsuspecting congregations. It is true among us also that a new minister is on trial before a discerning congregation is ready to place unreserved confidence in him. Anyone wholly committed to the Reformed faith will not resent this but will rather welcome being put to the test by those who are knowledgeable as to “sound doctrine,” because he is eager to be known for what he really believes, teaches and preaches.

Our seminary professors are in a highly responsible position and should be especially careful as to giving any occasion for a loss of confidence in them. Gossip, false rumors, and slander are vicious and may never be allowed to undermine or destroy anyone’s reputation and influence. However, we are equally guilty if, in the name of charity, we condone or close our eyes to that which threatens the life and future of the church. When we learn about faculty members who openly defend Allen Verhey and Clayton Libolt at Synod, about a faculty member being worked with because of his problem related to Scripture, about another who addresses a letter to Synod trying to convince the delegates that they should adapt to receiving women as well as men in church office even as Peter had to adapt to the idea of receiving Gentiles as well as Jews, and about still another who participated in the laying on of hands for the ordination of a woman minister—is it then any wonder that there is an erosion of confidence and that some will finally conclude that having another seminary is an idea whose time has come?

5. Are there not other seminaries to attend?

To be sure, there are. Westminster in Philadelphia, Reformed Theological Seminary in Jackson, Fuller in California, and Gordon-Conwell in Massachusetts may be mentioned. But there are reasons for believing that these are not designed for our particular needs.

It should be recognized that neither our CRC constituency nor our students identify readily or naturally with these other seminaries. Notwithstanding how close our affinity with any of these schools and how great our interest in them may be, it is simply a fact that they do not share our denomination’s identity. Moreover, they do not have the same doctrinal standards as those to which we subscribe. Besides this, these schools do not teach Christian Reformed Church history and the Church Order of t he CRC, courses that are required for anyone preparing for the ministry in the CRC. The contemplated new seminary would certainly include these courses so that, in my judgment, it should not be expected of the graduates that they take the extra year at Calvin seminary now required of graduates from other seminaries.

In 1926, at the occasion of the fiftieth anniversary of our Theological School and Calvin College, the late Professor Louis Berkhof, wrote the following in the Semi-Centennial Volume:

“The great purpose of our school was in the beginning, and has been ever since, to train young men for the ministry in our church by teaching them the great and comprehensive system of the truth as it was developed by Calvin. According to the intent and purpose of its founders, our School, as an institution for the training of ministers, is decidedly a denominational school; and this not merely in the sense that it is maintained by the Christian Reformed Church, but also in the sense that it is dedicated to the higher interests of the denomination, and to the maintenance, development and propagation of the principles for which the denomination stands.”

In line with this statement of purpose the Mid-America Reformed Seminary is determined to be wholeheartedly, enthusiastically, and contagiously Reformed, and that it will be – Deo volente!