The editor of THE OUTLOOK called Agenda Report 36 on The Nature and Extent of Biblical Authority “the most crucial issue facing Synod 1971” (cf . THE OUTLOOK, June 1971). Many delegates to Synod shared that view. What can be more important than the Bible. God’s inspired. infallible, authoritative Word?
The Study Committee in presenting Report 36 recognized this in the statement that “the historic Christian doctrine of Biblical authority is in crisis in our times. This crisis lies especially in the area of hermeneutics . . . The hermeneutical problem is the pivotal point of much contemporary theological controversy. Involved is a right understanding of Scripture, which is a matter of paramount importance today for the entire Christian church, including those churches which stand within the Reformed tradition” (Agenda 1971, pp. 296 f.).
Advisory Committee of Synod
This issue was taken up on the floor of Synod on Thursday morning of the second week. This was a bit late for such all important matter, but the Advisory Committee needed time for adequate study and for making recommendations. Although the delegates were hoping to conclude the sessions by the next evening, there was a very good discussion.
One of the recommendations of the Advisory Committee was “that Synod recommend the Study Report (Agenda 1971, Report 36) to the churches for the purpose of giving direction in our communal discussions concerning the nature and extent of Biblical authority.” However, this was not the first and only recommendation of the Advisory Committee. Its first recommendation was lifted entirely from Report 36, pp. 303 f., and was as follows:
That Synod adopt for pastoral advice to the churches the following five points relating to the nature and extent of Biblical authority.
a. Synod reminds the churches that the authority of Scripture lays its comprehensive claim upon the total life of the church, so that Biblical authority is not only to be believed and confessed as an article of faith. but also to be consistently applied and practised in the life and ministry of the church.
b. Synod calls the churches, in harmony with our common commitment to the Reformed confessions, to maintain the clear witness of the creeds to the authority of Scripture as the saving revelation of God in Jesus Christ, a revelation rooted in the historical reality of redemptive events as recorded in Scripture, yet honoring such freedom of exegesis or diversity of insight as does not conflict with our forms of unity.
c. Synod, acknowledging that Scripture is se1£authenticating, therefore reminds the churches that the authority of Scripture is not dependent upon the findings of science; and that, while scientific findings can serve as occasions for a better understanding of Scripture, nevertheless the church may appeal only to the authority of Scripture as the basis for its Biblical message, and accordingly must seek to develop a Christian community within which all scholarly work is carried on in faithfulness to the authoritative Scriptures.
d. Synod warns against any use of the historical-critical method which excludes or calls into question the redemptive events of Biblical history or their revelational dimension, thus compromising the full authority of Scripture as the Word of God.
e. Synod urges tile churches to continue to confess that tile authority of tile Biblical message is rooted in the historical reliability of the redemptive events therein recorded. and to acknowledge that these events arc presented as prophetic and kerygmatic history.
Grounds: [Added by the Advisory Committee]
(1) The appointment of this committee in 1969 was in part motivated by the confusion in the churches on this basic issue of the authority of Scripture and in part by the need for pastoral advice to the churches to remove this confusion.
(2) The Study Committee has fulfilled the third part of its mandate through the formulation of these five points.
(3) Synod’s adoption and promulgation of these five points for pastoral advice will help allay the unrest and calm the fears in the churches by affirming without reservation the basic facets of the authority of Scripture which every Reformed believer must confess.
Discussion on the Floor
Much of the discussion on the floor of Synod centered around these five points as “pastoral advice” to the churches. How “pastoral” do they sound to Mr. and Mrs. John Common who have sincere faith in the verity of Scripture? As is well known by this time, the entire Report 36 was referred to the churches for their reactions, and the recommendation concerning the five points of pastoral advice was not adopted by Synod. It turned out well; at least so far. But one wonders what will happen next year.
Some may think that we ought to let these five points and the entire Report rest, now that all is referred to the churches for study. However, we need some guidelines for this study. It is not easy reading for most people. We need to be reassured unequivocally of the authority of God’s Holy Word. We need enlightenment on the manner and method by which that authority may be undermined.
The editor has pointed out some serious misgivings concerning Report 36 with respect to Genesis 1–11. I share these with all my heart (cf. THE OUTLOOK, June 1971, p. 5). Moreover, there is an expression occurring in these “five points for pastoral advice” that calls for some attention.
“Redemptive Events”
Adjectives can be interesting and enlightening, but they can also be dangerous. They may strengthen, but they may also weaken. Some words or ideas need to be qualified, but some do not. I am concerned about that adjective “redemptive.” The expression “redemptive events” occurs in b., d., and again in e. in the pastoral advice that was proposed. Why should “events” be qualified in that manner? What is the alternative to “redemptive events”?
As glorious as the idea of redemption is, when the adjective is used in this setting one becomes a bit concerned. Is the implication that some other kind of events in the Bible, maybe historical ones, are not necessarily as real or as reliable in detail? Just what are “redemptive events”? Will people agree on what are and what are not “redemptive events”? How about the pre-redemptive events? In the debate at Synod there was an attempt made to add the words “including creation and the fall” to the words “redemptive events as recorded in Scripture.” What are not “redemptive events”? Do these have no necessary “historical reality”? As far as any events are concerned, can I believe them as historically reliable without believing the description of these events as historically reliable? With the Bible, what is negotiable and what is not?
These are questions one is inclined to ask when such delineations are made. In a study of the new theology from Barth to Bultmann and since, one becomes still more ill at ease because of the language employed. Furthermore, our confessions do not use such language and do not speak of such distinctions.
Are Fears Allayed?
This is not to say that Report 36 is all bad. It is a tremendous piece of scholarly work and many expressions are excellent. I am very glad that it does not allow scientific developments to direct our exegesis of Scripture. This is declared very well in the third (c.) of the five paints quoted above. A fraternal delegate to Synod praised the report highly.
Exactly a decade ago the Report on the Infallibility of Scripture appeared (Acts 1961, pp. 253328). It spelled out in rather dear language the importance of the self-testimony of Scripture rather than dependence on fallible human investigation (p. 293.) Now ten years later we need another report; this time for “pastoral advice to help allay the unrest and calm the fears in the churches.”
will these five paints accomplish that? If there is unrest and fear with respect to the Bible, one wonders where it comes from. Who are causing this fear? After all, we still have Art. V of our Belgic Confession: “believing without any doubt ALL THINGS contained in them,” i.e., the Books of the Holy Scriptures. Such words allay unrest and dispel fear. The talk of historical reality of “redemptive events” as compared with some other kind of events does not calm fears.
Danger of Distinctions
With such distinctions it is only another step to differentiate between Geschichte and Historie of the new hermeneutic. I know this is not our distinction and not that of the Report, but what is there to stop us if our distinction is between the event and the recording of that event. In our exegesis of Genesis 3, is the snake and are the trees, cherubim, and the sword real, or must we seek out their redemptive significance? If the snake only tells us in symbolical language how Satan approached Eve, maybe the story of Noah and the ark tells liS in symbolical language how God approached the wicked people. Is this the kind of exegesis we want? Must we allow for two different attitudes toward the kind of historical reporting contained in Genesis 1–11? (Agenda, p. 294).
It is said that the snake was a symbol of evil among ancient peoples. Some even worshipped the serpent. I recall studying about the Babylonian account of creation during my seminary days. There are marked similarities to the Biblical account. But why must we allow for the Bible’s borrowing such symbols from other literature? There was writing before Moses wrote the Pentateuch, but there is no history before the Biblical account. The story of creation was very likely known before Moses actually recorded it. Why not keep the Bible original?
If the snake is not historically real, how can we keep Adam historically real? After all, it is a matter of record whether it is a man or a snake. Subsequent Scriptures, as Romans 5:14 and I Corinthians 15:22, speak of Adam, and II Corinthians 11:3 tells us that “the serpent beguiled Eve.” By what manner or power of exegesis can I keep Adam historically real if I do not believe the snake is historically real? And where do we go from there?
Where Are We Going?
One of the delegates pointed out the dangers of this sort of thing when he described how the Gereformeerde Kerken in The Netherlands began questioning Genesis 1-3 and now there is advancement (?) by some to the historicity of the resurrection of Christ. The resurrection of our Lord is a very controversial subject in the new hermeneutic. Some believe it really happened, but others relegate it to the realm of Geschichte, the idea or belief of the disciples and the early church.
For me the events in Jesus’ life are very important because I know Him as my Savior and Lord. But if I open the door to question the recording of certain events in the Biblical record of my Savior’s life and ministry, will my son or my parishioners retain faith in Christ’s personal historical resurrection? The Holy Spirit is in Christ’s church, and He gives Christian certitude. But if I open the door to such winds of human thought can I retain the breath of the Spirit in my church?
The disciple often advances beyond the teacher. Willi Marxsen, a post-Bultmannian scholar, in his book, The Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, declares it is absurd for evangelicals to assert that they know by faith that Jesus rose. Such faith does not provide any basis for reasoning back to what happened on Easter morning, he says. Marxsen enlarges on the discrepancies in the Biblical recordings and insists there would be more uniformity in the narrations if the event really occurred. Faith in Jesus as risen, says he, means to believe that God has made “the cause of Jesus” to continue (1). God forbid we should open the door even a tiny crack for such a denial of that most glorious event!
Can It Happen To Us?
In another significant book, The Strange Silence of the Bible in the Church, author James D. Smart writes that loss of confidence in the Bible’s account of history has been accompanied by loss of confidence in its message. How can we separate the two? God forbid that such an indictment should ever be spoken against the Christian Reformed Church!
Can we at this time in the life and thought of the Christian Reformed Church think “it can’t happen here”? God forbid that we should allow the camel to stick his nose of the new hermeneutics into the tent of Biblical inspiration, infallibility, and authority.
Fred W. Van Houten is pastor of the Ninth St. Christian Reformed Church of Holland, Michigan.
The Study Committee in presenting Report 36 recognized this in the statement that “the historic Christian doctrine of Biblical authority is in crisis in our times. This crisis lies especially in the area of hermeneutics . . . The hermeneutical problem is the pivotal point of much contemporary theological controversy. Involved is a right understanding of Scripture, which is a matter of paramount importance today for the entire Christian church, including those churches which stand within the Reformed tradition” (Agenda 1971, pp. 296 f.).
Advisory Committee of Synod
This issue was taken up on the floor of Synod on Thursday morning of the second week. This was a bit late for such all important matter, but the Advisory Committee needed time for adequate study and for making recommendations. Although the delegates were hoping to conclude the sessions by the next evening, there was a very good discussion.
One of the recommendations of the Advisory Committee was “that Synod recommend the Study Report (Agenda 1971, Report 36) to the churches for the purpose of giving direction in our communal discussions concerning the nature and extent of Biblical authority.” However, this was not the first and only recommendation of the Advisory Committee. Its first recommendation was lifted entirely from Report 36, pp. 303 f., and was as follows:
That Synod adopt for pastoral advice to the churches the following five points relating to the nature and extent of Biblical authority.
a. Synod reminds the churches that the authority of Scripture lays its comprehensive claim upon the total life of the church, so that Biblical authority is not only to be believed and confessed as an article of faith. but also to be consistently applied and practised in the life and ministry of the church.
b. Synod calls the churches, in harmony with our common commitment to the Reformed confessions, to maintain the clear witness of the creeds to the authority of Scripture as the saving revelation of God in Jesus Christ, a revelation rooted in the historical reality of redemptive events as recorded in Scripture, yet honoring such freedom of exegesis or diversity of insight as does not conflict with our forms of unity.
c. Synod, acknowledging that Scripture is se1£authenticating, therefore reminds the churches that the authority of Scripture is not dependent upon the findings of science; and that, while scientific findings can serve as occasions for a better understanding of Scripture, nevertheless the church may appeal only to the authority of Scripture as the basis for its Biblical message, and accordingly must seek to develop a Christian community within which all scholarly work is carried on in faithfulness to the authoritative Scriptures.
d. Synod warns against any use of the historical-critical method which excludes or calls into question the redemptive events of Biblical history or their revelational dimension, thus compromising the full authority of Scripture as the Word of God.
e. Synod urges tile churches to continue to confess that tile authority of tile Biblical message is rooted in the historical reliability of the redemptive events therein recorded. and to acknowledge that these events arc presented as prophetic and kerygmatic history.
Grounds: [Added by the Advisory Committee]
(1) The appointment of this committee in 1969 was in part motivated by the confusion in the churches on this basic issue of the authority of Scripture and in part by the need for pastoral advice to the churches to remove this confusion.
(2) The Study Committee has fulfilled the third part of its mandate through the formulation of these five points.
(3) Synod’s adoption and promulgation of these five points for pastoral advice will help allay the unrest and calm the fears in the churches by affirming without reservation the basic facets of the authority of Scripture which every Reformed believer must confess.
Discussion on the Floor
Much of the discussion on the floor of Synod centered around these five points as “pastoral advice” to the churches. How “pastoral” do they sound to Mr. and Mrs. John Common who have sincere faith in the verity of Scripture? As is well known by this time, the entire Report 36 was referred to the churches for their reactions, and the recommendation concerning the five points of pastoral advice was not adopted by Synod. It turned out well; at least so far. But one wonders what will happen next year.
Some may think that we ought to let these five points and the entire Report rest, now that all is referred to the churches for study. However, we need some guidelines for this study. It is not easy reading for most people. We need to be reassured unequivocally of the authority of God’s Holy Word. We need enlightenment on the manner and method by which that authority may be undermined.
The editor has pointed out some serious misgivings concerning Report 36 with respect to Genesis 1–11. I share these with all my heart (cf. THE OUTLOOK, June 1971, p. 5). Moreover, there is an expression occurring in these “five points for pastoral advice” that calls for some attention.
“Redemptive Events”
Adjectives can be interesting and enlightening, but they can also be dangerous. They may strengthen, but they may also weaken. Some words or ideas need to be qualified, but some do not. I am concerned about that adjective “redemptive.” The expression “redemptive events” occurs in b., d., and again in e. in the pastoral advice that was proposed. Why should “events” be qualified in that manner? What is the alternative to “redemptive events”?
As glorious as the idea of redemption is, when the adjective is used in this setting one becomes a bit concerned. Is the implication that some other kind of events in the Bible, maybe historical ones, are not necessarily as real or as reliable in detail? Just what are “redemptive events”? Will people agree on what are and what are not “redemptive events”? How about the pre-redemptive events? In the debate at Synod there was an attempt made to add the words “including creation and the fall” to the words “redemptive events as recorded in Scripture.” What are not “redemptive events”? Do these have no necessary “historical reality”? As far as any events are concerned, can I believe them as historically reliable without believing the description of these events as historically reliable? With the Bible, what is negotiable and what is not?
These are questions one is inclined to ask when such delineations are made. In a study of the new theology from Barth to Bultmann and since, one becomes still more ill at ease because of the language employed. Furthermore, our confessions do not use such language and do not speak of such distinctions.
Are Fears Allayed?
This is not to say that Report 36 is all bad. It is a tremendous piece of scholarly work and many expressions are excellent. I am very glad that it does not allow scientific developments to direct our exegesis of Scripture. This is declared very well in the third (c.) of the five paints quoted above. A fraternal delegate to Synod praised the report highly.
Exactly a decade ago the Report on the Infallibility of Scripture appeared (Acts 1961, pp. 253328). It spelled out in rather dear language the importance of the self-testimony of Scripture rather than dependence on fallible human investigation (p. 293.) Now ten years later we need another report; this time for “pastoral advice to help allay the unrest and calm the fears in the churches.”
will these five paints accomplish that? If there is unrest and fear with respect to the Bible, one wonders where it comes from. Who are causing this fear? After all, we still have Art. V of our Belgic Confession: “believing without any doubt ALL THINGS contained in them,” i.e., the Books of the Holy Scriptures. Such words allay unrest and dispel fear. The talk of historical reality of “redemptive events” as compared with some other kind of events does not calm fears.
Danger of Distinctions
With such distinctions it is only another step to differentiate between Geschichte and Historie of the new hermeneutic. I know this is not our distinction and not that of the Report, but what is there to stop us if our distinction is between the event and the recording of that event. In our exegesis of Genesis 3, is the snake and are the trees, cherubim, and the sword real, or must we seek out their redemptive significance? If the snake only tells us in symbolical language how Satan approached Eve, maybe the story of Noah and the ark tells liS in symbolical language how God approached the wicked people. Is this the kind of exegesis we want? Must we allow for two different attitudes toward the kind of historical reporting contained in Genesis 1–11? (Agenda, p. 294).
It is said that the snake was a symbol of evil among ancient peoples. Some even worshipped the serpent. I recall studying about the Babylonian account of creation during my seminary days. There are marked similarities to the Biblical account. But why must we allow for the Bible’s borrowing such symbols from other literature? There was writing before Moses wrote the Pentateuch, but there is no history before the Biblical account. The story of creation was very likely known before Moses actually recorded it. Why not keep the Bible original?
If the snake is not historically real, how can we keep Adam historically real? After all, it is a matter of record whether it is a man or a snake. Subsequent Scriptures, as Romans 5:14 and I Corinthians 15:22, speak of Adam, and II Corinthians 11:3 tells us that “the serpent beguiled Eve.” By what manner or power of exegesis can I keep Adam historically real if I do not believe the snake is historically real? And where do we go from there?
Where Are We Going?
One of the delegates pointed out the dangers of this sort of thing when he described how the Gereformeerde Kerken in The Netherlands began questioning Genesis 1-3 and now there is advancement (?) by some to the historicity of the resurrection of Christ. The resurrection of our Lord is a very controversial subject in the new hermeneutic. Some believe it really happened, but others relegate it to the realm of Geschichte, the idea or belief of the disciples and the early church.
For me the events in Jesus’ life are very important because I know Him as my Savior and Lord. But if I open the door to question the recording of certain events in the Biblical record of my Savior’s life and ministry, will my son or my parishioners retain faith in Christ’s personal historical resurrection? The Holy Spirit is in Christ’s church, and He gives Christian certitude. But if I open the door to such winds of human thought can I retain the breath of the Spirit in my church?
The disciple often advances beyond the teacher. Willi Marxsen, a post-Bultmannian scholar, in his book, The Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, declares it is absurd for evangelicals to assert that they know by faith that Jesus rose. Such faith does not provide any basis for reasoning back to what happened on Easter morning, he says. Marxsen enlarges on the discrepancies in the Biblical recordings and insists there would be more uniformity in the narrations if the event really occurred. Faith in Jesus as risen, says he, means to believe that God has made “the cause of Jesus” to continue (1). God forbid we should open the door even a tiny crack for such a denial of that most glorious event!
Can It Happen To Us?
In another significant book, The Strange Silence of the Bible in the Church, author James D. Smart writes that loss of confidence in the Bible’s account of history has been accompanied by loss of confidence in its message. How can we separate the two? God forbid that such an indictment should ever be spoken against the Christian Reformed Church!
Can we at this time in the life and thought of the Christian Reformed Church think “it can’t happen here”? God forbid that we should allow the camel to stick his nose of the new hermeneutics into the tent of Biblical inspiration, infallibility, and authority.
Fred W. Van Houten is pastor of the Ninth St. Christian Reformed Church of Holland, Michigan.