The News Report
“Calvin draws fine line in teaching of evolution; Professors get administration backing with note of caution” was the announcement in the Feb. 16 Local Advance newspaper. (The daily Grand Rapids Press, Detroit daily and local TV news had been reporting the matter somewhat more extensively and flamboyantly.) The writer, Rick Boyd-Merrit, gave a brief explanation. “How can professors at a Christian college reconcile evolution with creation in their writings and classroom teachings? That is the unresolved question for faculty, administrators, and members of the Christian Reformed Church as a whole, according to Howard Van Till, a physics professor at Calvin College. Last week Friday, a committee from Calvin that had spent a year studying criticisms of the writings and teachings of Van Till and two of his colleagues, came out in support of the faculty members and their adherence to the church’s doctrines. The committee was responding to dozens of letters, criticizing the writings of the professors for swerving from the literal interpretations of creation found in Genesis. While the decision of the Board of Trustees was in support of the professors, the final report from the study committee that interviewed the faculty members was described as ‘critical‘ by one board member.”
Naturally, the publicity had provoked discussion and many questions. What does the 7-page study report say?
The Investigation: 1. Clarence Menninga
It first devotes a page and a half to geology professor, Clarence Menninga. “Does Dr. Clarence Menninga use any method of biblical interpretation which excludes or calls into question either the event-character or the revelational meaning of biblical history, thus compromising the full authority of Scripture as the Word of God? (See Acts of Synod 1972, p. 69) Does he adhere to ‘. . . those utterances of the Confessions that affirm the historical factuality of the events recorded in Genesis 1–3’? (See Acts of Synod 1982, p. 107)” The report found that he testified to his personal Christian faith. Believing himself“called to serve the Lord as a geologist,” he “has spoken and written about . . . the earth as. being a possible age of several billion years simply because he has observed such geological evidence and he senses a responsibility to report what he observes.”He is careful to label his statements “as scientific theories, not statements of absolute truth,” subject to revision in future years, but now seeming to be the best explanations. Confessing to believe the Bible, he believes the re was a creation, perhaps extending over long periods of time, for the earth possibly 4 1/2 billion years. He affirms Adam was sinless when formed and (with Eve) fell into sin. Though formed of“ dust,” “maybe the dust is a figure of speech and maybe God formed Adam by enabling a more primitive mother to give birth to an offspring who possessed the image of God. The Virgin Mary gave brith to someone far more glorious than she. As a scientist, Menninga is not sure how Adam was formed.” In summary, the committee found these views “interpret the Scriptures in harmony with the Reformed Creeds and Synodical Guidelines” and supported “his endeavor to enrich the knowledge not only of his students, but also of the church at large.”
2. Howard Van Till
The committee began its report on Dr. Van Till by highly praising his personal Christian commitment and “the excellent Christian and scientific scholarship evident throughout” his writings in an area in which “there are very few books . . . from a Christian perspective.” It also noted certain “weaknesses” in his work, imprecision and lack of clarity, expressing “concern” about especially two points. (1) According to Van Till, Genesis 1–11 is an introduction to the covenant, “primeval history,” “intended to present” “the truth that God is God and creatures are creatures,” but “not intended to tell us . . . precisely how all things came into existence.” Its stories are “more like parables than like journalistic reports of events.” The details of the story he designates as mere “packaging.” The committee asks whether such an explanation doesn‘t endanger the “event character” of the account which the synod of 1972 said must not be questioned. Observing that the meaning of synod’s “phrase ‘event character’ isn’t as clear as could be wished either,” it urged Van Till “to refine his method of Biblical interpretation,” especially in dealing with Genesis 2–11, in order to comply with the synod’s warning.
The committee’s second concern was with Van Till’s view of human evolution. It found that his explanation “does not indicate how the unique creation of man as the image bearer of God can be compatible with an evolutionary development.” He was “encouraged” to clarify and complete his views on this matter so as not to disturb the church and assured of the committee’s confidence in him and that his expressed views are within the “acceptable range of Christian and Reformed scholarship.”
3. Davis Young
The committee concluded its report with a less-than-one-page comment on the views of geology professor, Davis Young, contenting itself with the general observation that the Bible deals with “redemptive history,” not material processes, regarding which we must learn from science. Though Professor Young believes that the Bible teaches us a miraculous origin of man, he wants to leave some openness on man’s biological origin. He wants a science that will serve evangelism and apologetics, which the committee commends.
A Contradictory Conclusion
What must one say of this report? One’s first observation about it is that it is remarkably cursory and casual for a year-long “investigation.” Its conclusions at the key point which it had to investigate are self-contradictory. The committee found that Van Till “does not indicate how the unique creation of man as the image bearer of God can be compatible with an evolutionary development.” At the same time it proceeded to judge that these views “are within the acceptable range of Christian and Reformed scholarship.” Its conclusion is admittedly not a declaration of satisfaction with the results of its investigation, but of its confidence in Dr. Van Till and the hope that he will remedy the deficiencies which it found and hold the trust of the church. (It seems to say, “He really flunked the test, but, because he’s a Christian, we pass him anyway!”)
A Derelict Board
What has happened is rather obvious. The criticisms aroused by Dr. Van Till’s book prompted the appointment of a year-long study committee. The appointment of the committee provoked a massive faculty reaction in which a majority voiced support ofVan Till, defending their “academic freedom” to teach whatever they please. Hence there were assurances that this committee was not intended in any way to threaten the position of the professors or their freedom to promote their views-and Van Till has been promoting them in many of our church and educational circles with evangelistic zeal. Now when at last the committee report appears, it takes the predictable form of a political “whitewash” of the professors, and the press reports of faculty and student celebration of their “victory’” appear to be amply warranted. The whole affair shows, perhaps more clearly than earlier examples, the CRC Boards have in recent years become the obsequious servants of the agencies they are supposed to manage.
“Interpreting” Away the Bible
In this case, since the issue concerned conflicts between plain Biblical teaching and scientific theories, the decision has clearly been that the demanded academic freedom to teach changing scientific theories takes precedence, and “interpretations” of the Bible will have to be found to accommodate them–in case any still care to try. Notable in the committee’s procedure is that its treatment of the matter is based, NOT ON THE BIBLE, but on the Synod decisions of the notorious “Report 44” with its carefully calculated ambiguities-to which the committee specifically refers as “not as clear as could be wished either!” The requirement that one only preserve “the event character of Biblical history” has become such a loose formula that as long as one believes, to use an expression attributed to a Dutch scholar, that “some kind of something” happened, he could claim that he was not violating it!* When we, as in this report, brush aside the Word of God, Pharisee-style, to debate instead only about the increasing ambiguities of our synod “traditions” we, as the Lord warned, make ourselves like them, “blind leaders of the blind.”
“But these are fine, well-intentioned Christian men.” That is the expressed consideration that moved committee and board to support the views of the professors which they even admit are less than satisfactory. That consideration may be true, but it is really irrelevant to the point at issue. Peter was obviously a Christian man who had just made a model confession of faith (Matt. 16:16f.). When he, though moved by love for the Lord, proceeded immediately to contradict the Lord’s prediction of his atonement, the Lord (undeterred by political considerations of what a shock this might cause to the fellowship or of the need to preserve a common front toward outsiders) publicly identified and warned against his utterance as the work of Satan! If we are going to follow Christ in our confession.of Him we will have to adopt the same uncompromising policy whenever faithfulness to the gospel is in question.
Joining the Anti-Christian “Mainstream”
Almost without exception, the history of higher education in the U.S. had been one of schools founded by churches to promote the Christian faith, as they grew, compromising away their Christian confession to become centers of unbelief. Christian churches and schools do not have to follow this general pattern of betraying the faith that they were established to promote. But there are no more frequent warnings to be found in the Bible than those against, like Peter, being trapped by the devil into denying what we are called to confess. The Lord can and will preserve the Christian faith and testimony, but He will only do it by way of our persistently praying, working and fighting for it. The Bible from its first to its last pages highlights the antithesis, the age-long battle between God and the devil. Today, as one of our professors recently observed, it has become the fashion in our school to reject that antithesis, that is to deny the existence of any such opposition. If that rejection means what it says, it means denying any real difference between true and false, right and wrong, God and the devil. When we deny that difference, we have made any further talk of “Christian education” meaningless.
Mythologizing the Creator
Without questioning anyone’s good intentions, we must recognize that our churches’ and schools’ faithfulness to the gospel is in question. The committee’s study of this issue really evaded consideration of a Biblically defined first essential of the Christian faith. The Bible says, “By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which are visible” (Heb. 11:3). The Christian scientists whose views are under criticism reject the alternative of that text, for they are trying to combine the confession that God created everything with an opposite “scientific” explanation of how all things evolved without any such outside interference.
The Bible’s revelation begins with God’s creation, and the New Testament proclamations of the gospel to pagans, educated or not, begin at exactly the same point (Acts 14:15; 17:24). Accordingly Christians through the centuries have begun their gospel confession with their faith in “God the Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth.” We cannot faithfully present that gospel if we reduce that creation to a mere “parable,” “imaginative” myth or fairytale and replace its revelation of our origins with the ever changing conflicting theories of today’s pagans whose only agreement seems to be on the one principle that no religious ideas may have any place in education!
Young’s Advice to Preachers
Dr. Davis Young, the investigated professor for whom the committee had nothing but praise, last September addressed the Calvin Seminary students. According to the transcript I received, he attacked particularly the idea of a universal flood and the dependability of the Genesis account: “It strains credulity to accept the idea that these narratives were transmitted verbally, and without corruption, for thousands of years until they were written down.” Van Till throughout his book claims that the evolutionary theory is so well supported by all evidence and so coherent and near complete that there can be no question about its truth. (Anyone who reads at all about the contradictory evidence and conflicting theories that today characterize especially the field of Astronomy soon sees the absurdity of such a claim.) Young, in contrast, admits that “scientists love to disagree with one another” and that “it is clear that evolutionary theory still lacks fully convincing mechanisms.”
Despite the lack and conflicts of evidence, he finds the scientists so generally agreed that evolution has to be assumed, that he warns the seminarians who would preach the gospel never tp criticize it lest they drive all educated people out of the church and “relegate Bible believers to the back eddies of the cultural and intellectual world.”
Battle with Baal
Despite the passage of centuries, Elijah once faced a situation that was really very like ours. He confronted 450 well subsidized professionals who were unanimous in their promotion of a naturalistic explanation of the universe and a way of pleasantly adjusting to it. Although it had slightly different mythical trimmings, that Baal worship had the same overwhelming popular appeal and devastating social effects that our evolutionary system does. Especially the young of the increasingly affluent immigrant communities found the more “progressive,” superior and easy-going, do-whatever-comes-naturally, culture of the neighboring Canaanite communities irresistible. Obviously a 450 to 1 majority of professionals couldn’t be wrong, and most people obviously believed them. But Elijah, unlike Calvin’s educators, could make no compromise. The choice was God or Baal. “How long will you falter between two opinions? If the LORD is God, follow Him; but if Baal, then follow him.” We can’t have it both ways. “No one can serve two masters.” With this landmark decision to compromise even the exclusive claim of our Creator God, although Calvin may continue and even grow, it is joining the multitude of other institutions in its coveted “mainstream” who have forfeited any legitimate claim to the name “Christian.”
Van Till in his re mark to the reporter was (perhaps in a slightly different sense than he intended) right. “How can professors at a Christian college reconcile evolution with creation?” “That is the unresolved question for faculty, administrators, and members of the Christian Reformed Church.”
*Despite the deficiency of that “guideline,” when the committee judges that Van Till does not “call into question the event character of Biblical history” but is only “unclear,” its judgment is obviously incorrect. Van Till in his book says of the creation stories “They were never intended to answer questions about precisely what happened” (p. 83) and that “Genesis 1 . . . is not a journalistic (literally, ‘daily’) chronicle of past events” (p. 270). Would it be possible to more plainly deny the “event character” of these accounts?
