The Reformed Ecumenical Synod which met in Potchefstroom, South Africa, in 1958 adopted certain resolutions pertaining to “Creation and Evolution.” It is not my purpose to discuss those resolutions as such. However, in one of them the Synod admonished the Church to adhere to its divinely assigned task, “to preach the Word of God,” and not to meddle “with scientific matters.” The rendering of the resolution, found on page 158 of the Acts, is, I think, an awkward translation of the Dutch original. It reads, “Generally, because it has to preach the Word of God, which is not a scientific treatise and which should not be bound to any particular exegetical exposition, the Church should observe the utmost discretion in making all kinds of pronouncements in connection with scientific matters.”

Lines of demarcation and of separation are drawn in this resolution and the Church (including, of course, its teachers or ministers) is told to stay within its own territory and not to enter that of another.

                     

At first blush a resolution such as this may appeal. It is definite and tells the Church politely to attend to its own business and it allows practically full sway to natural scientists. If each remains in his own field of endeavor there is no occasion for conflict, and it appears to be as simple as that.

However, aside from the fact that this smacks of scholasticism, life and the various interests of life are not constituted as simple as that. Though it be granted that the Bible is, technically speaking, not a “scientific treatise,” yet it has not been given by God in a vacuum. It has been revealed to man as he exists in the midst of nature—the general revelation of God. The Bible itself speaks of the God of nature and of nature, and no one can preach the Word of God without speaking of nature. The sweeping statement of the Synod of Potchefstroom certainly needs elucidation and, I think, correction. The resolution does not give evidence that the Synod has grappled with the problem involved. One wonders whether the Synod has taken its mandate seriously enough.

But, in addition, if it be true that the church must not trespass territories which properly belong to other fields of study and, therefore, to other specialists, such as natural scientists, it seems to me that these scientists should not seek to dictate to the Church either. The rule works both wars. The Potchefstroom Synod was evidently jealous of the special interests of natural scientists, but it appears repeatedly that these scholars are not slow to enter the field of the Church and of theology.

In this brief article I am mentioning only two instances. Dr. J. Lever certainly discusses theological and, to be more specific, hermeneutical questions (i.e., such as pertain to the interpretation of Scripture) in his book Creatie en Evolutie, and especially in the first chapter, which he entitles “Bijbel en Werkelijkheid” (Bible and Reality). In this book he differs with acknowledged and reputable theologians, such as Dr. G. C. Aalders.

However, Lever is by no means the only non-theologian entering upon theological territory. At the famous Synod of Assen, the Netherlands, which disposed of the case of Dr. J. G. Geelkerken. who made the orthodox interpretation of Genesis 3 disputable, a certain Dr. J. P. de Gaay Fortman, a non-theologian, I think, and as many as 167 cosigners proposed that a committee be appointed consisting of scholars in various fields, which committee was to study the problem of the proper view or conception of Holy Writ. Among these co-signers were 11 jurists, 15 medical doctors, 44 instructors in secondary schools, and 60 principals and teachers in primary schools (See Acts p. 119). According to this proposal, a “mixed” committee was, there-fore, to tackle a purely theological Or ecclesiastical problem. True, the Synod of Assen did not yield to this request, but at this time I am interested in the attempt and in the intent. Non-theologians desire to grapple with theological problems. Other incidents of this nature could be cited, but these two should suffice.

Now I must state emphatically that I do not object to the interest which non-theologians have in theological problems. To the contrary I gratefully and eagerly listen to their opinions. Indeed, I value such interest highly and consider it normal for Christian scholars, no matter what their specialty may be, to discuss such matters. But my objection is that whereas non-theologians do seek to enter the field of theology, they in turn often, if not regularly, resent the interest which the church and theologians display in non-theological fields.

Of course, all branches of science have sections so highly technical that it requires special training to move about in those parts. Natural science has such sections, but theology likewise. I am thinking in this connection not only of the knowledge of the original languages of the Bible, but also of the intricacies and deviations of the long history of various dogmas. Now though it be true that scholars must respect each other’s special knowledge, yet the sciences are integrated. There is a vast realm in which scholars in various fields should be able to compare notes and to discuss matters. Besides, at the bottom of every problem, no matter in which field, one is bound to discover theology, so that all basic problems become theological in character. For that reason it is wrong and unscholarly to hold that the theory of evolution, for instance, is purely a matter to be decided by natural scientists. The Synod of Potchefstroom occupied a very one-sided and unrealistic position. Its resolution, quoted above, cannot pass muster.