BIBLICAL CRITICISM AT CALVIN

Dear Editor:

Lately, quite a bit of attention in The Outlook has been given to what is being taught at Calvin College. Since I have recently taken a course there that dealt with the women-in-church office issue that disturbed me somewhat, and was representative of the other religion and theology classes I have taken there, I think that it is important to summarize what occurred in the class. First, the issue of women-in-church–office was riot supposed to be studied as an end in itself. but rather as a means of looking at various principles of Biblical interpretation and hermeneutics.

The professor began by stating his belief that the Bible is the infallible Word of God; the problem, he said, was determining what the Bible meant to the people to whom it was written and then determining how it is to be applied to us today. So several methods of interpretation were considered in regard to a specific Bible passage (the story of Balaam). Though I largely agreed with what was said in this part of the course, several emphases especially bothered me. First, there was a great deal of criticism of “doctrine” as a hindrance to the proper interpretation of God’s Word (“we are not to use verses in this story as proofs for our doctrines, such as God‘s unchangeableness.”) Second, little time was spent in studying the higher critical and neo-orthodox methods of interpretation since these were not considered to be problems our church would be likely to face. However, the use of scholarship employed by these methods to determine the cultural background to a text was emphasized as a very positive feature. So the “best method” for interpreting Scripture requires a thorough knowledge of the latest scholarly findings about the cultural background of the text. When this method of interpretation is used in light of what is known and conjectured about the culture of Paul’s day, then the passages that deal with the proper behavior of men and women in the church and home come to be seen as merely a response to specific problems in the churches of Ephesus and Corinth arising

out of heathen practices prevalent in those cities. Hence, our views towards the position of men and women in the church and home should be formed from the principles of total “equality” in Christ, mutual submission and the broadest possible use of all members’ gifts, rather than on the Ephesians, Corinthians, I Timothy, and I Peter passages. To many in the class this argument was very convincing. But, sad to say, the professor tried to avoid looking at the consequences of this method of hermeneutics when it is applied to other questions facing the church. For this method of hermeneutics has also been used to condemn our church’s stand on homosexuality (See “Voices” in the 219/81 Banner). And I cannot see how a person using this method of interpretation could argue against another person who used this method to defend the practice of divorce, or fornication, or to argue that parents really have no authority over their children. After all, all of the verses on these subjects (and many others) were written out of a specific cultural context and one could certainly find specific problems in which these verses may have been written. The limits on just how far we are to go with this hermeutics and what subjects are “off limits” were not discussed. (So apparently it depends on the ideas of the interpreter.)

Another thing that I did not like about the class was that of all three of the outside speakers planned for the class were strong supporters of the movement to put women in church office, and it took a request to the professor to get in a speaker who represented the other point of view. Furthermore, the two books used by the class that dealt with issue were also in favor of women–in-church-office. All–in-all, I found the presentation of the entire course was rather biased and one-sided. Some of the arguments presented by conservatives were not adequately dealt with either. Nor was any distinction drawn between what the Bible means by equality and the modern concept of “equality” which was born out of the French Revolution. In addition, the professor made it clear that he believed authority (of husbands, say) and equality (with mutual submission) were completely incompatible, and that one must choose between the two. Similarly, “head-ship” was characterized as not implying any authority whatsoever (even in the case of Christ and His church); rather, it was declared to imply only mutual dependence, a position of service to others.

Another argument put forth for the “liberation” of women in church and home is that much of the rest of the “Christian community” is doing it. To insist on a narrow interpretation of the Scripture in light of the fact that many large Baptist, Lutheran, and Presbyterian denominations in the U.S., and some of the large Reformed denominations abroad have found that Scripture does not teach the “exclusion” of women from church office. I was especially disturbed by the fact that no consideration was given to the spiritual condition of many of these churches, nor was any recognition made of the fact that many have repudiated vital doctrines and spirituality.

The problem with all this is that many in the class apparently believed everything that was said. This has also characterized some of my other religion courses at Calvin. And, I must say, that I have found a fundamental difference between what I have been taught in theology at Calvin, and what I learned in catechism, and at home, and hear from the pulpit on Sundays. My question is, if many of the “new ideas” currently being taught at Calvin become widely accepted in our church, and are more fully developed in the years to come, what will our church have left in 50 years?

Sincerely, Dave Van Dyke Hudsonville, MI

WHICH TRANSLATION? (January OUTLOOK)

Dear Rev. DeJong:

Your article on Bible translations in the January issue of The Outlook has been brought to my attention. Since Dr. Edwin Palmer is no longer with us, I feel constrained to respond.

You wrote: “Translations are authoritative only in the measure that they are faithful to the original.” But faithfulness is a double-edged sword, for true faithfulness in translation means being faithful not only to the original language but also to the “target” or “receptor” language. That is precisely what we attempted to produce in the NIV—just the right balance between accuracy and the best contemporary idiom. I personally classify all other translations as either accurate but not contemporary enough or contemporary but not accurate enough. In the NIV our objective was to cut between these two types of versions and produce one with reasonable balance and so make a unique contribution to the field of standard English versions of the Bible. Hopefully, we have succeeded.

You maintained that the NIV “tends to be considerably freer than others in departing from the word and sentence structure of the original texts.” There is a reason for this, though I would change “considerably freer” to “slightly freer.” Because thought patterns and syntax differ from one language to another, faithful communication of the meaning of the Biblical writers often requires changes in sentence structure and appropriate regard for the contextual nuances of words.

You noted that Dr. Bastiaan Van Elderen “objected to the synod approving the NIV for church use because it was less a word for word translation than the RSV was. The reason for its free translation he saw was its acceptance of what is called the principle of ‘dynamic equivalence.’” You also indicated that “one must question whether a version employing the principle of dynamic equivalence can be used liturgically in the church.” You concluded that “despite the orthodox dedication of the translators the influence of the modern dynamic equivalence theory . . . prevented them from achieving the definitive English version . . . for which we hoped.” First, it always surprises me when conservatives quote approvingly any scholar’s tacit endorsement of the RSV—particularly in the Old Testament, where the RSV freely emends the Masoretic (or traditional Hebrew) Text. Second, I am certain that all the other translators and editors of the NIV would join me in categorically denying that we accepted the principle of dynamic equivalence. Classifying translations according to type is a difficult task, but here is my attempt: 1) literal: KJV, ASV, NASB, RSV (?); 2) dynamic equivalence: NEB, TEV; 3) mediating or idiomatic (between the two previous categories): NIV; 4) paraphrase: LB; and 5) amplification: Amplified Bible.

Finally, you referred to Van Bruggen’s correct contention that “reliable translation demands (1) faithfulness to form, (2) clarity, (3) completeness, (4) loyalty to the text, (5) spirituality, (6) authoritativeness and (7) ecclesiastical usage.” Allowing for the fact that “loyalty to the text” must be balanced with “clarity” in English, Van Bruggen has, in my opinion, perfectly described the NIV!

You have my permission to publish this reply, and I would greatly appreciate it if, in fairness, you would publish it.

May our Lord bless you abundantly and use your ministry for His own glory.

Cordially yours, in Christ, Kenneth L. Barker General Editor, NIV Study Bible Executive Secretary, NIV Committee on Bible Translation New York International Bible Society 144 Tices Lane East Brunswick, NJ 08816

Editor’s Reply

I appreciate and gladly place this response of Dr. Barker who has replaced our friend, Edwin H. Palmer, as General Editor of the NIV Study Bible.

I am well aware of the faults and particularly the liberal bias of the Revised Standard Version of the Bible. In fact, it was a recognition of those RSV faults that prompted the 1956 overture from the First Christian Reformed Church of Seattle of which I was the pastor to the CR Synod to begin working for a better modern, translation by evangelical/scholars. Dr. Palmer repeatedly pointed out that it was this initiative which in the Lord’s Providence eventually produced the New International Version.

Naturally, we who had a role in this beginning watched the development with more than average interest. When it appeared although I was happy with its smoothness and easy readability, I was uneasy about the freedom of its translation. The book of Dr. Van Bruggen (as well as the criticism of Dr. Van Elderen) connects this free translation with the prevailing influence of the modern “dynamic equivalence” theory of translation. That this version, although to a lesser degree than others, sometimes chooses for easy reading rather than literal accuracy is especially obvious when one looks at its translation of the letters of Paul and notices the tendency to cut Paul’s sometimes long and complicated sentences into shorter ones. Van Bruggen observes (The Future of the Bible, pp. 100, 101) that when Paul wrote very long sentences “he bad a reason. In such sentences are described the riches of the Christian faith.” “These long sentences, though difficult, contain many nuances of meaning that could be expressed in no other way. Therefore the translator must strive to reproduce them as closely as possible. When such sentences are split up into short sentences, some of the meaning is lost.” One may say that in shortening Paul’s sentences he is only translating Greek into modern English, but this is incorrect. One can write short sentences in Greek as well as in English. In shortening Paul’s long sentences to make easier and more pleasing reading one is really no longer translating but interpreting.

I do not want to exaggerate this point but believe that we have to consider it in trying to evaluate translations. I appreciate the carefulness of the NIV, make extensive use of it and encourage others to do the same. Others responded to this article by sending pamphlets some of which argue that the King James Version is the only proper English translation. This could be a subject for future writings or reactions.

PDJ

The legacy of Lennon (April OUTLOOK)

Dear Pastor DeJong,

I want to personally thank you for putting the article in on John Lennon. He really was painted with the wrong colors after his death. The article was superb.

Daniel K. Tennant Bainbridge, N.Y.

The Legacy o f Lennon (April OUTLOOK)

Dear Outlook Magazine,

In regard to the John Lennon article, I would like to say the following. Where is your compassion? Everything in this article points out his weaknesses, his faults and his failures. Didn’t Jesus come to heal the sick, not the healthy? Or is it so hard for us to touch anything that isn’t clean? Shouldn’t we be praying for these kinds of people, not telling them they’re sinners, and then condemning them?

I do not want to make him out to he a saint. At the same time, I do not want to judge him, for if you want to throw out Bible verses like dice, remember 1 Cor. 5:12: “For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge?” In the same chapter we are told we can’t withdraw from all immoral men because then we would have to withdraw from the world. Somewhere along the way we have to learn to touch that which we consider unpleasant, whether we touch a dying patient in a hospital, or a bloodied auto victim along the roadside, a hack man. or a hill-billy.

We Christians can be very hard on each other. You say John Lennon gave out universal hate; how often haven’t we bickered among ourselves over minor issues—the sermon was too long, or the songs too modern, or sideburns, or the cleanliness of communion cups—at the expense of the gospel. Until we learn to love each other, the world will not be impressed.

John Lennon was a news maker—a celebrity—one who makes the news simply by having eggs for breakfast. His death was a loss, because he was a human being, as are your black neighbors who were killed in Atlanta. Secondly, he was a creative person. He did have talent, and really creative people have always had a hard time fitting into society which does have a tendency to mold and mass–produce ideas. Even classical musicians have their quirks. It’s not just rock stars. People have extra marital affairs—Mozart as well, but would you condemn Mozart too?

As for his famous Jesus quote from 1966, when was Jesus popular—is that our goal to make Jesus “in?” If you read the gospels, you will find he had many followers when it came to free food and miracles, but where were they at his crucifixion?

I do not approve of everything he did, but at the same time I wanted him to grow as a person, which you apparently did not. Many of the quotes given were out-dated –things he did say, but later changed his mind. Consider this: You said he beat his wife, but you didn’t quote from his song Getting Better: “Man I was mean, but I’m changing my scene . . . its getting better all the time.” Or this quote from a Newsweek interview late 1980: . . . Sean will be five and I wanted to give five solid years of being there all the time. I hadn’t seen my first son, Julian, grow up . . . I was on tour. There’s a price to pay for inattention to children . . . .”

It doesn’t seem to me that a person setting forth universal hate would give benefit concerts for muscular dystrophy; it doesn‘t seem to me that a person setting forth universal hate would take 1,000 fruit baskets and fill each one with $30 worth of fruit and give them to old folks’ homes for Thanksgiving, nor would one give $1,000 to the NYPD. Or didn’t you read about these?

I was very disappointed in your article. Why did it get included or written so far after his death? Why not just wait a year?

John Lennon is dead. And all you can do is throw stones.

Don Vander Haar 1918 Menominee Rd., S.E. Grand Rapids, MI 49506

Reply:

Don, I do not know exactly from where you are coming because I do not know you. I may be missing your point, but I would like to respond to your comments. I wish we could sit down and talk together rather than discuss this on these pages.

I do not think that the issue is compassion for Lennon or others. I agree with you that we are often very hard on people both in the church and outside the church. Neither is the issue whether or not Lennon did some good things in his life. Everyone does this regardless of his degree of depravity. The issue, as I see it, is that for which Lennon stood, what he taught and lived, his value system. Lennon, through his public life on the stage and song writing, set forth, in the main, a wrong system of values as judged in the light of the Bible. The sad thing about that is that millions of people were influenced by this. Not only did Lennon do this, but many people in music and theatre have done this and are still doing this today.

The point I was trying to make was that Jesus gives us the right set of values, and these are values that sharply contradict what Len.non and others set forth. People should make Jesus their Lord and not Lennon. To defend Lennon‘s emphasis is like defending Las Vegas. We have the example of Jesus pointing out the bad leaven of the Pharisees, Paul warning about the corrupting influence of people, and John telling us to test the spirits. We as Christians today must be critical and stand in judgment about things that are ungodly in our world.

Maybe Lennon was converted later in life as you seem to suggest. If that is so, we can only rejoice about this. But whatI have heard and read does not seem to suggest that.

I hope this helps to clarify my approach.

Norman B. Haan Waupun., Wisconsin

That “Last Year at Calvin Seminary”

At my examination by classis in Grand Rapids, 1923, Dr. Henry Meeter asked me “where did you get that idea?” The response was: “That should not make any difference.” This was not challenged by Dr. Meeter or by the chairman. There was recognition of freedom in the acquisition of theological knowledge—doctrine.

Such is not the case in the requirement that a candidate for the ministry in the Christian Reformed denomination must have taken his last year of training at Calvin seminary. This requirement should be cancelled. Why?

1. The requirement violates freedom in the acquisition or theological knowledge sound doctrine. 2. It implies that Calvin Seminary is the custodian of the truth—sound doctrine (of sound teachers also?) and that training at another Reformed school is not acceptable as wholly reliable. 3. It is unrealistic. Will one year of study at Calvin Seminary make or break a student’s theological convictions? 4. It is self–centered. It questions other Reformed theological training, and amounts to narrow denominationalism. Is only our Christian Reformed training wholly reliable.

5. It amounts to a sort of church discipline where it does not belong. The acid test of a sound theological position is not where one is trained, but the passing of the examination by classes before ordination.

In short: More freedom in theological training would prevent “rebellious” experimentation at the expense ofa sound ministry in our churches and loyalty to our denomination (in which there is considerable dissatisfaction with some of its management in these things).

Paul De Koekkoek Seattle, Washington

The Christian Reformed Church has a rule since 1924 (Acts of Synod, 1921,, p. 38) that students having studied theology at other seminaries shall at least take the senior year at our seminary before they shall be declared eligible for call in our churches. Paul De Koekkoek, retired C. R. minister living at Seattle, Washington, calls attention to some objections to this rule. (Reportedly the issue will arise at the June synod.)

– Editor