WOMEN IN THE PULPIT
Dear Rev. De Jong
The back page of your February issue contains a small news item concerning pulpit supply policies at Calvin Theological Seminary. It indicates that Calvin Seminary solicited requests for female students to exhort in non-Christian Reformed Churches which wished to use their services.
This notice did appear one time in a local ecumenical organization’s newsletter. I deeply regret its appearance, and I sincerely apologize on behalf of Calvin Seminary to those who were in any way distreSSed by reading this invitation.
When this announcement was brought to my attention, I immediately instructed our Director of Field Education to withdraw it. This was done forthwith. Furthermore, I indicate that it is solely the seminary president’s responsibility to approve student preaching assignments outside the Christian Reformed Church. I will exercise this responsibility in a manner consistent with the denomination’s present position, which does not permit women to preach or to exhort. Finally, I observe that no women students at Calvin Seminary either requested or were granted permission to exhort in response to requests generated by the ad in question.
I pledge to you and to your readers that the ecclesiastical policies regarding licensure, which are entrusted to the seminary’s administration, will not be used in a way that contradicts or subverts the policy of the Christian Reformed Church and its synods.
Thank you for your cheerful readiness to clarify this matter for your readers.
Sincerely,
James A. De long
President
Calvin Theological Seminary
TO CONCERNED CHURCH MEMBERS
I Have a Deep Concern.
I have a deep concern for the church which I love. That church is the Christian Reformed Church of which I am a member and in which I am ordained as a Minister of the Word. That concern began in 1970 when I closed out a profitable building business in Kalamazoo, in order to enter Calvin College and the Seminary.
At that time I began to see more clearly some developments in our denomination, which I felt were moving the church away from cardinal truths that have been dear to me over the years.
Upon my graduation I was privileged to serve a church that was deeply concerned about doctrinal purity. It was a church in which many members encouraged me to remain true to the historic creeds and confessions of our denomination, and never to be ashamed of what we have historically held as a clear interpretation of the Word of God. To this day I am thankful for that positive beginning, and with God’s help I have been able to continue in that way.
And yet, I have a deep concern. The truths that have ·been so dear to me, as well as to many others, are being distorted. We may not be able to point to one specific area and say, “That is the time when things started to go wrong,” but it should be very clear to us that things have gone wrong.
Many reports have come out of our Synods that have said some beautiful things, but at the same time took positions that revealed a new kind of thinking, a new way of interpreting Scripture which can make the Bible say just about anything one wants it to say. Finally we come to the point where we will have to say, “it is enough.” There is a point where “a straw can break the camel’s back.”
It is my conviction that we are very close to that breaking point. This summer our Synod is supposed to make the final decision concerning women in ecclesiastical office. Judged by what I read in the Banner, it appears that the committee is overwhelmingly in favor of ratifying changes of the church order to allow women to serve as deacons in our churches.
Likely the Synod again will deal very “pastorally” with the churches. We will be told, “If you are ready for it, now you can go ahead; if not, you don’t have to.” This is just a form of congregationalism . It is an attempt to make the umbrella as large as possible so that any and every kind of doctrine will fit under it.
I have a deep concern that if this decision is made by the Synod, a number of people and preachers may bid farewell to the Christian Reformed Church. Likely those individuals will be the ones who share my concern for the purity of the church and faithfulness to the Reformed Confessions. They will say. “It’s enough; we can’t take it any longer.”
Where will these people go? Will they join other Reformed Churches? Will there be a number of independent churches developing? Or will they out of desperation and frustration just give up?
I think the time is at band for concerned church leaders to have a meeting of the minds so that necessary plans may be made to deal with some of the situations that may arise out of the decision of Synod. Those who are in positions of leadership can then advise our people to present a united front against those who would destroy our denomination, and be able to advise them what action should be taken.
I have a deep concern for the Christian Reformed Church. I hope that it will not be necessary to resort to drastic measures, but I also realize that drastic measures may be our only alternative.
May God help us!
Rev. Fred Gunnink
1300 S. Harvey Street
Berwyn, IL 60402
(312) 788–1213
THE STEK CASE
The Executive Committee of the Calvin Board of Trustees, in response to Rev. Neal Hegeman’s article in the January Outlook, has requested that we publish its November 14, 1983 letter to him.
Dear Rev. Hegeman:
Thank you for your letter of September 28, 1983. We appreciate your compliment that the Board has done a lot of work concerning the matter you raised with Professor Stek. You have been kept informed as to the manner in which the Board has dealt with this.
There is, however, something that saddens us. You write about, “what change Professor Stek had had,” and you desire to know “what the conclusions are to which Professor Stek has come.” The Board has tried to make clear that Professor Stek did not come to conclusions regarding the concern which you have raised, but that in his scholarly research he came upon certain questions. The Board, and later Calvin Seminary, appointed committees to help Professor Stek struggle with these questions. The Board has concluded that the questions raised by Professor Stek are appropriate for a Biblical scholar and for scientific research. ShouldProfessor Stek come to or teach positions threatening doctrinal or confessional integrity we assure you that the Board will deal with that forthwith.
We assure you that Professor Stek and all the Calvin College and Seminary professors of theology are, insofar as we can humanly determine, heart and soul committed to the Reformed faith as articulated in our three forms of unity.
We assure you that we expect them to promote and to defend that faith.
We assure you that we expect faculty. concurrence with the various synodical decisions which speak to the issue you have raised: e.g. infallibility (1961), the nature and extent of Biblical authority (1972), and the historicity of the early chapters of Genesis (1981).
We trust, Rev. Hegeman, that we have been able to allay yourfear that Professor Stek has come to conclusions contrary to the doctrinal and confessional stance ofour denomination. We have taken your concerns seriously and covet your prayers, trust, and enthusiastic support for Calvin College and Seminary.
Sincerely yours in Christ,
Wilbert M. Van Dyk, Secretary
Board of Trustees
Calvin College and Seminary
Offered an opportunity to reply, Rev. N. Hegeman asks that we publish his earlier letter to the board and his Feb. 7, 1984 letter to the Outlook.
September 28, 1983
To the members of the Calvin Seminary Board of Trustees,
I write to you as the student (now minister) who presented the original complaint about Prof. Stek‘s conclusions about the historicity ofAdam. In that letter I wrote: “As a student I ask the board to deal with Prof. Stek’s conclusions about the historicity of Adam. As a church member I ask that the board urge Prof. Stek to publish his conclusions so that the Church whom he serves will know where he and the Church stands on these matters.” Although the board has done a lot of work on this matter, the work is not done until the church has opportunity to see the conclusions and know where Stek stands.
The board of Feb. 1981, decided: “By motion the board advises Prof. Stek, in his teaching office, to correlate the findings of his research and the event character of Genesis 1–11 with a view of doing full justice to the church’s confessional view.” As the original questioner, I still don’t know what change of mind Stek has had or how he has correlated his findings.
Has a change taken place since the day John Stek told me he didn’t have to believe in the historical Adam? From Rev. J. Hoyterna’s article in The Banner where he states: “The members of the Calvin Seminary faculty without exception believe that Adam and Eve were created by God and are our first parents . . . . the Board of Trustees is assured that our faculty is in full agreement with the confessions of our church and we have the utmost confidence in our faculty,” implies that there had been a change of mind on Stek’s part. How? What does he believe now? I praise the Lord for Dr. Hoekema’s and Dr. Woudstra’s clear testimony to what they believe in The Banner and The Outlook. Such clarity, rather than secrecy and academic protectionism, creates a healthy theological atmosphere.
Jerry Hoytema stated that those dissatisfied with the board’s decision should use the proper ecclesiastical channels. Well, they have all been used. The appeals and overtures were real concerns and the concern as to what Stek believes has not been dealt with, even though Synod officially let the Board off the hook. At this point there is no higher authority other than the Lord, the head of the church. We leave the matter in his hand and we live with the results of incomplete work by the board and unrest in the church as expressed by the overtures. Would it be by God’s grace that you would fmish what needs to be done, that is, have Stek publish clearly and directly what he believes about the historicity of Genesis 1–11. In other words, don’t have the church live with such unclear communications.
I wish to thank Rev. John Hofman for keeping me informed as to the major decisions made and to John Kromminga for his thoughtful advice and communications. And finally, I still hope and pray that Prof. Stek will clearly come to accept the historical givens of Genesis 1–11 and not be ashamed to teach and proclaim them with enthusiasm.
Yours in His service,
Rev. Neal Hegeman
Dear Editor of Outlook,
It has come to my attention that the Board of Trustees wants to “clear the air” on the Stek case. In order to do that they recommend publishing the letter they wrote to me on November 14, 1983. I will comply with that with the understanding that my September 28, 1983 letter be published as well as this one. The purpose would be to “publicly clear the air.” To do that I suggest the following.
Since 1980 I have been asking the Board of Trustees to have Old Testament Professor John Stek clearly state his belief about the historical Adam. The request arose out ofclassroom experiences and personal interviews with Professor Stek. During an interview he clearly stated that he didn’t have to believe in the historical Adam as was traditionally believed. His answer (not question), as a professor of Old Testament studies was sufficiently heretical to me to ask for an investigation and clarification . The Board of Trustees carried out an investigation and during the Feb. 2–4, 1981 meeting, Professor Stek was advised to correlate his findings with the historical event character of Genesis 1–11, as well as with the confessions of the Church. That was a reasonable request. However, in 1982 Jerry Hoytema’s letter in The Banner (March 29) seemed to clear Stek and the Board of not only the Libolt matter, but of the Stek matter as well . Libolt, of course, was not accepted by the Synod as a minister in the Christian Reformed Church, and, his views then and in later developments considered, rightfully so! The (Banner) report about Stek’s affirmations in the 1983 Acts of Synod confirmed the suspicion that Professor Stek had not correlated his findings, but behind some fancy theological wording and academic smokescreens, was not affirming Adam as the first historical person. He affirms, “Genesis 1 and 2 speaks of history . . . of the God–man relationship from creation to the call of Abram” (p. 522). Adam as a Person, the first man, through whom sin came into the world, is not affirmed . That is serious in the light of Romans 5:12–19. Now, if Professor Stek does indeed believe that God created out of dust this first man, whom we know as Adam, let him publicly say so. If not, he should not be an Old Testament teacher in the Christian Reformed Church. Teachers in the Church are called not only to “not contradict the confessions” but to positively confess and teach the doctrines of the creeds. We must hear this “positive confession” in a clear and honest way. Rather than giving this, Stek has been “raising questions.”
The Board of Trustees seems to consider that Stek’s questionings are within the limits of his office, the confessions and the Bible. If the Synod did not consider this so with Libolt, how can they be so “assured” with Professor Stek? Perhaps the two cases are not identical, but similar important issues are at stake.
Stek’s answer 4 years ago has become “questionings.” Is that the spirit of Genesis 1–3, Romans 5 and the three forms of unity? Are we a confessing church or a questioning church, always searching but never finding? As a missionary I belong to the Christian Reformed Confessional Church, a church known for its theological honesty, clarity and witness to the truth. The questioning church is not the church I represent on the mission field—rather they soon become a mission field, as is seen in the history of other Reformed churches. If have questions that in the silence and depths of my conscience I know are not what the Bible and the confessions say, then I must present what is today known as a “gravamen.”
I find it strange that the professor who helped teach me to carefully listen to what Scripture says, without preconceived biases, now cannot say what Scripture says.
Again, I pray that my concerns are outdated, that Professor Stek has come to a change of mind and will clearly teach and confess what Scripture clearly says. May his questions find their answers in the Word. Then the air will be cleared.
In His service,
Rev. Neal Hegeman
Dominican Republic
Feb. 7, 1984