THE FOURTH DAY

Dear Editor:

I am writing this letter to say a loud “AMEN!” to two articles in the February issue.

The first is a review of Howard J. Van Till’s The Fourth Day by Lester De Koster. When I attended Calvin College I took an astronomy course with Dr. Van Till. I many times objected to his teaching of evolution, but he thought that I was rather silly and simplistic. Not only his book. but his entire course “is an exercise in short-changing the Bible.”

I might add that the Biology and Geology courses at Calvin are no Jess evolutionistic than the astronomy courses. In one Biology course for example we were taught that the peppered moths in England were clear evidence for evolution. When I objected that it was only evidence of what happens within a species when the environment changes, the teacher accused me of being afraid of evolution. The science professors at Calvin are very scholarly. When someone objects to their clearly unbiblical teaching he is generally not answered with good scholarship but with name-calling, with psychological categorizing.

I, as a graduate of Calvin College. have for years been wondering with Lester De Koster what claim the Board of Trustees has left on the trust of its constituency.

The second article is “Misusing Matthew 18” by J. Tuininga. I believe that this misuse has become a big obstacle to proper discipline in the CRC.

As a student, l wrote a short article in which I criticized the doctrinal teaching of a book written by a CRC minister, published by Eerdmans and for sale in bookstores. In other words, it was a very public matter. Yet, I was questioned by some members of the Board of Trustees of Calvin College and Seminary as to whether I had first talked to that particular minister in line with Matthew 18.

At another time, I and two other students brought charges against a Calvin College professor to President Diekeina. These were very well documented charges of this professor’s public teaching in many classes over the course of a year. He very clearly taught that belief in an inerrant Bible was unscholarly. We were asked if we had followed the procedures outlined by Christ in Matthew 18 in objecting to this professor’s public sin against the church that had entrusted him with teaching her young people. Of course, because we didn’t follow this procedure, we were given the run-around and eventually nothing was done.

This confusion is truly unbelievable. As a matter of fact, I don’t believe it is confusion at all. I believe people in “powerful” positions are purposely misusing Matthew 18 in order to protect their colleagues and friends. As Tuininga says, “Public sins call for a public rebuke and a public apology.” Again I say “AMEN!”

Yours in Christ

Wayne Leigh

(Christian Reformed Japan Mission, Tokyo, Japan)