In recent years a number of issues have come up in the CRC which have generated division of opinion in the church. Quite consistently, the conservatives have stated that, what is at stake in these issues is not just the issue itself, but the whole doctrine of Scripture. It has been implied and even stated many times in this periodical that we have in the CRC a “new hermeneutic,” (a new way of interpreting the Scriptures) and this “new hermeneutic” is really the offender which is producing the controversies in the church.

I thought it would be appropriate at this point in time to take a little closer look at this invader. This offender has been with us a long time, showing its head already in the synods of the late 1950‘s and coming more clearly out of its corner in Reports 36 and 44 on the Nature and Extent of Biblical Authority, in the adjudication of the Verhey case and, most recently, in the Libolt case at the Synod of 1981.

I do not intend to dig deeply into reports and cases and present a detailed theological dissertation on this invader called the “new hermeneutic.” I intend simply to make a few observations about it in general and present a brief demonstration of the success it has achieved in our denomination.

Observations

First, the “new hermeneutic” calls itself “new.” The point has been made in recent years, in synodical discussions by leaders in our denomination, that, although this method of interpretation as it applies to specific issues, may be “new” to the CRC, it is nonetheless “progressive,” “refreshing,” and “within the bounds of the confessions.” The fact is that this hermeneutic is not “new.” It was basically present in the massive movement called “Liberalism” which has destroyed thousands of churches at home and abroad. The “new” hermeneutic is foreign, that is, it does not belong in the community of the Reformed faith and, contrary to what some have said, the framers of the confessions would have rejected it as heresy and so should we.

The second observation I would like to make is that this invader is a “hermeneutic,” that is, it is a method of interpreting the Bible. Its vulnerability as a method shows up particularly when it is applied to passages of the Bible which have always been accepted by the Reformed churches as historical. In approaching the historical of Scripture, the “new hermeneutic” uses two techniques to bring meaning to or subtract meaning from a given historical passage.

   

Techniques

The first technique the “new hermeneutic” uses is to drive a wedge between the event (events) of the given passage and the description of the event(s). So, for example, a proponent of the new hermeneutic may believe in the event of a fall, but he may reject the description of the event: a literal garden, a serpent, a conversation between a snake and a woman, a forbidden tree.

Starting with Genesis 1–11, many proponents of this hermeneutic have marched right on through the Old Testament, into the New Testament gospels and on to the resurrection. All the while, they maintain stiffly that they are “Reformed” and “within the confession.” Not all proponents of the new hermeneutic go this far, of course, but once a person has adopted the new hermeneutic in principle, how does he decide where to stop?

The second technique used in the new hermeneutic is to insist that “the Bible is infallible as to what it intends to teach.” Now most Christians would be willing to accept that statement, but like the proverbial insurance policy, what the statement gives in the big print, it takes away in the small print. The only difference is that all too often, the proponents of the new hermeneutic make this apparently innocent statement about infallibility, but they do not put into print what they mean by “infallibility.”

What the proponents of the new hermeneutic mean when they say “the Bible is infallible as to what it intends to teach” is that, for example, the Bible intends to teach that once creation was perfect and then something came in to spoil it. That truth is infallible. In order to get that truth across to the Hebrew people, God used some graphic language, some word–pictures (which may have been borrowed from neighboring cultures) to create a setting for a fall from perfection, but that setting is not necessarily true.

Demonstration

Now look at the position of Dr. Allen Verhey as stated in the Acts of Synod, 1979, p. 645. Here Verhey’s position is set forth by the committee which had to deal with him: Dr. Andrew Bandstra, professor at Calvin Seminary, Rev. Tymen Hofman, pastor of the Neland Ave. CRC, Dr. Carl Kromminga, professor at Calvin Seniinary and Dr. William Spoelhof, form er president of Calvin College:

“Dr. Verhey contends that ‘the Bible stakes its case on history’ but that the Scriptures do not record or intend to record history with ‘minute circumstantial accuracy.’ Rather, the Scriptures, in reporting events, ‘intend to shape the faith and life of the communities they address by their recital of the history.’ . . . Dr. Verhey contends that the Scriptures do not record history in order to provide us with an account exact in every historical detail, but in order to proclaim God’s Word and will by way of such accounts. Thus the historical account of the fall of Adam and Eve may be described in terms of a serpent tempter, not with the intention of identifying the tempter as a snake, but in order to warn Israel against repeating Adam’s fall and rebellion by worshiping the nature deities of her pagan neighbors, deities often represented by serpents in the pagan rituals.”(italics mine. L.V.H.)

About the gospels Verhey says: “Again, the words of Jesus recorded in the gospels are not always and necessarily word-for-word transcripts of what Jesus said, but accounts shaped by the fact that the gospel writers are addressing the teaching of Jesus to new historical situations.’”

About the resurrection, Verhey says: “In connection with the reference to an earthquake in Matthew 28:2, Dr. Verhey insists that one may legitimately advance the hypothesis that Matthew intends to speak symbolically here, . . . Dr. Verhey argues that the raising of the possibility of the use of symbolic language here ought to be allowed.”

The committee which dealt with Dr. Verhey took a very defensive attitude toward him. (Acts, 1979, p. 647)

“We conclude that:

1. Dr. Verhey works responsibly with the six steps of interpretation he has outlined; 2. he does not charge the biblical authors with falsifying or even being ‘honestly mistaken’ about historical circumstances; (He doesn’t? L. V.H.)

3. His view does not call into question the historical reality of man‘s fall and the fact that mankind is under a curse because of Adam‘s fall, nor does it question Jesus’ authority to make binding moral declarations . . .” (Here the committee is satisfied that Verhey maintains the event character of the fall the curse and basic truth of Jesus’ declarations even though the details may not be accurate. –L.V.H.)

The committee acknowledges that Verhey’s method of interpretation is foreign to Reformed circles: (Acts, 1979, p. 648)

“Moreover it is freely granted that his views are plainly out of harmony with the interpretations of the passages in question traditionally held in our circles. But we do affirm that his interpretations do not contradict the teachings of our creeds.

Do you see how Verhey has driven a wedge between event and the description of event and has been exonerated by those in strategic positions for doing it?

One of the grounds the committee has used for justifying Dr. Verhey is Report 44: (Acts, 1979, p. 648)

“the results of his interpretations of the biblical passages in question (from Genesis 3, Matthew 19 and Matthew 28) do not demonstrate disagreement on his part with the doctrinal pronouncements in t he Forms of Unity of the Christian Reformed Church nor with the pastoral advice of Report 44 of the Synod of 1972 of the CRC and are therefore allowable interpretations;”

Report 44 has been lauded by many in the CRC as a conservative report. How can it cover Dr. Verhey? Listen to the A cts of Synod, 1972, p. 495, where the authors of Report 44 (A. Bandstra, D. Holwerda,

F. Klooster, J. Vos, M. Woudstra, G. Spykman) “maintain the clear witness of Scripture and the creeds to the historical reality of t he events recorded in Genesis 1–11, yet without imposing upon the church an official binding interpretation of all the details which enter into the composition of this unique segment of biblical revelation.” That is the “big umbrella” that covers Dr. Verhey and all who share or will share his views in the future.

Furthermore, Report 44 presents a very foreign method of harmonizing the gospels.

“. . . the gospels are not to be viewed as necessarily and always presenting verbatim accounts of the words spoken or speeches given” (p. 518).

The committee justifies its method by saying:

“Crucial to this approach is the distinction that is made between t he actual events in Jesus’ life and the reporting of the events in the gospels” (p. 519).

Notice again—the wedge being driven between the event and the reporting of the event. What does all of this do to the doctrine of verbal inspiration by the Holy Spirit? Are we not really saying that in Genesis the Holy Spirit did not record history with “minute circumstantial accuracy” and in the gospels, the Holy Spirit appears to be giving verbatim accounts of words spoken and speeches given by the disciples of Jesus, but in reality they are not verbatim accounts?

The committee claims that its method of interpretation is within the creeds and confessions:

“It is our opinion that this approach—so long as it functions within the framework of the gospels—is permissible within our confession concerning the authority and reliability (infallibility) of Scripture.” (p. 520)

In dealing with Report 44, the Synod of 1972 adopted seven points of pastoral advice. Point “e” (p. 69) is the one that spells out the boundaries of Biblical interpretation in the CRC:

“e. Synod instructs the churches to see to it that biblical studies are carried on in a careful and disciplined way, submissively rethinking the thoughts of Scripture itself; and accordingly warns against the use of 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.”

Notice that all Synod is requiring of Biblical interpreters (ministers, professors, teachers) is that they maintain the “event character” and “revelational meaning” of biblical history. There is nothing stated about the descriptions or reporting of these events. Thus the door is left wide open for the rejection of these details.

Is this a conservative report? As my children would put it—“No way!”

It is not hard to see why Report 44 covered Dr. Verhey. He does not reject t he event of the fall and resurrection. He just calls into serious question, the descriptive details.* If all the CRC is going to demand of its leaders is a commitment to the events of Scripture, leaving all the details open for grabs, we are bound for disaster and certainly we are already experiencing it.

Synod of 1981 discovered this when, to the surprise of many delegates, a candidate, Clayton Libolt, appeared who maintained the events of the fall and resurrection but rejected many of the details of the descriptions of these events. Still more surprising was the fact that candidate Libolt was endorsed by Calvin Seminary faculty, with only one faculty member dissenting. Shocking too was the fact that Calvin board of Trustees, knowing where Libolt stood, endorsed him 42 to 7. We are thankful that the Synod conducted a special interview with him and denied him candidacy by a substantial majority. One cannot help wondering how many leaders holding similar views have slipped through the channels and now occupy strategic positions in our denomination—shaping the minds of people—young and old.

Conclusion

The time has come when consistories and school boards should no longer assume that applicants for positions hold to the inerrancy of Scripture. It is necessary for consistories and school boards to be more specific in their questioning. It is not enough that an applicant affirm the “infallibility” of Scripture because infallibility has come to mean an assent only to the event character and revelational meaning of Scripture. Ask the applicant to affirm the inerrancy of Scripture. “Inerrancy” requires a belief that all the details which describe the events are accurate without error. The word “inerrancy” makes the “new hermeneutic” person very uncomfortable. And, although this suggestion does not sound very sophisticated, schools and churches should ask the same questions that Rev. Peter Brouwer asked candidate Libolt at Synod 1981. Do you believe there was a tree in the garden, and a literal serpent talking to Eve? These are the questions which reveal where an applicant really stands on the doctrine of Scripture. Many of us would wish that the teachers of our children on college and seminary level would be asked to answer these too.

This is plain talk but that is what we must have today. The new hermeneutic is destroying the confessional integrity of the CRC and until it is rooted out, there will be no peace or unity in the church.

*Editor’s Note: We ought to notice that it is a mistake to say (as was also alleged to the synodJ that Dr. Verhey applies his critical method only to certain “details” of Biblical history. He stated (Acts 1979 p. 656)

Incidentally, I do not “except” the resurrection from this kind of investigation, Indeed, if this kind of investigation demonstrated that Jesus had not been raised, I would become a Jew. The gospels stake their case on history, after alL But such investigation, while it cannot “prove” God took Jesus from the dead, clearly demonstrates it is not historically unreasonable to accept such a claim.

While this does not deny the resurrection it does make, not only incidental details, but the event itself historically debatable.

Mrs. Vanden Heuvel writer of this article and editor of this department, lives at 207 Kansas, N. W., Orange City, Iowa 51041.