Judging by his comments in a recent issue, The Banner editor appears not to know the reasons behind the proposed establishment of an alternate seminary. Though I’m not directly involved in this venture, I am nevertheless sympathetic to it, and I’d like to tell Kuyvenhoven the reasons for my sympathy.

Kuyvenhoven’s editorial colleague, the Rev. Haverkamp, mentions a few things in De Wachter of June 9: Prof. Hugen‘s farcical use of the Scriptures in defending the candidacy of Marchienne Rienstra, and Prof. De Ridder’s advice to the effect that those churches who had installed women could continue to do so even after synod had declared a moratorium on this practice. To this could be added the participation of Pres. Kromminga in the laying on of hands in the ordination service of Mrs. Rienstra in a denomination other than our own. One doesn’t have to wonder why most of the candidates today are in favor of women in ecclesiastical office. It’s not necessary to teach this overtly: actions speak louder than words.

Then there is the Verhey matter, and the sympathy of some Seminary professors for his views. And now at the recently held synod Pres. Kromminga and Prof. Stek openly defended the candidacy of Clayton Libolt, even though the latter held views on Genesis which clearly contradicted our creeds. And this not on minor matters, but on very fundamental matters of the faith. One would expect, and has a right to expect, that the entire faculty of Calvin Seminary would protest t he candidacy of someone who holds such views, but as it is only one Professor protested, while two others openly defended the man. Every church member has a right to ask what is going on here. And though “de kerkelijke weg” (the ecclesiastical way of protest) is always open, it sometimes leads to a dead-end, witness the fact that the Board of Trustees decided to recommend this candidate by a vote of 42 to 7, if I am correctly informed. If that is not a rubber-stamp mentality then I wonder what is.

I could also mention the presence of a great deal of poor preaching in the churches, and the concern of many church members and consistories about this. Many consistories are very hesitant and careful about calling ministers. Surely that says something about the minister’s training. Then there is the presence of a great deal of sickening compromise within the church, so that we hesitate to speak clearly about anything; witness the myriad study reports of .the last number of years. Along with this there is too much speculative theology at work in the seminary and in the church as a whole, which wreaks havoc with the church in the name of scholarship, and starves God’s people from hearing the rich and nourishing Word of God. Here De Koster is right: we learn to understand the Scriptures only in the way of obedience, not by placing ourselves over them. The seminary professors should approach the Scriptures far more in a childlike attitude of reverence and obedience, saying with Samuel: “Speak, Lord, for your servant hears,” rather than approaching the Bible as a book containing a host of “problems” which we are going to try to solve. In this connection I remember with devotion and delight the devout and humble scholar of the Lord, the late Prof. John Murray of Westminster Seminary. A professor with such an attitude toward the Scriptures, such absolute trust in God’s Word, produces students with similar qualities. And that is what we sorely need today: ministers who bow unconditionally before the sovereign Word of the living God. If Calvin Seminary is not producing such men, perhaps another seminary can. That’s what I’m hoping for. And that’s what the church too is hoping for, and needs.

Jelle Tuininga is the pastor of the First Christian Reformed Church of Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada.