The Ad Hoc Committee report which was presented to the Board of Trustees of Calvin College and Seminary in February, 1988, has resulted in a strong and forceful reaction. Most of the responses from my point of view have been negative. I believe that a sufficient period of time has elapsed to put some thoughts on paper which would serve as my reflections on the action of the Board.

The committee report was not the same as a synodical report. This committee was an “ad hoc” committee, which simply means that it was appointed by the Board of Trustees of Calvin College to serve the Board with advice relative to the issue at hand. As such, it is not like a synodical committee which serves synod and thus the entire denomination. The report of this committee has not, for example, been printed in the Agenda for Synod. At the same time, however, since Calvin College is the college of the Christian Reformed Church, the committee and its report should be open to the entire denomination for its perusal and criticism. This is as it should be.

As the chairman of the committee, I wish to say right at the outset that our committee was comprised of men who were honest and open to the Word of God and the confessions of the church. There was a harmonious relationship that existed among the five members of the committee. Our task was given by the Board of Trustees with a clear mandate: “To study and evaluate the published statements of Professors Howard Van Till, Clarence Menninga, and Davis Young on the subject of creation and evolution, including their interpretation of Genesis 1–11 and to determine whether these statements are in accord with the synodically adopted guidelines for the interpretation of Scripture and with the doctrinal statements of the Christian Reformed Church; and to submit formulated recommendations which may serve as answers to the various communications received by the Board.”

The Guidelines

What are the “synodically adopted guidelines for the interpretation of Scripture?” We determined that these guidelines are found in the so-called Report 44 which was adopted by Synod in 1972. The pertinent guidelines which apply especially to the matter at band are these:

d. Synod, acknowledging that Scripture is self-authenticating, reminds the churches that the authority ofScripture is not dependent upon the findings of science. While scientific findings can serve as occasions for a better understanding ofScripture, nevertheless the church must appeal only to the authority ofScripture as the basis for its faith and life, and accordingly must seek to develop a Christian community within which all scholarly work is carried on in faithfulness to the authoritative Scriptures.

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 ofScripture 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 (Acts of Synod 1972, p. 69).

The guideline which we as a committee felt was applicable to this point at hand was also the statement of Synod 1982,

That Synod declare that adherences to the confessions, as required by the Form of Subscription, includes those utterances of the confession that affirm the historical factuality of the events recorded in Genesis 1–3, and that departures from those doctrines must be dealt with in terms of the requirements of that form (Acts of Synod 1982, p. 107). In the light of these guidelines,

together with the doctrinal statements of the Christian Reformed Church, how are these three professors to be judged? Are they in accord with the positions stated in the guidelines and confessions?

The Committee’s Conclusions

Our committee met with each of the three professors many times during this past year. We interviewed them regarding the published statements which as far as Van Till and Young were concerned, were found in their books, and as far as Menninga was concerned, was found in many articles in various periodicals. These interviews were very helpful. What began to emerge from these contacts was that we were dealing with men who are devout Christians. We found them to be in no way out to destroy the church, or to destroy the faith of the students under them.

Our committee verified that all three professors wholeheartedly agree with the following confessional statements and consider it their privilege and calling to teach their respective sciences in harmony with them:

Belgic Confession Article II. We know Him by two means: First, by the creation, preservation and government ofthe universe; which is before our eyes as a most elegant book, wherein all creatures, great and small, are as so many characters leading us to see clearly the invisible things of God, even his everlasting power and divinity, as the apostle Paul says (Rom. 1:20). All which things are sufficient to convince men and leave them without excuse. Second, he makes himself more clearly and fully known to us by his holy and divine Word, that is to say, as far as is necessary for us to know in this life, to his glory and our salvation.

Belgic Confession Article XII. We believe that the Father by the Word, that is, by His Son, has created of nothing the heaven, the earth, and all creatures, when it seemed good unto him, giving unto every creature its being, shape, form, and several offices to serve its Creator; that he also still upholds and governs them by his eternal providence and infinite power for the service of mankind, to the end that man may serve his God.

Belgic Confession Article XIV. We believe that God created man out of the dust of the earth, and made and formed him after his own image and likeness, good, righteous and holy, capable in all things to will agreeably to the will of God. But being in honor, he understood it not, neither knew his excellency, but willfully subjected himself to sin and consequently to death and the curse, giving ear to the words of the devil.

Whereas the professors wholeheartedly agree with the statements quoted above from the Belgic Confession, we found that especially Professor Howard Van Till did not fully subscribe to the guidelines adopted by synod. His view of Genesis 1–11 as primeval history, for example, falls short of what Synod 1972 prescribes regarding the matter of the event character of biblical history. In the book The Fourth Day, Van Till says,

The truth of a concrete story in ancient Hebrew literature does not necessarily lie in its specific details but rather in the eternal verities it illustrates . . . . The stories of primeval history are much more like parables than like journalistic reports of events . . . . Primeval history and parable can both serve as vehicles of truth-important truth. In both cases, the concrete details of the story constitute the packaging in which the truth is conveyed. In both cases, the content of truth is of infinitely greater value than the vehicle or packaging in which it is carried . . . . Unlike parables, primeval history does refer to an historical past with a character essentially the same as that illustrated by the narrative . . . . Though it (primeval history) is not to be taken literally, it is to be taken seriously (p. 83).

Van Till is open to criticism precisely on the point that Synod 1972 clearly prescribes. Synod warned “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” (Acts ofSynod 1972, p. 69). When Van Till says that these opening chapters of Genesis “are not to be taken literally,” though they are to be taken seriously, he is using a method of interpretation which calls into question the event character of these chapters. The report of the ad hoc committee called the attention of the Board of Trustees to this fact. The committee states,

Our concern, then, with Van Till’s genre of primeval history is that this method ofBiblical interpretation could lead to conclusions which would call into question the event character of the history in these early chapters. It has not led him to unacceptable conclusions in regard to the stellar creation, but we urge him to refine his method ofBiblical interpretation so that if it is applied particularly to chapters 2–11 of Genesis, it will not exclude or call 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.

The Board’s Actions

The mandate of the Board of Trustees also instructed the committee to come with recommendations which might serve as answers to the various communications received by the Board. The Board adopted the following recommendations presented by the committee:

1. The Board of Trustees receives the report with gratitude and recommends that it refer this report to Professors Clarence Menninga, Howard Van Till, and Davis Young for their study and guidance. 2. That the Board of Trustees declare, based on the study, evaluation, and collegial discussion between the committee and the three faculty members, that the writings of Professors Menninga, Van Till, and Young fall within the limits set by the synodically adopted guidelines for the interpretation of Scripture, and at the same time, the Board reminds the professors of the limitations that these guidelines place upon the interpretation of Scripture. 3. That the Board of Trustees commend these three Professors for their deep personal devotion to Christ and their diligence in subjecting their scholarship to His service.

4. That the Board of Trustees accept this report as its “recommendations which may serve as answers to the various communications received by the Board.”

As I look back at these decisions and recommendations, I believe a better recommendation would have been to state that especially Van Till’s position regarding primeval history is not in line with the synodically adopted guidelines for the interpretation of the opening chapters of Genesis and that he be instructed to bring his position more clearly in line with the synodical guidelines. On the one hand, the report is critical of Van Till’s position on the basis of synod’s guidelines, and on the other hand, the Board states that his position falls within the guidelines. It simply does not follow. I believe therefore that it would have been better for the committee and the Board to say that Van Till is not in line with the guidelines. For this is indeed what the report of the committee says.

In conclusion I would like to quote from an article that I wrote in the July/August, 1987 issue of The Outlook which shows my own position regarding all these matters.

Hebrews 11:3 says, “By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command SO THAT WHAT IS SEEN WAS NOT MADE OUT OF WHAT WAS VISIBLE.” This statement says that what God created, He created out of nothing. What is seen was not made out of what was visible. The theory of evolution teaches that everything came from pre-existent forms. Following the “Big Bang” everything evolved from what was already visible. Eventually, all evolved from pre-existent material until after billions of years, biological life evolved, and then millions of years later, human life. This evolutionary theory is absolutely and diametrically opposed to what the Bible says . . . . This text puts it as clearly as can be. Ours is either a belief that God formed the universe by His command, or it is the belief that what we see came about from what is visible.

This is still my position today.

   

Henry Vanden Heuvel is the Pastor ofBethel Christian Reformed Church, Zeeland, MI.