What did Synod do with Report. 44? Many a delegate to Synod 1972 heard that question again and again. To begin with, the answer to that question is that almost a whole day of Synod’s time was given to debate on what was Report 36 in 1971 and became Report 44 in 1972, on The Nature and Extent of Biblical Authority. It was a spirited debate, an instructive one, and an orderly one. Many questions were raised and answered in the discussion.
With suspect to synod’s decisions on Report 44 it must be carefully observed that Synod did not “adopt” the report. The word “adopt” was used in and around Synod with some frequency, but it is inaccurate. The report does not have some sort of semi-creedal status because of its being adopted by the church. Instead it was decided to “submit this study report to our churches as providing guidelines for our understanding and further discussion of the nature and extent of biblical authority.” It is worthy of note that this decision (recommended by Synod’s advisory committee) differs at one or two significant points from the recommendation of the study committee, which was to “recommend the preceding study report to our churches for the purpose of giving direction in our communal discussions concerning the nature and extent of biblical authority.”
Seven points of pastoral advice
Synod did adopt “seven interrelated points” as pastoral advice on the matter of the nature and extent of biblical authority. Serving as a preamble to the seven points of pastoral advice is a confessional statement excerpted from Articles III–VII of the Belgic Confession. These seven points of pastoral advice with their confessional preamble are far superior both in content and language to the five points proposed in 1971. They arc deserving of the careful attention of the church in the slightly amended form in which they were adopted by synod. The seven points of pastoral advice are as follows:
1. Synod calls the churches to a wholehearted recognition that Scripture, which is the saving revelation of God in Jesus Christ, addresses us with full divine authority and that this authority applies to Scripture in its total extent and in all its parts.
2. Synod calls the churches to maintain the clear witness of the creeds to the authority of Scripture as inseparably hound up with the historical reality of the events recorded in Scripture.
3. Synod urges the churches to remember that while they confess that the authority of the biblical message is inseparably bound up with the historical reality of the events therein recorded, they recognize that these events are presented and interpreted in terms of their revelational meaning.
4. Synod, acknowledging that Scripture is self-authenticating, reminds the churches that the authority of Scripture is not dependent upon the findings of science. While scientific findings can serve as occasions for a better understanding of Scripture, nevertheless the church must appeal only to the authority of Scripture 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.
5. 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.
6. Synod reminds the churches of our brotherly obligation to respect such freedom of biblical interpretation as falls clearly within the bounds of our creedal forms of unity, while recognizing, of course, that in all things we arc bound by the Scriptures.
7. Synod reminds the churches that the authority of Scripture lays its comprehensive claim upon the total life of the church, so that biblical authority is not only to be believed and confessed as an article of faith, but also to be consistently applied and practiced in the life and ministry of the church.
Point “6” of the pastoral advice elicited considerable discussion on the f1oo.· of Synod, especially from elders of the churches in Canada. These brethren are only too conscious of the rubbery character of the language “freedom of biblical interpretation as falls clearly within the bounds of our creedal forms of unity” as that has been used in the Netherlands. The answer to the concern expressed by these brethren at this point was given in the observation that the seven points of pastoral advice are not to be taken separately. In the effort to give some relief to the concern, the word “interrelated” was inserted in the adoptive article on “the following seven interrelated points.”
44 Better Than 36
Just as the pastoral advice in the new report is far superior to that given in the earlier rendering, so the new report is much superior to that offered to Synod 1971. Those who in 1971 pressed for immediate action ought to be thankful that their counsel was not followed, for the report submitted this year was a great improvement in many ways. Listen to this plain language of Report 44: “What Scripture says, God says. Thus it must be affirmed that the nature of Scripture’s authority is divine. And because the entire Scripture is the inspired Word of God, it must be affirmed also that the extent of the authority of Scripture is pervasive; it is plenary and verbal just as it is plenary and verbal inspiration. The entire scripture—its whole extent, all its parts, its very words—is the inspired and authoritative Word of God.” (Agenda 1972, p. 372). Report 36 just didn’t say it as plainly as that.
A most commonly stated objection to Report 36 was that it was an “umbrella” type of document. That is to say, it was one in which a person committed to a sound view of the Scriptures could find himself very well, hut on the other hand views that were questionable could also find place under its cover. It seemed to this observer, for instance, that there was somehow room in the first report for the position that the historical character of persons or events was not a matter of major significance, but rather that what these persons or events stood for in the redemptive purpose and intent of Scripture was the important thing. This writer believes there is not room in the new report for that position.
There were those who felt that Report 36 was not explicit enough in rejecting errors that have appeared in the theological world, also in Reformed circles in the Netherlands. It will be recalled that an overture from one of the Canadian churches addressed itself very specifically to this concern, and Synod 1969 in its decision to appoint a committee to study the nature and extent of biblical authority felt that it was meeting the concern of the Fruitland consistory. The views of Professor Kuitert were featured in the Fruitland overture and h3ve received widespread attention elsewhere. One must agree with the judgment of the advisory committee of Synod 1972 that “Report 44, without mentioning names, emphatically rejects these errors.” Furthermore, one must hope and expect that Report 44 will find its greatest usefulness and render its best service .1S a worthy current statement of the true character of biblical authority. The confused state of biblical interpretation today can surely stand such a forthright statement, especially because of the statement’s clear witness to the real historical character of the events recorded in Scripture.
Report 44 stresses the point that the authority of Scripture is no merely formal authority. It has content. In other words, the fact of Scripture’s authority as rooting in God the author is not to be artificially separated from the message that is thus authoritatively given. “Thus saith the Lord” not only speaks in the authority of God, but also speaks a message that is authoritative. And that message is essentially and pervasively redemptive. The report speaks frequently of the Bible as the “history of redemption” and as “the saving revelation of God in Jesus Christ.” “Thus the only correct understanding of the tremendous variety contained within Scripture is that which interprets it in its relationship to Jesus Christ. He is its unifying theme” (Agenda 1972, p. 377).
This accent on the redemptive character of the Scriptures and thus of its authority figured prominently in the extended debate. It was asserted by several speakers that the answer to atomistic preaching and merely moralistic preaching lies in the understanding of Scripture as a redemptive book. Only when one has a grip on this main line of biblical teaching can he avoid preaching that cuts texts loose from their moorings in the broad redemptive contextual setting of the Scriptures (atomistic preaching). And when this redemptive character of biblical revelation is thoroughly grasped, preaching, especially on Old Testament texts, will be something more than neat moral lessons with a sheen of contemporaneity, and will he a proclamation of the redeeming Christ through whose saving work alone man’s moral-spiritual pilgrimage can have meaning and victory. “If you can’t preach Christ,” H. B. Kuiper was quoted as saying to his seminary students, “don’t preach at all.”
Some Questions Remaining
As one cannot refrain from expressing a good measure of gratification at the improvement of Report 44 over Report 36, one cannot at the same time refrain from stating that all questions are not necessarily resolved. One question raised on the floor of Synod surfaced again and again in the debate. The question is this: does Report 44 in the final analysis subordinate the authority of Scripture to hermeneutics? That is, does the authority of the Bible finally hinge on one’s interpretation of the Bible?
The report relates biblical authority very closely to the content and purpose of the Scriptures. And it sees that content and purpose as properly stated in these words: “the saving revelation of God in Jesus Christ.” This is an interpretative judgment, of course. It follows then, according to the report, that if one’s interpretation of Scripture at any point does not fit this judgment as to Scripture’s content and purpose, he is not truly recognizing the authority of Scripture. The report states plainly that “a description of biblical authority requires an understanding of the content and purpose of the divine message as well as the acknowledgment of the authority of the divine author of Scripture” (Agenda 1972, p. 372). The thrust of that statement can hardly he denied, but problems arc bound to arise when the point is pressed. Such problems must inevitably present themselves when the report says: “And when Christian interpreters, although confessing the full authority of Scripture and believing in Jesus Christ, derive from the Scriptures teachings which do not reflect the intended meaning of Scripture, then they are not submitting to the authentic authority of the Word of God. Also when passages or texts or phrases or words are isolated from their scriptural meaning and intent, they do not express the divine authority of Scripture” (Agenda 1972, p. 375). It would seem to this reporter, as also stated on the floor of synod, that such a position would require a perfect, that is divine, interpretation of Scripture in order to be able to affirm the “authentic authority” of Scripture.
Similar problems raise their heads when the report follows a very fine statement of the “divine, plenary authority” of Scripture with these qualifying words: “However, this faithful confession requires further e1ahoriltion. What it is that God specifically says in the authoritative Scripture can be grasped only by a faithful hearing and interpretation of Scripture itself. While the entire Scripture speaks with divine authority, this divine authority is understood concretely and specifically only when one takes account of what God said, how he spoke, to whom he spoke, etc.” (Agenda 1972, p. 372; also on p. 373. Italics by E. H.). A clear implication of those words would seem to be that we can affirm genuine biblical authority in any instance only when all conceivable hermeneutical (interpretative) concerns have been exhaustively researched and satisfied.
For illustration let us take the book of Job. From the above it seems clear that we cannot affirm the full authority of this part of the Bible until we have given convincing answers to questions like these: just who wrote the book, how were those long speeches committed to writing, what language was used, what were the cultural conditions under which the people mentioned in the book lived and under which the book was written, how do the contents of the book fit into the grand purpose of the Bible as “the saving revelation of God in Jesus Christ”? It seems inescapable that at these important points Report 44 is subordinating biblical authority to hermeneuties, although it was very clear from the debate on the floor of synod that the authors of the report had no such intention. A related question forces itself upon us in this connection, namely, what meaning can biblical authority have for the humble Bible-believer who knows next to nothing about hermeneutics? Is true biblical authority something which only the expert can meaningfully affirm? That could be the best way, not to affirm it, but to lose it.
Another question raised on the floor of Synod and relating to the connection between biblical authority and hermeneutics had to do with the report’s “distinction” (not “separation”) between an historical event and the report of that event as recorded in the Bible. Such a distinction would seem to be helpful and perhaps even necessary at ti mes in those background studies that are carried on in the science of biblical interpretation. But it is hard to see what bearing this distinction can have on biblical authority. It should be quite apparent that what is written in Scripture is authoritative; that is, what is reported in Scripture is authoritative, as the finality of “It is written” so plainly bears out.
The impression c;m hardly be avoided that Report 44, despite its greater excellence, still reveals the drift of thought that was set in motion by the loaded statement which occasioned the creation of the committee that authored 36/44. This statement, originally appearing in a letter from the Gereformeerde Kerken in the Netherlands to the Reformed Ecumenical Synod, spoke of and asked for study of “the connection between the content and purpose of Scripture as the saving revelation of God in Jesus Christ and the consequent and deducible authority of Scripture.” Report 44 has in it elements that can make for blessing in the church and in the theological arena. But it also has elements in it that may not make for blessing. Whether it will prove to be a “disaster” for the church as was predicted in the debate at Synod, remains to be seen.
A church fully committed to the Reformed faith must wonder about an expression that occurs several times in Report 44, in the pastoral advice adopted by Synod, and in the original statement referred to above that came from the Gereformeerde Kerken and the Reformed Ecumenical Synod. The reference is to the words “the saving revelation of God in Jesus Christ” in describing the content and purpose of the Scriptures. One almost hesitates to ask the rather obvious question whether Scripture is per se saving. The use of this expression almost as a cliche without reference to the gracious and sovereign worn of the Holy Spirit by which alone this revelation is indeed saving must be a source of puzzlement to the Reformed community.
Edward Heerema is pastor of the Christian Reformed Church of Bradenton, Florida.
With suspect to synod’s decisions on Report 44 it must be carefully observed that Synod did not “adopt” the report. The word “adopt” was used in and around Synod with some frequency, but it is inaccurate. The report does not have some sort of semi-creedal status because of its being adopted by the church. Instead it was decided to “submit this study report to our churches as providing guidelines for our understanding and further discussion of the nature and extent of biblical authority.” It is worthy of note that this decision (recommended by Synod’s advisory committee) differs at one or two significant points from the recommendation of the study committee, which was to “recommend the preceding study report to our churches for the purpose of giving direction in our communal discussions concerning the nature and extent of biblical authority.”
Seven points of pastoral advice
Synod did adopt “seven interrelated points” as pastoral advice on the matter of the nature and extent of biblical authority. Serving as a preamble to the seven points of pastoral advice is a confessional statement excerpted from Articles III–VII of the Belgic Confession. These seven points of pastoral advice with their confessional preamble are far superior both in content and language to the five points proposed in 1971. They arc deserving of the careful attention of the church in the slightly amended form in which they were adopted by synod. The seven points of pastoral advice are as follows:
1. Synod calls the churches to a wholehearted recognition that Scripture, which is the saving revelation of God in Jesus Christ, addresses us with full divine authority and that this authority applies to Scripture in its total extent and in all its parts.
2. Synod calls the churches to maintain the clear witness of the creeds to the authority of Scripture as inseparably hound up with the historical reality of the events recorded in Scripture.
3. Synod urges the churches to remember that while they confess that the authority of the biblical message is inseparably bound up with the historical reality of the events therein recorded, they recognize that these events are presented and interpreted in terms of their revelational meaning.
4. Synod, acknowledging that Scripture is self-authenticating, reminds the churches that the authority of Scripture is not dependent upon the findings of science. While scientific findings can serve as occasions for a better understanding of Scripture, nevertheless the church must appeal only to the authority of Scripture 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.
5. 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.
6. Synod reminds the churches of our brotherly obligation to respect such freedom of biblical interpretation as falls clearly within the bounds of our creedal forms of unity, while recognizing, of course, that in all things we arc bound by the Scriptures.
7. Synod reminds the churches that the authority of Scripture lays its comprehensive claim upon the total life of the church, so that biblical authority is not only to be believed and confessed as an article of faith, but also to be consistently applied and practiced in the life and ministry of the church.
Point “6” of the pastoral advice elicited considerable discussion on the f1oo.· of Synod, especially from elders of the churches in Canada. These brethren are only too conscious of the rubbery character of the language “freedom of biblical interpretation as falls clearly within the bounds of our creedal forms of unity” as that has been used in the Netherlands. The answer to the concern expressed by these brethren at this point was given in the observation that the seven points of pastoral advice are not to be taken separately. In the effort to give some relief to the concern, the word “interrelated” was inserted in the adoptive article on “the following seven interrelated points.”
44 Better Than 36
Just as the pastoral advice in the new report is far superior to that given in the earlier rendering, so the new report is much superior to that offered to Synod 1971. Those who in 1971 pressed for immediate action ought to be thankful that their counsel was not followed, for the report submitted this year was a great improvement in many ways. Listen to this plain language of Report 44: “What Scripture says, God says. Thus it must be affirmed that the nature of Scripture’s authority is divine. And because the entire Scripture is the inspired Word of God, it must be affirmed also that the extent of the authority of Scripture is pervasive; it is plenary and verbal just as it is plenary and verbal inspiration. The entire scripture—its whole extent, all its parts, its very words—is the inspired and authoritative Word of God.” (Agenda 1972, p. 372). Report 36 just didn’t say it as plainly as that.
A most commonly stated objection to Report 36 was that it was an “umbrella” type of document. That is to say, it was one in which a person committed to a sound view of the Scriptures could find himself very well, hut on the other hand views that were questionable could also find place under its cover. It seemed to this observer, for instance, that there was somehow room in the first report for the position that the historical character of persons or events was not a matter of major significance, but rather that what these persons or events stood for in the redemptive purpose and intent of Scripture was the important thing. This writer believes there is not room in the new report for that position.
There were those who felt that Report 36 was not explicit enough in rejecting errors that have appeared in the theological world, also in Reformed circles in the Netherlands. It will be recalled that an overture from one of the Canadian churches addressed itself very specifically to this concern, and Synod 1969 in its decision to appoint a committee to study the nature and extent of biblical authority felt that it was meeting the concern of the Fruitland consistory. The views of Professor Kuitert were featured in the Fruitland overture and h3ve received widespread attention elsewhere. One must agree with the judgment of the advisory committee of Synod 1972 that “Report 44, without mentioning names, emphatically rejects these errors.” Furthermore, one must hope and expect that Report 44 will find its greatest usefulness and render its best service .1S a worthy current statement of the true character of biblical authority. The confused state of biblical interpretation today can surely stand such a forthright statement, especially because of the statement’s clear witness to the real historical character of the events recorded in Scripture.
Report 44 stresses the point that the authority of Scripture is no merely formal authority. It has content. In other words, the fact of Scripture’s authority as rooting in God the author is not to be artificially separated from the message that is thus authoritatively given. “Thus saith the Lord” not only speaks in the authority of God, but also speaks a message that is authoritative. And that message is essentially and pervasively redemptive. The report speaks frequently of the Bible as the “history of redemption” and as “the saving revelation of God in Jesus Christ.” “Thus the only correct understanding of the tremendous variety contained within Scripture is that which interprets it in its relationship to Jesus Christ. He is its unifying theme” (Agenda 1972, p. 377).
This accent on the redemptive character of the Scriptures and thus of its authority figured prominently in the extended debate. It was asserted by several speakers that the answer to atomistic preaching and merely moralistic preaching lies in the understanding of Scripture as a redemptive book. Only when one has a grip on this main line of biblical teaching can he avoid preaching that cuts texts loose from their moorings in the broad redemptive contextual setting of the Scriptures (atomistic preaching). And when this redemptive character of biblical revelation is thoroughly grasped, preaching, especially on Old Testament texts, will be something more than neat moral lessons with a sheen of contemporaneity, and will he a proclamation of the redeeming Christ through whose saving work alone man’s moral-spiritual pilgrimage can have meaning and victory. “If you can’t preach Christ,” H. B. Kuiper was quoted as saying to his seminary students, “don’t preach at all.”
Some Questions Remaining
As one cannot refrain from expressing a good measure of gratification at the improvement of Report 44 over Report 36, one cannot at the same time refrain from stating that all questions are not necessarily resolved. One question raised on the floor of Synod surfaced again and again in the debate. The question is this: does Report 44 in the final analysis subordinate the authority of Scripture to hermeneutics? That is, does the authority of the Bible finally hinge on one’s interpretation of the Bible?
The report relates biblical authority very closely to the content and purpose of the Scriptures. And it sees that content and purpose as properly stated in these words: “the saving revelation of God in Jesus Christ.” This is an interpretative judgment, of course. It follows then, according to the report, that if one’s interpretation of Scripture at any point does not fit this judgment as to Scripture’s content and purpose, he is not truly recognizing the authority of Scripture. The report states plainly that “a description of biblical authority requires an understanding of the content and purpose of the divine message as well as the acknowledgment of the authority of the divine author of Scripture” (Agenda 1972, p. 372). The thrust of that statement can hardly he denied, but problems arc bound to arise when the point is pressed. Such problems must inevitably present themselves when the report says: “And when Christian interpreters, although confessing the full authority of Scripture and believing in Jesus Christ, derive from the Scriptures teachings which do not reflect the intended meaning of Scripture, then they are not submitting to the authentic authority of the Word of God. Also when passages or texts or phrases or words are isolated from their scriptural meaning and intent, they do not express the divine authority of Scripture” (Agenda 1972, p. 375). It would seem to this reporter, as also stated on the floor of synod, that such a position would require a perfect, that is divine, interpretation of Scripture in order to be able to affirm the “authentic authority” of Scripture.
Similar problems raise their heads when the report follows a very fine statement of the “divine, plenary authority” of Scripture with these qualifying words: “However, this faithful confession requires further e1ahoriltion. What it is that God specifically says in the authoritative Scripture can be grasped only by a faithful hearing and interpretation of Scripture itself. While the entire Scripture speaks with divine authority, this divine authority is understood concretely and specifically only when one takes account of what God said, how he spoke, to whom he spoke, etc.” (Agenda 1972, p. 372; also on p. 373. Italics by E. H.). A clear implication of those words would seem to be that we can affirm genuine biblical authority in any instance only when all conceivable hermeneutical (interpretative) concerns have been exhaustively researched and satisfied.
For illustration let us take the book of Job. From the above it seems clear that we cannot affirm the full authority of this part of the Bible until we have given convincing answers to questions like these: just who wrote the book, how were those long speeches committed to writing, what language was used, what were the cultural conditions under which the people mentioned in the book lived and under which the book was written, how do the contents of the book fit into the grand purpose of the Bible as “the saving revelation of God in Jesus Christ”? It seems inescapable that at these important points Report 44 is subordinating biblical authority to hermeneuties, although it was very clear from the debate on the floor of synod that the authors of the report had no such intention. A related question forces itself upon us in this connection, namely, what meaning can biblical authority have for the humble Bible-believer who knows next to nothing about hermeneutics? Is true biblical authority something which only the expert can meaningfully affirm? That could be the best way, not to affirm it, but to lose it.
Another question raised on the floor of Synod and relating to the connection between biblical authority and hermeneutics had to do with the report’s “distinction” (not “separation”) between an historical event and the report of that event as recorded in the Bible. Such a distinction would seem to be helpful and perhaps even necessary at ti mes in those background studies that are carried on in the science of biblical interpretation. But it is hard to see what bearing this distinction can have on biblical authority. It should be quite apparent that what is written in Scripture is authoritative; that is, what is reported in Scripture is authoritative, as the finality of “It is written” so plainly bears out.
The impression c;m hardly be avoided that Report 44, despite its greater excellence, still reveals the drift of thought that was set in motion by the loaded statement which occasioned the creation of the committee that authored 36/44. This statement, originally appearing in a letter from the Gereformeerde Kerken in the Netherlands to the Reformed Ecumenical Synod, spoke of and asked for study of “the connection between the content and purpose of Scripture as the saving revelation of God in Jesus Christ and the consequent and deducible authority of Scripture.” Report 44 has in it elements that can make for blessing in the church and in the theological arena. But it also has elements in it that may not make for blessing. Whether it will prove to be a “disaster” for the church as was predicted in the debate at Synod, remains to be seen.
A church fully committed to the Reformed faith must wonder about an expression that occurs several times in Report 44, in the pastoral advice adopted by Synod, and in the original statement referred to above that came from the Gereformeerde Kerken and the Reformed Ecumenical Synod. The reference is to the words “the saving revelation of God in Jesus Christ” in describing the content and purpose of the Scriptures. One almost hesitates to ask the rather obvious question whether Scripture is per se saving. The use of this expression almost as a cliche without reference to the gracious and sovereign worn of the Holy Spirit by which alone this revelation is indeed saving must be a source of puzzlement to the Reformed community.
Edward Heerema is pastor of the Christian Reformed Church of Bradenton, Florida.