In 1972, the Synod of the Christian Reformed Church adopted Report 44 on The Nature and Extent of Biblical Authority.

“Facts bear out the position,” according to this article, “that whether one believes in the creation account as literal or symbolic, both views can operate comfortably under the canopy of Report 44. This is confusion of alarming proportions . . . .” The writer, Rev. Ring Star of Jenison, Michigan, is a retired Christian Reformed Church minister.

In a series of articles in The Banner, not yet forgotten by the interested reader, the Rev. Clarence Boomsma deliberated on the subject of what is happening to the Christian Reformed Church. He mentioned four distinct movements: militant orthodoxy; cautious liberalization or progressivism; modern-day pietism; and neo-Kuyperianism. The brother is undoubtedly correct when he sees in all this a situation which cannot but “threaten the unity, growth and future” of our denomination.

Expressions of Concern – But recently other voices have been heard which to the honest conviction of this writer touched upon a matter much more serious than what Rev. Boomsma delineated. In The Banner of November 7, 1975, in an editorial column, the Rev. Leonard Verduin stated in no uncertain terms that Report 44 is considerably lacking in clarity. (In an article in The Banner before this the brother had characterized the Report as a composition of confused theology.) The Banner editor evidently shares Verduin‘s thinking, considering the editorial space he allotted to his writing.

Furthermore, in THE OUTLOOK of November, 1975, the Rev. Leonard Greenway said the following: “Belatedly I am coming to see Report 44 as a dangerous framework within which liberties can be taken with the Bible which formerly were not tolerated by us . . . . As of now, my fear is that if we don‘t watch out we are going to have a split in the Christian Reformed Church, and the split will be occasioned by current trends in the discussions of Biblical authority.”

In Rev. Boomsma’s articles we are confronted with several different trends of theological thinking within the Church. The picture undoubtedly is well-drawn and is disturbing enough. But it leaves us with no more than “trends or movements” within the Christian Reformed Church which come short of dealing with the organic structure of the denomination itself.

Report 44 of Basic Significance – How different it is with Report 44! Its contents do not portray just another movement alongside of several others, but this is a product arising out of the very heart of the Church. The Christian Reformed Church as a denominational body is doing the thinking here. And what adds to the importance of the document many times over is that its subject matter is concerned with that which is basic to the very life of the Church; namely, the authority of God’s infallible Word.

Which means that in all her spiritual concerns the Christian Reformed Church must feel herself bound by the inherent principles contained in Report 44. This applies to consistories, classes, and Synods, not to omit Calvin College and Seminary. Or for that matter any organization operating within the body of the church. And last but not least the individual member stands bound by the principles of the Report also.

Thus Report 44 was born. It is therefore most disappointing to hear from reliable sources where, to the writer‘s humble opinion, there is deep concern for the well–being of our Church, that Report 44, far from fulfilling the purpose for which it was called into existence, befogs the issue and is confusing in its contents. To this thought the undersigned asks permission to add a few words of his own especially pertaining to that part of Report 44 which deals with the first chapters of Genesis.

Reports 36, 44 and Genesis 1–11 – When the nature and extent of Biblical authority was under study and Synod found the first draft of that study known as Report 36 unsatisfactory, the document was handed back to the committee for further study; and made available to the entire denomination for reactions from which the committee could benefit.

One thing that displeased Synod was the disposition Report 36 had made of the first eleven chapters of Genesis. The report presented two views: one, that these chapters by and large should be taken symbolically; while the other considers them a literal presentation of facts with some figurative exceptions. Both views were presented as being permissible Scripturally and Confessionally. Then due to persuasive response from the denomination, and further reflection, the committee revised its stand on Genesis 1–11 to read that this is to be taken literally with a few definitely pointed out figurative exceptions.

Report 44 makes an important statement bearing on the material here: “Any one who claims that other details [beyond the symbolic references pointed out, R.S.] involved in the biblical description of these great events (Genesis 1–11) are figurative expressions, will have to present his position by means of careful exegesis and sound biblical exposition. No one may make such claims simply because he thinks that modern science has made it impossible to understand Scripture in the traditional Reformed way.” This view is of prime importance to the Church since it was only then incorporated into Report 44 after a long, laborious, and intensive study committee-wise, denomination–wise, and Synod-wise.

Dr. C. Menninga’s Article in Voices – In the January 14, 1972 issue of The Banner under “Voices” Professor Clarence Menninga, Professor of Geology, Calvin College, wrote in no uncertain terms that the first chapter of Genesis cannot be taken literally, but on the basis of geological findings the creation account must be understood as a symbolism of historical facts. This is in sharp contrast with the literal view of Report 44. This contrast is intensified when it becomes apparent that of all the figurative expressions pointed out in the first eleven chapters of Genesis not one of them is found in Genesis 1. So with respect to the creation account here is the contrast: a complete literality on the one hand (Report 44), and a full symbolism on the other (Professor Menninga). And let it not be forgotten that any and all instruction given at Calvin has a denomination-wide impact.

Carrying forward the reference to Professor Menninga, we point out that the brother does not stand alone in his view on Genesis 1. He is under the supervision of the faculty of which he is a member and of the Church he represents. Consequently the Professor when he interprets Genesis 1 as he does shelters comfortably under the sanction of both Calvin College and the Christian Reformed denomination. This writer has no quarrel with this situation. On the other hand he feels himself obligated to be in full accord with it. He wants to believe in the integrity of Professor Menninga that in his view on Genesis 1, which he necessarily must weave into his instruction, he believes he is not in no conflict with Report 44. He also wants to believe that the supervision, whether College or Church, under which the Professor stands, in all earnestness, accepts his position on Genesis 1 as entirely permissible under the same Report.

A Confusing Canopy – The conclusion is self. evident. Facts bear out the position that whether one believes in the creation account as literal or symbolic, both views can operate comfortably under the canopy of Report 44. This is confusion of alarming proportions and in no small way adds to the confusion although ready referred to at the beginning of this article. And the Christian Reformed Church must accept sale responsibility for it.

It is this Church that spent years of laborious study to come to the conclusion that Genesis 1 is to be taken literally and, as this writer sees it, the very same Church in its intimate relation to Calvin College turns right around and says by clear implication that to take Genesis 1 as symbolism is permissible under Report 44. “Mother,” for this glaring confusion you must take all the blame!

And, “Mother,” you certainly hit the nail on the head when in your comments on Genesis 1–11 in Report 44 you say: “These chapters are of fundamental importance for understanding the entire Scripture for they reveal the foundations for the biblical message. Genesis 1–11 constitutes the prologue, not only to the Book of Genesis, but to the entire Pentateuch, as well as to the Old Testament in general, and thus to the New Testament as well.” Implying: misinterpret the first eleven chapters of Genesis (not to pass by Genesis 1) and you are on the road to misinterpreting all of Scripture.

P.S. If you still want to take the creation days as period days you might as well forget it. Scientists within Christian circles such as Professor Lever of the Free University of Amsterdam, and Professor Menninga of Calvin College and others will tell you that due to geological findings your view of period days is utterly unacccptable. And therefore in the present controversy about Genesis 1 you have but one of two choices to make: either you accept theistic evolution as your explanation of origins which will compel you to interpret Genesis 1 as symbolism, or you will take the days of creation as solar days. And due to the strong Scriptural evidence such as the decalogue and its settings, and a world-wide catastrophic Genesis flood—to which the geological aspect of the earth‘s surface clearly points—this writer for one understands the six days of creation to be solar days.