SCIENCE+ BIBLE = TRUTH. This is the methodology of the current scientific community at Calvin College. We have already seen a lengthy presentation of the results of this methodology upon our doctrine of Scripture, God, Creation, and Man in Howard Van Till’s book, The Fourth Day.
Scripture is no longer truth in and of itself. Scripture’s truth claims must be tested by the scientific community, and if it passes the test, we will let it stand. But, if it does not pass the test, we will redefine Scripture by some “higher critical” slight of hand. Let’s call the particular passage in question “word portraits,” “religious myth couched in poetic form,” or something of the sort. Let’s not try to find a reasonable explanation for Scripture’s historic and factual claims. It’s Science plus the Bible all the way. And if the consensus of the scientific community says one thing, and the Bible another, then we must redefine the Bible and our doctrine at every point of discrepency between the two.
The evangelical Christian community has always been on the front line in the scientific pursuit. Christian scientists see no incompatibility between good theology and good scientific methodology. They respect both the truth of Scripture and the discoveries of the scientific community. But for the Christian scientist, there is always a single standard by which scientific truth claims are judged: the Scripture. Christian scientists are called to use this methodology, and by it to expose false evidences and theories which are incompatible with the truth claims of Scripture. Christian scientists study science with the knowledge and conviction that what they do discover will be in harmony with the truth of Scripture. If something must be redefined, then it should not be the Bible and its clear teachings: we should reinterpret our evidence and redefine our scientific theories. A responsible and biblical scientific methodology would be:
All Truth is God’s Truth
The Bible is True
Therefore, All Scientific Truth
Claims Must Agree With the Bible
Although this is the route Howard Van Till claims to pursue, he fails to apply it when he faces his first test. Instead of reinterpreting his evidence and redefining his theory, he insists that we redefine the Scripture by using a higher critical method.
He does this when he talks about a universal flood. Since geologists say that there is no evidence for such a flood, it cannot have occurred. Therefore, we are implored not to teach this story to our children, students, and congregations. Instead, we should interpret the Bible in a different way and stop saying what we have always said about the flood.
Does Howard Van Till not know that there is a “higher critical” explanation for everything in the Bible? For the origin of Israel’s religion, the Tower of Babel, the lives of the Patriarchs, fire and brimstone at Sodom and Gomorrah, the plagues upon Egypt, the Exodus through the Red Sea, Moses’ visits face to face with God, Joshua and the walls of Jericho, Samson and Delilah, the story of Samuel, David’s defeat of Goliath, Israel’s military victories, Elijah’s conquest at Mt. Carmel, the predictive prophecies throughout Scripture, the Messianic prophecies, the Virgin Birth of Christ, Christ’s Messianic consciousness, the Historical Jesus, Jesus’ miracles, Jesus’ crucifixion and death, Jesus’ resurrection, Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances, His ascension, Peter’s preaching, Stephen’s vision and preaching, Paul’s conversion and subsequent ministry, the miracles and signs displayed in the apostolic church, the phenomena of Scripture as Divine revelation, and Jesus’ second coming and the establishment of a new heaven and new earth. Does he not know that many Christian colleges and seminaries, churches and denominations, have already traveled naively down the path be recommends to us? Does he not realize that we, as a denomination of believers, have tried to stay off this path to liberalism?
Perhaps the most telling results of adopting this methodology to arrive at truth are seen in its moral and social effects, in what has been called “situational ethics.”
Because they let changing scientific opinion over-rule the Bible, many “Christians” now believe that abortion on demand is permitted. How do they arrive at such a conclusion? The consensus of the scientific community says that a fetus is not a person, but it becomes a person only when it is born. Only then does it have rights and the protection of the U.S. Constitution.
Similarly, many “Christians” now believe that homosexuality is a combination of sociological orientation and genetic predisposition. Because science tells them these things, the Bible is wrong when it calls homosexuality a result of sin, sinful in itself, an abomination, and a sexual preference chosen willfully and therefore deserving of eternal condemnation.
I call these people “Christians” only in a general sense, for I cannot understand how anyone who really believes that God created man in His own image could believe that human life at all stages and in every condition is not stamped with the image of God. It is equally difficult to understand how someone who is a Bible-believing Christian can call homosexuality a normal sexual preference and dismiss the Bible’s condemnations of it (Deut. 23:17; Rom.1:26, 27). These “Christians” are not evangelicals. They are liberals. And as the late Francis Schaefer said, “Liberalism is secularism in theological language.” And the liberal denominations and churches, which seem to enamour some of our most prominent denominational leaders, long ago dismissed any serious consideration of the Bible. They have been for more than the last 25 years in favor of an Equal Rights Amendment, abortion, homosexual members being members and ministers in the Church, reverse discrimination (“Civil Rights”), banning prayer in public schools, and taxing Christian schools. Most social and political liberals are not irreligious and unfamiliar with a Christian heritage, but they have replaced it with secularism.
This is precisely what we face if we do not insist on a methodology which upholds the absolute and final authority of Scripture rightly interpreted. And by “rightly interpreted,” I do not mean reinterpreted by higher critical-slight-of-hand.
Calvin College and Seminary would like you to think that those who oppose Howard Van Till’s freedom to teach by this method are attacking the College and Seminary. (“These conservatives are picking on us,” they squeal.) Thus, they try to arouse the latent sentiment and loyalty of the membership and ministers to rally to the defense of the College in the name of academic freedom. This is not an attack on the school, but an indictment of a method which totally relativizes the Truth of the Word of God. Our own salvation, as well as the future of our institutions, depends on maintaining the supreme authority of God’s Word.
Stephen M. Arrick is the pastor of the Cornerstone C.R. Church of Hudsonville, Michigan. This is his reaction to the Oct. 27 Evolution debate at Calvin reported in this issue.
