In a recent “Sem Alum” (a publication of the Calvin Theological Seminary Alumni Association), the editor, Rev. Leonard J. VanderZee, wrote an editorial entitled “A Layer of Protection.” The ones who need a layer of protection are the professors of Calvin College and Seminary. He mentions by name particularly seminary prof. Dr. Henry De Moor and college prof. Dr. Howard Van Till.

These professors need protection from the “libelous practices of some of the unofficial magazines and tabloids associated with our denomination and the letters which some ‘concerned people’ sent out widely in the denomination . . . .” What were these libelous practices? They were published objections to what some professors did at last year’s graduation. Several seminary faculty members wore white carnations in order to demonstrate their solidarity with women who wanted to be admitted to candidacy in the CRC: These libelous practices also included published objections to the teaching of evolution by Dr. Howard Van Till.

Were these libelous practices? According to my dictionary, libel is “anything that is defamatory or that maliciously or damagingly misrepresents” (emphasis mine). So in order to answer my question it must be determined whether these me n’s actions and teachings have been misrepresented.

Synod has followed the clear teaching of the Lord in the Scriptures by deciding not to permit women to be elders and ministers in the CRC. This stance is our denomination’s stance. By their “planned gesture of solidarity” with these two women, the professors who did so took a public stance which was contrary to our church’s stance. They knew they were doing so. Is it libel to say what they did was wrong? Not at all.

Or in the case of Dr. Van Till, he has published a book in which he states that we must take the first chapters of Genesis seriously but not literally. In the opinion of many members of the CRC (most?), this teaching contradicts the affirmation by our own synod that the event character of Genesis 1–11 is to be maintained. Is it libel to publish the fact that one believes Dr. Van Till is wrong and is teaching harmful things? Not at all.

Now, according to Rev. Vander Zee, how are these men to be protected? I will quote from him.

“The libelous practices . . . must be stopped. Local consistories must do their part, whether in the discipline of members who persist in such practices or the protection of members who are attacked in such a way.” There seems to be a one-way street here. The professors are allowed to say whatever they wish and receive consistorial protection. The members of the CRC who are not professors are to be disciplined if their “whims” (as Rev. VanderZee calls them) do not agree with the professors.

Is that a biblical approach to righteousness and justice? Clearly not. God is no respecter of persons. Nowhere in His Word does H e say that professors shall be allowed an extra measure of “academic freedom.” Professors at Calvin College and Seminary are not a “special class” of Christians. Professors are to be held accountable for what they say and do just as much as any other member of the CRC.

Frankly, I am very concerned about the direction in which Rev. Vander Zee suggests we go. If consistories took his admonition seriously, where would freedom of speech be? It would be effectively destroyed. For the only ones among us who would be free to voice their opinions would be professors.

Contrary to Rev. VanderZee’s advice, my advice for professors, ministers and anyone else with public responsibilities would be, “If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.”

Wayne Leigh is a CRC missionary in Tokyo, Japan.