“The problem of authority is the most fundamental problem that the Christian Church ever faces. This is because Christianity is built on truth: that is to say, on the content of divine revelation. Christianity announces salvation through faith in Jesus Christ, in and through whom that revelation came to completion; but faith in Jesus Christ is possible only where the truth concerning Him is known . . . But if this truth is rejected or perverted, faith is overthrown (cf. II Tim. 2:18) and men come under the power of a lie (cf. II Thess. 2:11-13), with terrible results.” We may well recall this observation of J.L. Packer (Fundamentalism and the Word of God, pp. 42, 43 ) as we encounter the Report (No. 36) on “The Nature and Extent of Biblical Authority” in the Agenda for the 1971 Synod of the Christian Reformed Church.
The critical importance of this subject to the faith and life of the Christian and the church should prompt many throughout the denomination to study carefully this 36-page report by seven competent ministers and professors.
As the reader works through the pages of careful analysis and evaluation he finds much that invites appreciation and approval.
The Mandate
The committee making the report had been instructed by Synod “to study the nature and extent of biblical authority, and in particular 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,’ to evaluate critically in the light of the above-mentioned study and our confessional standards the manner of interpreting Scripture presently employed by some contemporary Reformed scholars, and to serve the churches with pastoral advice in these matters.”
To appreciate the reason for this study we ought to recall that the Reformed Ecumenical Synod in 1958 issued a strong declaration regarding the infallibility of the Bible. The Gereformeerde Kerken of The Netherlands in 1963, while expressing basic agreement with this declaration, criticized it for failing to “make sufficient distinctions in dealing with the nature and extent of the authority of the Scripture” and in particular for not dealing with 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.” Although the committee observes that a more accurate translation of the Dutch decision would be “the concomitant and deducible authority of Scripture,” it does not go into the peculiarities of this criticism, but prefers to proceed at once to “the issue out of which it arose.”
Contrast with the 1961 Report
One could wish at this point that the committee had taken a more critical look at the assumption expressed in this criticism of the Dutch churches, that the “authority of Scripture” is in some sense only a deduction to be drawn from its “content and purpose” as “saving revelation of God in Christ.”
One misses the clear appreciation of the point so forthrightly stated in the report accepted by om Synod of 1961 (Acts 1961, p. 293): “Scripture has an explicit doctrine of its own infallibility. Infallibility is not merely an inference drawn from an examination of the phenomena of Scripture. It is rather an explicit claim of the Scripture for itself . . . when one considers the number of passages in which Scripture’s confidence in Scripture is demonstrated he discovers that this is one of the best attested of all the doctrines of Scripture. Neither does it (faith) nor may it allow its inferences drawn from the phenomena of Scripture to modify Scripture’s doctrine of its own infallibility. . . Moreover, to suppose that the fact of infallibility is to be learned from the self-testimony of Scripture but that the nature and extent of infallibility is to be learned only by way of an exhaustive examination of the phenomena of Scripture is to misunderstand the nature of Scripture’s self-testimony. . . . Ultimately this leads to a total dependence on fallible human investigation” (italics mine).
Instead of taking the “high ground” of the 1961 report and criticizing the Dutch churches’ formulation of the questions which evidently arise largely out of abandoning it, the committee proceeds immediately to enter into the Dutch churches’ “problems” and criticisms of the RES statement on infallibility. It mentions the criticisms that the RES “failed to do justice to the ‘human side’ of the Scriptures”; that it does not adequately deal with the question: “Is the authority of Scripture in any way influenced or qualified by its historical character?” and that it does not adequately guard against the idea that “views each word or verse as being inspired and authoritative in and by itself.”
The Nature and Extent of Biblical Authority
The committee takes note of a difference of opinion between a view that regards the nature and extent of Biblical authority as being simply found in its being God’s Word and one that insists “that the divine authority of Scripture is manifested only through its content as the saving revelation of God in Jesus Christ.” The committee does not explicitly choose between these two but seems in procedure to follow the latter, whereas the 1961 committee followed the former. The report goes on to observe that the Reformed position finds the central focus of the Word of God in the saving revelation of God in Jesus Christ. “When passages or texts or phrases are isolated from the purpose of Scripture itself, they no longer retain their authority as the Word of God. [Didn’t Jesus maintain the authority of God’s commandments even when arguing with the devil?] It is in Jesus Christ that the Scriptures have their unity and authority.” Accordingly, “the authority of Scripture is properly understood only when the various parts of Scripture are interpreted as functioning in their role within the history of redemption and revelation,” and when one remembers that the “Scripture is written by men and that it is originally addressed to a people living at a certain time and under particular circumstances.” “The Bible is not a system of theological dogmas nor a code book of law with an easy and immediate application to every circumstance. . . .”
To say that the Bible’s central focus is the “saving revelation of God in Christ” does not limit its authority, “for the redemption found in Scripture is cosmic in scope, involving man and all of his activities in creation and history. Hence the authority of Scripture touches every sphere of human life and knowledge but it does so in its own way and from its own perspective, viz. from the standpoint of creation, fall, redemption, and the coming again of Jesus Christ.”
Criticism of the “New Hermeneutics”
Having made these observations about “the nature and extent of Biblical authority,” the committee proceeds to look critically at current methods of interpreting Scripture, in particular at what is called the “new hermeneutics.” It begins by affirming our commitment to the Reformation principle that “Scripture is its own interpreter” and as “the product and instrument of the Holy Spirit may not be controlled by knowledge or methods derived elsewhere.” Therefore, it continues, though “we have acknowledged the historical character of the divinely inspired Bible and have been willing to use the results of historical research to illumine its meaning,” “yet we have been on our guard against the possibility of science controlling the interpretation of Scripture became it has been precisely in our century that such has occurred.” “Interpreters [have] allowed a view of nature and history contrary to that contained in the Bible to determine the interpretation of the biblical message.”
Although the writers of the “new hermeneutics” may say that they believe that Scripture is its own interpreter, “yet certain statements . . . raise the Question whether this principle is being maintained.” “If one asserts, for example, that science makes it impossible to believe any longer that there was historically an original man and woman who were the ancestors of the human race, then it is no longer apparent that one is maintaining the principle that Scripture is its own interpreter.”
Next the committee considers the “use of the historical method.” Turning to the problem of the differences between the four gospels, the committee observes that these “gospels are not merely ‘objective’ descriptions of events or verbatim records of Jesus’ words. They are proclamation . . . , i.e., ,events and sayings plus the interpretation which the Holy Spirit leads the authors to give as they bring that message to a variety of persons and audiences.” “It is our opinion,” the committee says, “that this approach so long as it functions within the framework of the gospels—is permissible within our confession concerning the authority and reliability (infallibility) of Scripture.” “However, it seems to us that one should not in terms of this approach begin to speak of the historical unreliability of the gospels.” “Historical reporting is always influenced by the perspective of the author and the needs of the audience.”
“The new hermeneutics attempts to uncover (the) historical Jesus by what is called ‘pure historical research.’” Its method studies the gospels critically because they are written by believers, and such a “faith-perspective” is not regarded as permissible in “pure historical research.” But the committee observes that “such a method . . . rooted in principles contrary to Scripture’s own view of historical reality cannot be considered legitimate.”
Furthermore, in the “new hermeneutic much is made of the distinction between the Jesus who was and the Jesus who is” (that is, Jesus before and after the resurrection), It holds that, despite the gospel statements to the contrary, Jesus before the resurrection did not claim to be the Messiah. Such claims were later attributed to Him by the church. This kind of “form criticism” which “allows the actual creation of events for the sake of the message,” the committee says, “brings into question the reliability of the gospels.” Regarding the resurrection of Christ the “new hermeneutic” says that, though one believes it as a Christian, he can say nothing about it as a historian. Therefore the committee appropriately remarks that “that method is based on a view of reality not in harmony with Scripture.”
Next the committee turns to the treatment of the first chapters of Genesis. Representatives of the “new hermeneutics” “have suggested that Genesis 3 should not be viewed as presenting history in any temporal sense but should be interpreted as a teaching model,” especially because “science has made it impossible to believe that this is history. . .” The committee observes that Paul in Romans 5 plainly regarded it as more than a teaching model, linking Adam with Christ in the history of redemption, and that “the denial of the historicity of the fall of our first parents at the beginning of human history cannot be harmonized with the confessions.”
A Contradictory View of Genesis
After this studied but firm, point-by-point rejection of the distinguishing features of the “new hermeneutic,” the reader is startled to observe in the next and concluding section of the body of the report material that seems to express an almost exactly opposite viewpoint! The committee now takes up the question: “Must these chapters (Genesis 1-11) be interpreted literally thus implying that they are for the most part literal descriptions of past events?” The committee presents two views of the kind of historical reporting contained in these chapters:
1. “Although granting the essential historicity of these chapters, one point of view argues that they should not be interpreted as a literal description of events . . . . Within this view it is possible to suggest that although Genesis 3 communicates an event, i.e., the fall of man at the beginning of human history, it does so making use of concepts or symbols familiar to Abraham and to the world of that time. Similarly Genesis 4 . . . is not to be read as a paleontological report, but as a description of Adam’s descendants using concepts from the picture of ancient man held in the second millennium B.C.”
2. “The other point of view is more closely related to the traditional interpretation of these chapters . . . . This point of view is willing to acknowledge some influence of the cultural milieu upon the historical narrative, especially in connection with the creation account. However, basically it argues that these chapters as historical records are not essentially different from the rest of Genesis . . . . Thus, although recognizing the thematic character of these chapters, this view comes much closer to interpreting these chapters as literal descriptions of historical events.”
After presenting these radically different positions the committee concludes: “Our confessional statements, as well as our basic confession concerning the authority and reliability of Scripture, do not force us to choose for one or the other. Both positions preserve the intent of the confessional statements, both function on the basis of principles considered acceptable in the interpretation of Scripture. Therefore the church need not decide concerning the correctness of either.”
In other words, when one comes to the matter of Genesis 1-11, the committee suddenly seems to discard all of the careful discrimination demonstrated through the rest of the report and to declare that “as long as you say that it is in some sense historical and nobody will bother to ask you what you mean anything goes!” If this part of the Bible is not to be taken as in any sense a “description of events” does still calling it “history” have any meaning?
It is far from obvious, contrary to the committee’s claim, that as long as one will say that this is some kind of “history” and that some kind of “fall” took place he is free to explain away all the details, “Adam and Eve,” the tree, the serpent, and so forth, as being mere symbols from Abraham’s day. It is far from obvious that such views can, as the committee seems to claim, be harmonized with either the Scriptures or the Confessions with their concrete references to some of these details. In fact, it seems to me (and to other readers) that the views of Kuitert and others who hold the “new hermeneutics” which have been so properly criticized in most of the report now have the back door thrown wide open to them. Moreover, when one considers the implications of this put of the report, it seems to place the stamp of approval upon the whole present course of the Dutch churches as they now welcome and promote the liberal views of the Scriptures which they for over a century have opposed!
Concluding “Pastoral Advice”
Having done this “about-face” at the end of the body of the report, the committee proceeds to give 5 points of “pastoral advice.” They urge them “upon our churches as reaffirmations of our accepted confessional commitment to the authority of Scripture with a view to averting the crises and divisive tendencies which surround the issue of biblical authority among fellow Christians in the Reformed churches.” They especially stress the “crucial importance of holding fast our common confession of biblical authority.”
The committee advises that: (1) Synod remind the churches that the authority of Scripture be applied in the total life of the church; (2) that it call the churches to maintain the clear witness of the creeds to the authority of Scripture as the saving revelation of God in Jesus Christ, yet honoring such freedom of exegesis as docs not conflict with the creeds; (3) that it remind the churches that Scripture is self-authenticating, not dependent on science, and that all scholarly work should be carried on in faithfulness to the authoritative Scriptures; (4) that it warn against any use of the historical-critical method which excludes or calls in question the redemptive events of biblical history; and that (5) it urge the churches to confess that the authority of the biblical message is rooted in the historical reliability of the redemptive events therein recorded.
Our Witness Threatened by Compromise
I trust that this necessarily cursory summary of the committee’s report has pointed up a number of excellent features of it. One cannot appreciate too highly its often reiterated emphasis, especially for our time, on the need for stressing the authority of the Scriptures. It is the more regrettable, it seems to me, that in the treatment of Genesis the committee seems to abandon the very principles it emphasizes through so much of the report and to sanction a liberty of interpretation that permits one to deny any recorded events as long as he will say his view is still in some sense “historical.”
Now, when our sister churches in The Netherlands, whose views occasioned the appointment of the committee, are fast losing their conviction and testimony as to what, if anything, the Christian faith still means because of such unlimited freedom of exegesis—and now when the same kind of views, long characteristic of the old Liberalism, arc making increasing inroads among us—the welfare of the church and its Christian testimony will be very poorly served if this self-contradictory report is accepted as it stands.
The report strikes this reader as a compromise product—with the unsatisfactory features that always characterize attempts to compromise fundamental principles. In this it seems to reflect the contradictory views that more and more plague our churches.
May God save our Reformed churches from spoiling our witness to Him and His Word with compromising double-talk.
Peter De Jong is pastor of the Christian Reformed Church of Dutton, Michigan.
The critical importance of this subject to the faith and life of the Christian and the church should prompt many throughout the denomination to study carefully this 36-page report by seven competent ministers and professors.
As the reader works through the pages of careful analysis and evaluation he finds much that invites appreciation and approval.
The Mandate
The committee making the report had been instructed by Synod “to study the nature and extent of biblical authority, and in particular 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,’ to evaluate critically in the light of the above-mentioned study and our confessional standards the manner of interpreting Scripture presently employed by some contemporary Reformed scholars, and to serve the churches with pastoral advice in these matters.”
To appreciate the reason for this study we ought to recall that the Reformed Ecumenical Synod in 1958 issued a strong declaration regarding the infallibility of the Bible. The Gereformeerde Kerken of The Netherlands in 1963, while expressing basic agreement with this declaration, criticized it for failing to “make sufficient distinctions in dealing with the nature and extent of the authority of the Scripture” and in particular for not dealing with 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.” Although the committee observes that a more accurate translation of the Dutch decision would be “the concomitant and deducible authority of Scripture,” it does not go into the peculiarities of this criticism, but prefers to proceed at once to “the issue out of which it arose.”
Contrast with the 1961 Report
One could wish at this point that the committee had taken a more critical look at the assumption expressed in this criticism of the Dutch churches, that the “authority of Scripture” is in some sense only a deduction to be drawn from its “content and purpose” as “saving revelation of God in Christ.”
One misses the clear appreciation of the point so forthrightly stated in the report accepted by om Synod of 1961 (Acts 1961, p. 293): “Scripture has an explicit doctrine of its own infallibility. Infallibility is not merely an inference drawn from an examination of the phenomena of Scripture. It is rather an explicit claim of the Scripture for itself . . . when one considers the number of passages in which Scripture’s confidence in Scripture is demonstrated he discovers that this is one of the best attested of all the doctrines of Scripture. Neither does it (faith) nor may it allow its inferences drawn from the phenomena of Scripture to modify Scripture’s doctrine of its own infallibility. . . Moreover, to suppose that the fact of infallibility is to be learned from the self-testimony of Scripture but that the nature and extent of infallibility is to be learned only by way of an exhaustive examination of the phenomena of Scripture is to misunderstand the nature of Scripture’s self-testimony. . . . Ultimately this leads to a total dependence on fallible human investigation” (italics mine).
Instead of taking the “high ground” of the 1961 report and criticizing the Dutch churches’ formulation of the questions which evidently arise largely out of abandoning it, the committee proceeds immediately to enter into the Dutch churches’ “problems” and criticisms of the RES statement on infallibility. It mentions the criticisms that the RES “failed to do justice to the ‘human side’ of the Scriptures”; that it does not adequately deal with the question: “Is the authority of Scripture in any way influenced or qualified by its historical character?” and that it does not adequately guard against the idea that “views each word or verse as being inspired and authoritative in and by itself.”
The Nature and Extent of Biblical Authority
The committee takes note of a difference of opinion between a view that regards the nature and extent of Biblical authority as being simply found in its being God’s Word and one that insists “that the divine authority of Scripture is manifested only through its content as the saving revelation of God in Jesus Christ.” The committee does not explicitly choose between these two but seems in procedure to follow the latter, whereas the 1961 committee followed the former. The report goes on to observe that the Reformed position finds the central focus of the Word of God in the saving revelation of God in Jesus Christ. “When passages or texts or phrases are isolated from the purpose of Scripture itself, they no longer retain their authority as the Word of God. [Didn’t Jesus maintain the authority of God’s commandments even when arguing with the devil?] It is in Jesus Christ that the Scriptures have their unity and authority.” Accordingly, “the authority of Scripture is properly understood only when the various parts of Scripture are interpreted as functioning in their role within the history of redemption and revelation,” and when one remembers that the “Scripture is written by men and that it is originally addressed to a people living at a certain time and under particular circumstances.” “The Bible is not a system of theological dogmas nor a code book of law with an easy and immediate application to every circumstance. . . .”
To say that the Bible’s central focus is the “saving revelation of God in Christ” does not limit its authority, “for the redemption found in Scripture is cosmic in scope, involving man and all of his activities in creation and history. Hence the authority of Scripture touches every sphere of human life and knowledge but it does so in its own way and from its own perspective, viz. from the standpoint of creation, fall, redemption, and the coming again of Jesus Christ.”
Criticism of the “New Hermeneutics”
Having made these observations about “the nature and extent of Biblical authority,” the committee proceeds to look critically at current methods of interpreting Scripture, in particular at what is called the “new hermeneutics.” It begins by affirming our commitment to the Reformation principle that “Scripture is its own interpreter” and as “the product and instrument of the Holy Spirit may not be controlled by knowledge or methods derived elsewhere.” Therefore, it continues, though “we have acknowledged the historical character of the divinely inspired Bible and have been willing to use the results of historical research to illumine its meaning,” “yet we have been on our guard against the possibility of science controlling the interpretation of Scripture became it has been precisely in our century that such has occurred.” “Interpreters [have] allowed a view of nature and history contrary to that contained in the Bible to determine the interpretation of the biblical message.”
Although the writers of the “new hermeneutics” may say that they believe that Scripture is its own interpreter, “yet certain statements . . . raise the Question whether this principle is being maintained.” “If one asserts, for example, that science makes it impossible to believe any longer that there was historically an original man and woman who were the ancestors of the human race, then it is no longer apparent that one is maintaining the principle that Scripture is its own interpreter.”
Next the committee considers the “use of the historical method.” Turning to the problem of the differences between the four gospels, the committee observes that these “gospels are not merely ‘objective’ descriptions of events or verbatim records of Jesus’ words. They are proclamation . . . , i.e., ,events and sayings plus the interpretation which the Holy Spirit leads the authors to give as they bring that message to a variety of persons and audiences.” “It is our opinion,” the committee says, “that this approach so long as it functions within the framework of the gospels—is permissible within our confession concerning the authority and reliability (infallibility) of Scripture.” “However, it seems to us that one should not in terms of this approach begin to speak of the historical unreliability of the gospels.” “Historical reporting is always influenced by the perspective of the author and the needs of the audience.”
“The new hermeneutics attempts to uncover (the) historical Jesus by what is called ‘pure historical research.’” Its method studies the gospels critically because they are written by believers, and such a “faith-perspective” is not regarded as permissible in “pure historical research.” But the committee observes that “such a method . . . rooted in principles contrary to Scripture’s own view of historical reality cannot be considered legitimate.”
Furthermore, in the “new hermeneutic much is made of the distinction between the Jesus who was and the Jesus who is” (that is, Jesus before and after the resurrection), It holds that, despite the gospel statements to the contrary, Jesus before the resurrection did not claim to be the Messiah. Such claims were later attributed to Him by the church. This kind of “form criticism” which “allows the actual creation of events for the sake of the message,” the committee says, “brings into question the reliability of the gospels.” Regarding the resurrection of Christ the “new hermeneutic” says that, though one believes it as a Christian, he can say nothing about it as a historian. Therefore the committee appropriately remarks that “that method is based on a view of reality not in harmony with Scripture.”
Next the committee turns to the treatment of the first chapters of Genesis. Representatives of the “new hermeneutics” “have suggested that Genesis 3 should not be viewed as presenting history in any temporal sense but should be interpreted as a teaching model,” especially because “science has made it impossible to believe that this is history. . .” The committee observes that Paul in Romans 5 plainly regarded it as more than a teaching model, linking Adam with Christ in the history of redemption, and that “the denial of the historicity of the fall of our first parents at the beginning of human history cannot be harmonized with the confessions.”
A Contradictory View of Genesis
After this studied but firm, point-by-point rejection of the distinguishing features of the “new hermeneutic,” the reader is startled to observe in the next and concluding section of the body of the report material that seems to express an almost exactly opposite viewpoint! The committee now takes up the question: “Must these chapters (Genesis 1-11) be interpreted literally thus implying that they are for the most part literal descriptions of past events?” The committee presents two views of the kind of historical reporting contained in these chapters:
1. “Although granting the essential historicity of these chapters, one point of view argues that they should not be interpreted as a literal description of events . . . . Within this view it is possible to suggest that although Genesis 3 communicates an event, i.e., the fall of man at the beginning of human history, it does so making use of concepts or symbols familiar to Abraham and to the world of that time. Similarly Genesis 4 . . . is not to be read as a paleontological report, but as a description of Adam’s descendants using concepts from the picture of ancient man held in the second millennium B.C.”
2. “The other point of view is more closely related to the traditional interpretation of these chapters . . . . This point of view is willing to acknowledge some influence of the cultural milieu upon the historical narrative, especially in connection with the creation account. However, basically it argues that these chapters as historical records are not essentially different from the rest of Genesis . . . . Thus, although recognizing the thematic character of these chapters, this view comes much closer to interpreting these chapters as literal descriptions of historical events.”
After presenting these radically different positions the committee concludes: “Our confessional statements, as well as our basic confession concerning the authority and reliability of Scripture, do not force us to choose for one or the other. Both positions preserve the intent of the confessional statements, both function on the basis of principles considered acceptable in the interpretation of Scripture. Therefore the church need not decide concerning the correctness of either.”
In other words, when one comes to the matter of Genesis 1-11, the committee suddenly seems to discard all of the careful discrimination demonstrated through the rest of the report and to declare that “as long as you say that it is in some sense historical and nobody will bother to ask you what you mean anything goes!” If this part of the Bible is not to be taken as in any sense a “description of events” does still calling it “history” have any meaning?
It is far from obvious, contrary to the committee’s claim, that as long as one will say that this is some kind of “history” and that some kind of “fall” took place he is free to explain away all the details, “Adam and Eve,” the tree, the serpent, and so forth, as being mere symbols from Abraham’s day. It is far from obvious that such views can, as the committee seems to claim, be harmonized with either the Scriptures or the Confessions with their concrete references to some of these details. In fact, it seems to me (and to other readers) that the views of Kuitert and others who hold the “new hermeneutics” which have been so properly criticized in most of the report now have the back door thrown wide open to them. Moreover, when one considers the implications of this put of the report, it seems to place the stamp of approval upon the whole present course of the Dutch churches as they now welcome and promote the liberal views of the Scriptures which they for over a century have opposed!
Concluding “Pastoral Advice”
Having done this “about-face” at the end of the body of the report, the committee proceeds to give 5 points of “pastoral advice.” They urge them “upon our churches as reaffirmations of our accepted confessional commitment to the authority of Scripture with a view to averting the crises and divisive tendencies which surround the issue of biblical authority among fellow Christians in the Reformed churches.” They especially stress the “crucial importance of holding fast our common confession of biblical authority.”
The committee advises that: (1) Synod remind the churches that the authority of Scripture be applied in the total life of the church; (2) that it call the churches to maintain the clear witness of the creeds to the authority of Scripture as the saving revelation of God in Jesus Christ, yet honoring such freedom of exegesis as docs not conflict with the creeds; (3) that it remind the churches that Scripture is self-authenticating, not dependent on science, and that all scholarly work should be carried on in faithfulness to the authoritative Scriptures; (4) that it warn against any use of the historical-critical method which excludes or calls in question the redemptive events of biblical history; and that (5) it urge the churches to confess that the authority of the biblical message is rooted in the historical reliability of the redemptive events therein recorded.
Our Witness Threatened by Compromise
I trust that this necessarily cursory summary of the committee’s report has pointed up a number of excellent features of it. One cannot appreciate too highly its often reiterated emphasis, especially for our time, on the need for stressing the authority of the Scriptures. It is the more regrettable, it seems to me, that in the treatment of Genesis the committee seems to abandon the very principles it emphasizes through so much of the report and to sanction a liberty of interpretation that permits one to deny any recorded events as long as he will say his view is still in some sense “historical.”
Now, when our sister churches in The Netherlands, whose views occasioned the appointment of the committee, are fast losing their conviction and testimony as to what, if anything, the Christian faith still means because of such unlimited freedom of exegesis—and now when the same kind of views, long characteristic of the old Liberalism, arc making increasing inroads among us—the welfare of the church and its Christian testimony will be very poorly served if this self-contradictory report is accepted as it stands.
The report strikes this reader as a compromise product—with the unsatisfactory features that always characterize attempts to compromise fundamental principles. In this it seems to reflect the contradictory views that more and more plague our churches.
May God save our Reformed churches from spoiling our witness to Him and His Word with compromising double-talk.
Peter De Jong is pastor of the Christian Reformed Church of Dutton, Michigan.