Neal Hegeman, now a Christian Reformed missionary in the Dominican Republic, while a student at Calvin Seminary protested against views of Genesis expressed by Professor John H. Stek. In our January Outlook he wrote about the disposition of that case. Dr. Marten H. Woudstra, Professor of Old Testament at the seminary now traces the history of that case.
What follows is intended chiefly as an historical survey of the sequence of events that occurred after a student at the Seminary sent a letter of complaint to the Board of Trustees concerning the instruction he had received in a Seminary course called “The Pentateuch.” This course is ordinarily taught by the undersigned. Because of absence from the campus during two successive spring quarters, 1978 and 1979, my colleague Prof. John Stek taught the course. He has not had to do so since.
The survey here presented is meant for the benefit of those readers who do not always have all the issues of the Acts of Synod of the Christian Reformed Church available to them. Or, if they do, they do not have the time to research them sufficiently. There is all the more reason for surveying the past course of events since the person who submitted the original complaint has recently raised various issues with respect to what was done and decided by the Synod of 1983.
Before I present my material, I personally wish to commend any student, or church, or other interested party in the Christian Reformed Church, for taking a lively interest in the doctrinal orthodoxy of what is taught at the Seminary, or elsewhere within the denomination. I hope the time will never come when the members of the church or of the student bodies of our institutions of higher learning neglect to give their loving and prayerful attention to the quality of the instruction given in our schools and to the confessional and doctrinal purity of such teaching. Ultimately, of course, the supreme judge of all such questions, should they arise, is to be the Word of God itself. But within a confessionally committed church an appeal to the confessions is valid. In a time when we witness an ever growing laxity in the worldwide community of churches with respect to the traditional teachings of the Scriptures, let us in the Christian Reformed Church be thankful for the confessional formulations handed down to us from our forefathers and subscribed to by us in the late 20th century. What, precisely, is meant by a subscription to the creeds, and what not, was carefully formulated a few years ago by a past synod of our church.
Phase One
The first phase of the sequence of events here reviewed consists of a letter by a student at Calvin Seminary to the Board of Trustees. The student reacted to the instruction he bad received in the Pentateuch course as taught in the spring quarter of 1978. The student, presently the Rev. Neal Hegeman, began to feel that the instruction received left the matter of the existence of a real, flesh and blood pair of human beings at the beginning of human history, as described in the early chapters of Genesis, an open question. He also sensed a lack of refutation of certain denials of such matters.
The Board of Trustees took this matter seriously. In May 1980 it appointed a committee “to study the response of Professor John Stek to issues which have been raised concerning the necessity of re-examining the nature of the biblical narrative in Genesis 1–11 in the light of data from cultural anthropology” (Acts 1981, 147). To be noted in this formulation is that the question which surfaced was broader than just the reading of Genesis 1–3. It was extended to include all of Genesis 1–11 and it introduced the question of cultural anthropology and its possible bearing on the matter.
Phase Two
The ad hoc committee appointed by the Board reported in February 1981. A summary of the committee’s findings is found in the Acts of 1981, p. 147. This summary speaks of Prof. Stek’s affirmation of an actual creation as the beginning of all things. It also mentions his affirmation of an historical fall. It further speaks of Prof. Stek’s rejection of certain theories of interpretation which view these Genesis narratives as myths, teaching models, or aetiological legends. An “aetiology” is an invented tale to explain certain states of affairs which the writer of the tale observes and for which he seeks to find a “cause,” or aitia in the Greek.
The ad hoc committee also pointed out, however, that Prof. Stek does not believe it is possible to derive from the biblical materials in these early chapters of Genesis “a clear picture which is directly helpful in reconstructing the history of the pre–Abrahamic era” (idem).
The committee concluded that as far as it had been able to ascertain Prof. Stek’s opinion regarding these matters, his position brought him into conflict with the church’s standing confessional view of significant elements in the Genesis narratives. It also noted that Prof. Stek’s alternative interpretation was not yet fully developed at that time. It therefore judged that Prof. Stek must be encouraged “to seek an acceptable resolution of the problems be has raised,” a resolution which, in the committee’s opinion, should be “in harmony with the church’s confessional position on the important elements in Genesis 1–11.”
Phase Three
Having taken note of this report the Board of Trustees adopted a number of recommendations, the first one of which was that it “instructed” Professor Stek, in his teaching office, “to correlate the findings of his research and the event character of Genesis 1–11, with a view to doing full justice to the church’s confessional view of these chapters.” The Board referred to a statement adopted by the Synod of 1972 which warns against the use of any method of biblical interpretation which calls into question the event character of biblical history.
To be noted is the fact that the Board, while taking note of the committee’s finding concerning a “conflict” between Prof. Stek’s present position and the church’s standing confessional view, did not actually take over that finding nor did it or anyone else prefer any charges against Prof. Stek. It simply recalled his duty and the duty of all of those who labor within the self-imposed and voluntarily subscribed to limits of the Form of Subscription, to take such subscription seriously. That this was also the duty of all of us was not explicitly stated. I am sure it was understood. The Board, as I see it, simply applied to a specific case what is the duty of us all. In this the Board acted properly and I hope it will continue to do so whenever similar cases arise. I also hope that the Board will put confessional loyalty foremost if it should appear at one time or other that the present matter has further ramifications involving confessional integrity.
During that same meeting of the Board it was decided to. request the Seminary faculty to “provide a forum for ongoing discussions on the questions which Professor Stek has raised.” Perhaps it should be made clear already at this point that this was not the appointment of a “study committee” as we understand this term within the Christian Reformed Church.
Phase Four
In keeping with the Board’s request the faculty then began long and laborious discussions along the lines suggested by the problem raised. Already in May 1981 the Seminary President reported on what had been done since the time the Board decision was made in February of that year.
As will be well known to the readers, the matter became more complicated when at the Synod of 1981 the application of a former student and graduate of Calvin Seminary for candidacy in the Christian Reformed Church had to be denied. The question at stake in this denial was, among other things, that dealing with the existence of a real flesh and blood Adam and Eve living in a garden as described in Genesis 2 and 3. The applicant who was denied the status of candidate but who, as far as is known, continues to enjoy the privilege of licensure, had been pursuing graduate work at other institutions for about ten years after graduating from the Seminary.
During the year 1981–82 the Faculty continued the discussions with Professor Stek as the Board requested. Upon occasion a whole day would be devoted to this matter. When it was becoming clear that the involvement of the full faculty might not be the most conducive to obtaining the desired results of clarification, the faculty requested the Board to allow it to do the further dialogue by means of a committee taken from the various departments of the Faculty, especially the departments of Old and New Testament, and of Systematic Theology. The Board granted this request.
The same meeting of the Board, February 1982, decided at the forthcoming May meeting, to request the Seminary faculty “to assign Professor John Stek to make the presentation for the Old Testament Department.” Under the circumstances, this could well be regarded as a most unexpected move on the Board’s part. In the first place, the decision speaks of “the presentation for the Old Testament Department.” It seems as if the Board speaks of something like a well known phenomenon of “presentations” by Departments. As the matter stood, the Seminary Faculty had not been involved in any such presentations up to that point. Oral elucidation of the Board’s decision made clear that the Board was desirous of having a series of such presentations of which the one by Professor Stek would presumably be the first. Still, after the first presentation was made, the matter was quietly dropped.
But a second element in this decision also deserves notice. At the Seminary the various departments are generally functioning under a chairman who is the senior member in the particular department. This structure is admittedly rather loose, although in the case of the Old Testament it has consistently functioned ever since Professor Stek was added to the Faculty. One might expect the Board, if it was interested in “the” presentation for “the” Old Testament Department, to invite the chairman to do so, or the chairman in conjunction with Professor Stek.
Whatever reasons the Board may have had to have this representative function for the Old Testament Department assigned to Professor Stek, in actual fact two of the three Old Testament professors appeared before the board in May, and presented their methodology of teaching their courses. Professor Stek did so for his core courses called “Former Prophets” and “Writings,” and the undersigned, who also is the chairman of the Department, covered his core courses called “The Pentateuch,” and “The Latter Prophets.” Subsequent to this presentation, the Board engaged the two of us in lengthy conversations concerning the matters raised by Professor Stek’s teaching in light of the student letter.
By way of footnote to this episode, it may be added that the format of this meeting was changed after representations of the undersigned to the Seminary president and with his full cooperation.
Phase Five
We had thus entered into phase five. It consisted of continued lengthy conversations with Professor Stek on the part of a Faculty committee. Note, as was observed earlier, at no time did the Faculty or its committee ever function as a “study committee.” The present writer, though on sabbatical, considered the matter of sufficient weight to continue his membership on the committee during the sabbatical. The same is true of another member of the committee. At one point the present writer had to terminate prematurely his stay abroad, where he had gone to attend the funeral of his sister, in order to be present at the committee’s meeting.
The outcome of the committee’s discussions was inconclusive. The committee then asked the faculty to be discharged. The Board, at its May 1983 meeting, concurred. Professor Stek himself submitted a number of “affirmations” which were first submitted to the faculty committee and then to the Board. These are the affirmations of Professor Stek. They may be found in the Acts of 1983.
Admittedly this long drawn out process with its inconclusive ending leaves no one in the denomination satisfied. From a formal viewpoint the Board’s two statements about Professor Stek’s obligation in light of his subscription to the creeds and about the denomination’s duty in that same light are correct. But we cannot let the matter rest there.
During my recent sabbatical I have laid the groundwork for the publication concerning the proper understanding of Genesis 1–11. More work needs to be done before it is ready for the publisher. In the meantime, on a very popular level, I have touched on hermeneutical and exegetical questions concerning Genesis 1–11 in a series of one-page articles prepared for De Wachter, one of our denominational papers. (A request by a Christian Reformed minister to the editor of The Banner to have these articles translated into English for publication in his paper has thus far yielded no results, and I assume, has been denied.)
Where shall we go from here? The church cannot be left doubting as to crucial matters such as the existence of Adam and the understanding of Genesis 1–11. If our confessional beliefs concerning these matters cannot be upheld in light of honest and believing scholarship everything else in our theology and our confessional statements will be affected very directly.
As I have said in the pages of this journal, the opportunities for a prolonged discussion of these issues before the forum of the confession church are limited. Church papers are partly closed, and partly unsuited for this type of discussion. A discussion in scholarly journals, even though this might be feasible, removes it effectively from the forum of the church’s corporate life and witness. And it is on that level that confessional subscription really should function.
My views concerning the structure of Genesis have been published in more than one context. As to the matter of the age of man and the age of the earth, I for one do not think that it should be assumed that nothing can be said against the opinions of those who hold to enormous spans of time to be underlying Genesis 1–11. That must be a matter of further discussion, not, however, of unchallenged assumption. Appeal is also made to the polemical nature of these early accounts in Genesis. Taking the word “polemical” in the sense of its dictionary definition, there is hardly any of that in the Genesis materials. These materials may have served as counter-statements to the prevailing myths of the day . But to call them polemical would require a quite different tone from what they now have. There is no overtaking issue with other positions, no explicit argument anywhere. I do not therefore think that the alleged polemic of the narratives should be used as a hermeneutical consideration.
More could be mentioned. The above brief remarks are only meant as a small beginning of what might prove to be a fruitful discussion of the issues raised. I would conclude with calling attention to the belief to which, according to the Board of Trustees, all of the Seminary faculty subscribe. One can find it on p. 108 of the Acts of 1982. The statement says: “The members of the Calvin Seminary faculty without exception believe that Adam and Eve were created by God and are our first parents. They further accept the reality of an historical fall as recorded in the Scriptures . . .”
Admittedly, Professor Stek’s “affirmations,” as printed in the Acts of 1983, in so many words say nothing about Adam and Eve being our first parents. I assume that as long as there has been no public disagreement with the belief ascribed to the members of the Seminary Faculty one may and must hold this to be the belief of all of them. Standing on that common platform—and I do not see—how confessionally there could be any other—we may perhaps raise some further questions. But about the confessional perimeter within which these questions are raised there should be no doubt.