It is about 25 years ago that a theological professor of De Gereformeerde Kerken in Nederland addressed the Ministers’ Institute of the Christian Reformed Church held every June in Grand Rapids. The churches he served had already concluded that Genesis 1–11 was not historical in the sense in which we understand history. I should not have been surprised at his views because I had read his articles and books. Yet, to hear it directly from his lips shocked me and many others. One CRC minister asked the professor: What, then, do you do with Romans 5:12, 14, 15, 17, 18 and 19 where Paul draws the clear distinction between Adam and Christ; and I Corinthians 15:22 where the Apostle says: “For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.” What answer did he receive? With a chuckle the professor answered: That was Paul’s view, but he was wrong!! This answer made my blood run cold. I suppose that if you have denied the historicity of the first chapters of Genesis and have no room for the Adam spoken of there, this view of Romans 5 and I Corinthians 15 would be the natural consequence.

This same church to which this professor belonged (GKN) asked its fellow-members of the Reformed Ecumenical Synod to help them come to the proper view of the doctrine ofScripture in 1969. We decided to do this. Report 44 “The Nature and Extent of Biblical Authority” accepted by the Synod of 1972 was our answer. Were they struggling with this problem? No, five years earlier their professor had made it clear in Grand Rapids what their view of Scripture really was.

Although many believe that there is very little similarity between our problems and their history and those of the GKN, I believe that the one is a mirror image of the other. The difference is that we come about 25 years behind them. In Holland the question of origins arose in the biology department of the Free University and Dr. Jan Lever was the first to bring the question of the historicity of the first chapters of Genesis to the fore. It was soon accepted by others including the theological professor of whom I spoke. In our circles it has arisen out of the department of astronomy. Theology cannot ignore this question because a part of the Bible is at stake.

The history of this matter has not been very long in our circles. Dr. Van Till wrote his book “The Fourth Day” in 1986. Protests where brought to the Board of Trustees in February, 1988. The Board, realizing that it was not a minor matter, appointed an ad hoc committee to study this matter in some depth and to serve the Board with advice. Although Professor Van Till was very outspoken in his book and was not seeking to hide any of his beliefs, the ad hoc committee reported back to the Board at its May, 1988 meeting informing the Board that the teachings found in the “Fourth Day” were within the guidelines of Scriptural interpretation which the CRC has adopted and not contrary to our confessions! This brought action from various quarters so that when Synod met it had no less than 32 overtures dealing with this matter and 8 communications. Synod’s advisory committee was a little more hesitant than the adhoc committee had been, but, not much. The adhoc committee had expressed certain concerns about the professor’s teaching but the advisory committee “regrets” that the Board did not address these concerns sufficiently.

Synod adopted the advice of its advisory committee and decided to appoint a committee to study the matter further and to report in three years! Among other things, this committee is to study the relation between special and general revelation as found in Belgic Confessions Art. II. focusing primarily on the implications for Biblical interpretation and the investigation of God’s creation. In this study they should include the concept of “vehicle/packaging contents” (wording taken right out of the mouth of our Gereformeerde brethren), the designation of Genesis 1–11 as “primeval history,” the creation of Adam and Eve in God’s image, the fall into sin, and the doctrines of creation and providence as they relate to evolutionary theory. Isn’t it always the safest way to proceed when faced by a difficult problem to appoint a committee? Everyone knows that Synods have been very free in appointing study committees throughout the years and the undersigned bas had his share of study committee work in the past. Of course, committees must often be appointed to study a matter when the problem cannot be handled at the meeting whee it is brought. Lack of time at Synodical meetings is reason enough to appoint various study committees. However, may we study anything and everything? My answer is NO. No study committee, e.g., may be appointed to study the question: Is there a God? That would be blasphemy. No study committee may have a mandate to study the question: Is Jesus Divine? That is to be taken for granted. Hebrews 11:6 informs us: . . . for be that cometh to God must believe that he is . . . . We have something similar in this problem. May we have a committee study whether Genesis 1–11 is actual history? Is this negotiable? Could we have a majority and minority report? Could this committee decide that it isn’t really history? May we place ourselves above the Scriptures? I realize, that no one would want to fall into the traps shown here, but the danger is there. I believe that Synod erred greatly in appointing a committee for this purpose. I would urge each one of the brethren appointed to this committee to decline to serve. If such matters as these are “up for grabs” then we have wandered a long way from the faith of those who have gone before us, and, far more important, we have then loosed our grip on the one thing which shall never change.

H. Vander Kam is a retired CR pastor at Orange City, Iowa.