Making a Dirty Splash in a Little Puddle: An Attempt to Amend BC 14 (2)

Substantive alteration of BC 14?

Lest any misunderstanding arise, we are not at all suggesting that the Reformed Confessions—whether the Three Forms of Unity or the Westminster Standards—have been, and remain, beyond revision.

In fact, throughout its history (from 1561 onward), the BC has been modified in several ways. (For a very thorough and competent review of these changes, see The Belgic Confession: Its History and Sources, by Nicolaas H. Gootjes [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007].) At least three kinds of changes come to mind: (1) cosmetic, (2) clarifying, and (3) explanatory changes.

Looking back, we recognize that the 1905 revision-by-subtraction of BC 36 was a very significant moment. Before that change, another very contentious revision was made at the Synod of Dort (1618-19), to BC 22, with the revision-by-addition of the words “in our place” in order to address the denial by the German theologian, Johannes Piscator, and his sympathizers of the imputation of the active obedience of Christ.

But take careful note of this fact: beginning with Gisbert Voetius, and including Bernardus De Moor and H. H. Kuyper, the consensus view has always been that none of the changes made prior to and at the Synod of Dort was a substantive alteration, including the revision of BC 22! (For more on this, see Gootjes, 150-159.)

What makes this proposed revision a substantive alteration?

Another very important feature of every change made to the BC since 1561 is that no adopted change was designed and intended to put somebody “outside” the church for denying or jeopardizing the gospel. Even though Johannes Piscator and his sympathizers (among them, Johannes Bogerman, chairman of the Synod of Dort, and Franciscus Gomarus, described by Herman Hanko as a staunch defender of the faith) suffered a severe defeat when their position was rejected at the Synod of Dort, they were not treated as people whose views constituted a threat to the gospel.

By contrast, the present proposal significantly “raises the ante.” Among its buttressing assertions is the allegation that theistic evolution is being taught and promoted within the CanRCs. Let us suppose—only for the sake of discussion—that this is true to fact. This means that when the grounds presented in support of the proposed revision of BC 14 declare that “theistic evolution must lead to a denial of the gospel of salvation,” and that theistic evolution is “a dangerous error that threatens the gospel of Jesus Christ,” then if this proposed confessional revision were to be adopted, some people who are now CanRC members in good standing would be automatically and simultaneously declared to be outside the kingdom of God, should they not surrender their views.

At 12:00 CanRC time, they would be “inside” the true church, but at 12:01 CanRC time, they would be “outside.”

This is novel in the history of BC revisions.

Was woman created in God’s image?

Here is another feature that renders this proposed revision-by-addition a substantive alteration of BC 14.

Compare again the proposed revision with the current version, paying attention to the words in bold:

Current: We believe that God created man of dust from the ground and He made and formed him after His own image . . . .

Revised: We believe that God created the human race by making and forming Adam from dust (Gen. 2:7) and Eve from Adam’s side (Gen. 2:21-22). They were created as the first two humans and the biological ancestors of all other humans. There were no pre-Adamites, whether human or hominid. God made and formed Adam after his own image . . . .

The substantive alteration involves ignoring the persistent usage, throughout the current version of BC 14, of the generic noun “man,” which refers to the entire human race, man and woman. By contrast, the proposed revision replaces the pronoun “him” (referring back to the generic noun “man”) with the personal name of the male, “Adam.” This change may appear innocuous at first glance. But notice that the proposed revision goes on to say that “God made and formed Adam after his own image.”

Read carefully: the current CanRC version says that God “made and formed [man] after his own image,” which refers to both man and woman. The proposed CanRC revision removes any reference to the creation of woman after God’s image!

Given the recent CanRC brouhaha over retracting the right of women to vote at congregational meetings, the fuse lit by this exclusion of women’s creation in God’s image from the creedal testimony of BC 14 should ignite quite a fireworks display among at least 50% of CanRC members.

First order of business

It seems logical that, if we are to be persuaded of the need for revising BC 14, a “case” needs to be made demonstrating this need. One essential prerequisite for making such a “case” is a clear, unambiguous, and unequivocal definition of the “enemy” called “theistic evolution.”

Here is what we get: “By theistic evolution, we mean the teaching that God created the world and all organisms over billions of years.”

This definition strangely excludes what most responsible definitions of theistic evolution include, namely, that God created not directly, but by superintending an evolutionary process, for example, or by guiding the evolution of simple life forms into complex life forms.

The only qualifier in the proposal’s definition of theistic evolution is the element of time: “over billions of years.”

Alright, then. What if, instead, a person believes that “God created the world and all organisms over thousands of years,” by means of a divinely superintended process of natural selection, or a process of producing complex life from simpler life forms? Or how about “over six days“?

The proposed revision of BC 14 nowhere excludes any of these options.

Then we meet yet another strange element.

To the consistory’s definition of theistic evolution is added this descriptive observation:

“Many theistic evolutionists, including some within the Canadian Reformed Churches, also teach that Adam was not the special and direct creation of God. Rather, while acknowledging that Adam was a historical figure, they teach that he was the descendant of pre-existing hominids (man-like creatures with an evolutionary history) that was, at some point and in some ill-defined way, chosen by God to be endowed with his image.”

The clear implication is that an evolved Adamic ancestry is not an essential component of theistic evolution (since not all theistic evolutionists believe this), and therefore does not belong to its definition. But then why does the proposal’s entire defense (grounds) proceed to criticize and oppose this non-essential, incidental element that does not even belong to the proposal’s own definition of theistic evolution?

Once more: who/what is the target here?

What if a theistic evolutionist (according to more common definitions, involving divine superintendence of evolution processes) accepted the direct creation of Adam from the dust, and Eve from his side? It is not at all clear that this proposed revision of BC 14 would address that position.

One would think that, if the Bible and BC 14 are antithetically opposed to theistic evolution as an enemy of the gospel and a danger to salvation, then we would get a better, more careful and persuasive look at this enemy. Why should we accept this definition of theistic evolution? What about other definitions, offered by critics and advocates alike? The point is this: if the church is going to venture into the arena of defining, analyzing, and evaluating a scientific theory, we need something far more thorough, far more detailed and penetrating, than the Providence proposal provides.

To be continued.