The Hermeneutics Conference (Hamilton, Jan.16-18, 2014) is now long over (see previous post). This conference featured speakers from the Canadian Reformed Theological Seminary (CRTS) and the Theological University of Kampen (TUK) of the Gereformeerde Kerken Vrijgemaakt (GKV), the Dutch sister-church of the Canadian Reformed Church. The main purpose was to debate traditional Reformed hermeneutics versus the "new" hermeneutics advocated by TUK.
Videos of the lectures have just been posted at the site of the Canadian Reformed Theological Seminary. Unfortunately, these do not include the discussions. Written summaries of the lectures by the Dutch professors, Drs. B. Kamphuis, J.M. Burger, and G. Kwakkel are at the site of the Theological University of Kampen (TUK). Some English translations can be found here. The Dutch posts include responses (by Drs. A.J. de Visser and A. Strange), and questions from the audience. The Dutch sites Werken Aan Einheid and Een In Waarheid are the best sites for links to lectures and analyses.
Videos of the lectures have just been posted at the site of the Canadian Reformed Theological Seminary. Unfortunately, these do not include the discussions. Written summaries of the lectures by the Dutch professors, Drs. B. Kamphuis, J.M. Burger, and G. Kwakkel are at the site of the Theological University of Kampen (TUK). Some English translations can be found here. The Dutch posts include responses (by Drs. A.J. de Visser and A. Strange), and questions from the audience. The Dutch sites Werken Aan Einheid and Een In Waarheid are the best sites for links to lectures and analyses.
A Brief Overview
Rev. C. Bouwman, who attended, has written a valuable review . Two main issues were how to interpret Genesis 1 and I Timothy 2.
Rev. Bouwman relates that, according to the TUK professors,
As to 1 Timothy 2, the TUK professors argued,Rev. C. Bouwman, who attended, has written a valuable review . Two main issues were how to interpret Genesis 1 and I Timothy 2.
Rev. Bouwman relates that, according to the TUK professors,
"Genesis 1 isn’t about how we got here, but it’s instruction to Israel at Mt Sinai about how mighty God is not the author of evil....you cannot go to the Bible to find out how the world got here – because that’s not what Genesis1 is about, and so it’s not a fair question we should ask Genesis 1 to answer."
"when Paul wrote the prohibition of 1Timothy 2, the culture Timothy lived in did not tolerate women in positions of leadership. If Paul in that situation had permitted women to teach in church or to have authority over men, he would have placed an unnecessary obstacle on the path of unbelievers to come to faith. Our western culture today, however, gives women a very inclusive role in public leadership. If we today, then, ban them from the offices of the church, we would place an obstacle in the path of modern people on their journey to faith in Jesus Christ. Had Paul written his letter to the church in Hamilton today, he would have written vs 12 to say that women would be permitted to teach and to have authority over men."The TUK hermeneutics is said to be a "third way", between the traditional approach ("foundationalism") and rejecting the Bible altogether ("relativism"). Rev. Bouwman remarks:
This speech about the ‘third way’ helped clarify for me why the Kampen professors could say what they did about Genesis 1 and 1 Timothy 2. They were seeking to listen to Scripture as well as to what our culture and science, etc, were saying, and then under the guidance of the Holy Spirit sought to come to the will of the Lord for today’s questions. To insist that Genesis 1 is God’s description about how we got here (creation by divine fiat) leads to conclusions that fly in the face of today’s science and/or evolutionary thinking – and so we must be asking the wrong questions about Genesis 1; it’s not about how we got here…. To insist that 1 Timothy 2 has something authoritative to say about the place of women is to place us on ground distinctly out of step with our society – and so we must be reading 1 Timothy 2 wrongly. As a result of deep meditation on Scripture plus input from culture etc, these men have concluded that God leads us to condoning women in office in our culture, accepting a very old age for the earth, and leaving room for homosexual relationships in obedient service to the Lord....One questioner from the audience hit the nail on the head: the Dutch brethren were adapting their method of reading the Bible to produce conclusions accommodated to our culture.
There was a time when the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands and their Theological University in Kampen were a source of much wisdom and encouragement in searching the Scriptures. Given that all the men from Kampen spoke more or less the same language at the Hermeneutics Conference, it is clear to me that those days are past.Some Comments
From the above sources, and having spoken to several attendees, my impressions are as follows.
1. The conference has served well to illustrate the great differences between traditional Reformed hermeneutics and the so-called "new" hermeneutics of the TUK. The professors from the CRTS (and Mid-America Reformed Seminary) did very well in defending the traditional hermeneutics against the TUK approach. Consequently, more members of the CanRC have been made aware of the fact that the TUK has very serious theological problems. For many this conference was a real eye-opener.
2. It seems to me, however, that the TUK professors got off rather lightly. For example, Dr van Bekkum was not explicitly confronted about his dubious approach to the book of Joshua (in his Ph.D. thesis he questioned the historicity of various events in Joshua).
It seems that the TUK professors tried to minimize the adverse nature of their hermeneutics, and were not completely frank as to what they actually believed. For example, Dr. Kamphuis, when asked from the audience about Adam and evolution, avoided giving a direct answer. He should have been pressed on this important question. The TUK approach to Genesis makes room for mainstream science, with its evolutionary view of origins. But acceptance of evolution entails rejection of the Biblical Adam, which in turn undermines such crucial doctrines as an historical Fall, original sin, and substitionary atonement. Once the unbiblical presuppositions underlying the TUK hermeneutics have worked themselves out, nothing will be left of the Reformed faith. Just look at the example of the GKN (Gereformeerde Kerken in Nederland: Reformed Churches in the Netherlands), which embraced a similar hermeneutic.
3. Some within the Canadian Reformed Church may well be sympathetic to the TUK approach to Scripture, particularly regarding Gen.1-11. To that end, it would be beneficial if the CRTS professors would publish their presented papers, as well as follow-up articles dealing with the TUK hermeneutics and its implications.
*****
