Are Our Congregations Really Active?

Rev. Prof. K. Runia. Trowel & Sword, August 1959

Preamble: Take note of the date of this article – 1959! As with so many previous articles re-published in TSR, it is hard to escape the thought that Dr. Runia could just as easily have been writing also for 2025. In doing so he is not necessarily offering solutions for the denomination then, or now, as to what he sees as some of the problems we face, but rather encourages his readers to think about, debate, and formulate a plan of action to overcome our shortcomings and then to put that plan into action to reflect, in his own words, “GODS’ ORIGINAL INTENTION WITH (for) THE CHURCH.” Keep in mind that, with hindsight, it could be said that Prof. Runia wrote these words in what could now be considered probably the most active and productive period of the CRCA.

Are Our Congregations Really Active?

A Slow And Inert Flock?

Undoubtedly every minister and every elder or deacon will agree with me, that the question in the heading of this editorial is one of the most important questions in our Reformed Churches. Are our congregations really active? Or are they a (more or less) willing and docile (?), but also a (more or less!) slow and inert flock, that constantly has to be urged and spurred by the office bearers to go on and display some kind of activity?

Of course such a contrast, as I have indicated here, is always in danger of being an unfair generalisation. In every congregation there is a certain number of members, who are willing indeed to be active, to sacrifice their time and energy for the cause of the Church and its Lord.

But – and that is the question here – are they typical of the total congregation, or are they rather the exceptions which confirm the rule? Personally I fear that the latter is more true than the former.

And therefore it is a truly burning question: Are our congregations really active?

The Days After Pentecost And Today

However, not only in our Reformed Churches this question can be and must be asked, but this same problem is also under discussion in many other Churches, In our days, in which the Church is faced with the situation of being again a ‘ little flock’ (Luke 12:32) in the literal sense of the word, in the midst of a world which is in a process of ever increasing secularisation, all Churches are forced to reflect upon their own attitude.

And then always this question comes up: Why was the newborn Church of the days after Pentecost so flourishing? Why was there that great increase of numbers, or which we time and again read in the book of acts? It is an impressive list of texts: Acts 4:4; 5:13,14; 6:7; 8:6; 9:31,42; 11:21,24;12:24; 14:1,21; 16:5; 17:4,12; 18:10; 19:20.

Of course there is first of all the Holy Spirit Himself, who in His superior force breaks through all the obstacles of Judaism with its legalism and of Paganism with its lawlessness. But – the spirit did his work then, as well as now, through the medium of the BELIEVERS: Why that amazing result in those first days and also in the subsequent centuries? Why again in the days of the Reformation? Why still today in some mission fields?

WHY?

All over the world the Church struggles with this Question. In an article in the “REFORMED AND PRESBYTERIAN WORLD” (Vol. XXV, No.4, of Dec. 1958) I read some very helpful and instructive thoughts about this problem, and I would like to pass some of them on to our readers. The author, Dr. Richard SHAULL, an American minister, does not go into the practical side of the matter, but rather concentrates on the underlying principles. I hope these principles may be of such an impact upon us, that we too start to think about the problem and then try to find out some practical measures, which can be applied in our special situation, in order to reach the desired goal: the combined activity of all our members.

Is The Setup Of Our Church Life Right?

In his article ,entitled “The Service of The Church”, Dr. Shaull points to the fact that the Church is called to be a COMMUNITY OF SERVICE AND MISSION IN THE WORLD. And of course we all agree! But the author immediately adds: When it comes to pursuing this to its logical consequence we are still mere children. The whole set-up of our Church life seems to be defective in this regard. The actual situation is this: “By means of a programme primarily under the responsibility of the pastor, the faithful come together to hear the preaching of the word and receive the sacraments, to be instructed and nurtured in Christian faith and life”. In other words, the members of the congregation are entirely AT THE RECEIVING END. They are mainly the object of ministerial and pastoral care, rather than subjects who abound in personal activities.

How insufficient and unsatisfactory this set-up is, becomes evident especially in the mission fields. In many places in the mission fields, there are small congregations which, as they come into existence, are dynamic missionary communities, but which lose much of their vitality and outreach as they take on the established pattern. New converts come to the Church as militants but, after a few years on the receiving end of a religious programme, they lose much of their original enthusiasm or become so involved in the programme of the ecclesiastical institution that they have little possibility of service in the Church’s mission to the world”.

Of course this does not mean that we have to throw away the preaching of the Word and the administration of the Sacraments, the nature and the fellowship, as we have them now. On the contrary. They are indispensable. But – they have to function in the great context of the all-important task of service and mission in the world.

In this connection we could certainly learn a great deal from the sects. Some of them, such as the Pentecostals have discovered again what it means for the local Church to be a dynamic missionary community. We could also point to the activity of the Communists. Nobody can be a real, good Communist, without being at the same time a fervent propagandist of the doctrine of his party. The author himself says: “On several occasions I have been shocked when I have taken militant Communists to activities of our Church and they have told me quite frankly that they could see little correspondence between what I had said to them about the mission of the Church, and what they saw in the programme and activities within its walls”.

WHAT WOULD A COMMUNIST SAY OF OUR REFORMED CHURCHES IN THIS REGARD?

Can We Leave It To The Minister?

Further there is the place of the MINISTER in our Churches. We are not Roman Catholics who say that their spiritual leaders belong to a higher order or class. Yet we, too, are in constant danger of Clericalism (DOMINOCRATIE).

We tend to think of the ministry of the Church as the work of the pastor and make him the centre of the congregation. The layman tends to have a passive role, to be thought of as the person who assists the pastor in the work of the Church.

But is that the right relation between the two? WHO has to do the work of the Church in the world? For the Church exists only, or at least: mainly, to fulfil her service IN THE WORLD. WHO has to do this? Can the minister do it alone? Or should it be so that the real witnesses are the laymen in the factories, shops, offices, etc? Is not the main task of the minister to nurture the members of the congregation in order that they may obtain the spiritual strength to perform their missionary task in the world?

VERY OFTEN WE ARE QUITE SATISFIED(?) WHEN WE HAVE A NICE CONGREGATION, WHICH AS TO ITS ORGANISATION RUNS SMOOTHLY, HAS A SOUND FINANCIAL BASIS, A NICE CHURCH BUILDING AND A POPULAR MINISTER. But – DID JESUS GVIE HIS LIFE TO CALL FORTH SUCH ORGANISATIONS?

What is our highest aim in and with the Reformed Churches? A NICE congregation, with a NICE minister and a NICE building and NICE organisations, etc.? Or do we realise that we are Church of Christ IN ORDER TO REACH OUT TO THE WORLD?

But should then the set-up of our Churches not have to become quite different? Should then not every member have to become a missionary? Should then our congregation not be a real failure, if it is NOT such an active community, directed at the world outside the Church? Should then not each one of us have to be ashamed, if we come before God’s Holy countenance on Sunday and we have NOT witnessed of Him since the service last Sunday?

Come, O Creator Spirit!

What then to do?

It is easier to ask this question than to answer it . Dr. Saull mentions a few points, which I pass on without any comment. They may be useful as a starting point for further reflection.

FIRST he points to the fact that the New Testament speaks of a much greater variety and richness of ministerial callings than our Church permits at present. (See I Corinthians 12:4-30). How can we make room in the Church for more  of this  richness ? Or in other words: HOW IS IT POSSIBLE FOR US TO MAINTAIN ORDER IN THE CHURCH AND STILL REMAIN OPEN TO THE HOLY SPIRIT?

SECONDLY, the ministry of the Church is called to prepare all the members of the Body for the service of Christ. Too often the MINISTER DOES NOT THINK IN THOSE TERMS. How is it possible for him to develop a new conception of his role in the Church and become in reality what he is called to be? What changes doos this demand in the way he uses his time, in the work that he does in the organisation of the programme and life of the local Church?

THIRDLY, what changes are demanded in our programme for the training of THE MINISTRY? If the minister is called to prepare and stimulate the development of a community of servants, called to suffer with Jesus Christ in the world, how then should he be trained? What aspects of his training have to receive the main emphasis?

Back To The New Testament!

It is obvious that a wide field of reflection and research is opened up here. It is also obvious that this new line of thought, and eventually of practice, will not be easy. This will ask a complete rethinking of the life and function of the church, followed perhaps by a complete re-organisation.

But I am sure that we cannot and may not avoid these problems. This is not a matter of introducing novelties, but we are faced here with the centre nerve of the Church’s existence.

It is true, we are prompted to it. by the changing situation in our modern world. But is it not equally true that precisely in this way we are PROMPTED BACK TO THE NEW TESTAMENT SITUATION, even more: TO GODS’ ORIGINAL INTENTION WITH THE CHURCH.

K. Runia

We look forward to receiving feedback about any of our posts. We also encourage you to share our posts with family, friends and acquaintances; in fact anyone you think may appreciate and/or benefit from the knowledge and wisdom handed down to us from the past.   To view previous posts visit our website at www.tsrevisited.com

Don’t forget to “Like” the article. It helps to spread the word to a wider audience.