Where Are The leaders (II)

Rev. J.W. Deenick. Trowel & Sword. June 1963.

Preamble: Having taken a month to consider his position on the question posed in last week’s article, Bill was ready to begin giving his answer. One of our readers, Henriet, commented: “I look forward to Rev. Deenick’s next instalment – his answer to some challenging questions.” Here it is:

QUESTION:
I will repeat that particular part of the question, published in the issue of May, that I would like to answer first:
In other parts of the world we believed in and professed the principle that the kingship of our Lord Jesus Christ should be applied to all the various fields of human activity. We materialised that principle in the establishment of christian organisations, schools and means of communication. Over here in Australia however we seem to hear very little of this aspect of the christian warfare and I wonder why? Where are the leaders? What initiative is taken? I fear that even those who should give leadership have gone too far already in compromising with unscriptural principles be it only through the very fact of their naturalisation as Australian or New Zealand citizens and by taking the “secular” institutions of the nation for granted.

ANSWER:
Should the principle of Jesus’ Kingship be applied in Australia in the same manner and to the same extent as we believed that it should be applied in other parts of the world?

That depends on the answer that we give to another question that must precede, i.e.: Do you believe that the Australian or New Zealand nation is a Christian nation and that the national and public institutions in this country are Christian in character? If the answer to this second question is: yes, then the answer to the first question is: no. If the Australian public school is still a Christian school, as many claim that it is, and if the Australian parliament is still a Christian parliament, not un-properly opening its sessions with a prayer in the name of Christ, then the duty of a Christian in this country is not to establish Christian organisations apart from those that already exist, but far rather to strengthen, to reform and to revive that which is left of the Christian character of the existing institutions.

This, of course, should not be overlooked. In the Netherlands for instance our Reformed fathers concluded that the time for separate organisation had come when they were convinced in their hearts that through the disaster of the French revolution and of the consequent movement of liberalism the Dutch nation could no longer be considered to be a Christian nation. In South Africa however where the influence of the European spirit was not nearly as strong Reformed christians continued to support the public institutions that already existed and that were more or less Christian in character.

Now, what is the situation in Australia? Many leading protestant Christians still claim, as others do in the United States, that the nation is fundamentally Christian and protestant. Ask an Orangeman from North Ireland what he thinks of the British nations and you will discover that you cannot simply apply European or Continental standards to the situation in British countries. Yet, even if we admit that England is not France and that Australia and New Zealand are not the Netherlands, is it still realistic to classify the community in our countries as Christian and protestant?

We must realise that if we answer this question in the negative we make a very bold and radical statement with tremendous consequences, and we are not at liberty to make it lightly or without a solid body of evidence. Just as it is a drastic measure for a session to excommunicate a member declaring that he is not a Christian, so it is a serious verdict to declare that a nation is no longer a Christian nation. Fully well aware of this I still believe that we cannot (get) away from the conclusion that Australia and New Zealand as nations are no longer either protestant or Christian, and that consequently its government and its institutions have lost their Christian character. Although there are still remnants of the Christian past, such as the coronation ceremony of the Sovereign and his coronation vows, the prayers in Parliament and in various public schools, the oath in the name of God Almighty, certain features of the criminal law, of Sunday and marriage legislation, I would contend that these are more like relics of a past that is no more alive than constituent elements of a living present.

Precisely as a non-christian individual could uphold certain Christian practices and even could hide himself behind a certain Christian screen, so could a nation keep up certain pretensions that do not correspond with its actual life. And if we study the actual life of the nation either in Australia or in New Zealand, the way in which the nation attends to the means of grace, the way in which the nation professes Christ in the means of public communication – press, radio, television, literature and pictures – , in public education – schools and universities – and in the public expressions of art – music, sculpture and painting -, we cannot (get) away from the conclusion that in these various fields the application of the Christian faith has been forced far away to the background of the national life. This has not always been so. There was a time when the church gave spiritual leadership to the nation as a whole and when in literature education and art the Christian faith was professed.

This is no longer so. The nation as a whole does no longer acknowledge the kingship of Christ and the Church has to admit realistically that the nation as a whole no longer listens to the message or follows the spiritual leadership, and that the claims of Jesus as King can no longer be materialised in the public life of the nation. This however should not make the Church despair. There are still those who attend to the means of grace, who come to Church and to the sacraments. In obedience to Christ the Church should give leadership to them in their endeavour to christianise at least that section of the nation’s social and public life that they as Christians comprise.

It was in this connection that the principles were formulated to which the question refers. I believe that they apply to the Australian and New Zealand situation and that we are called of God to put them into practice in all these various fields mentioned above. The question suggests that all we do is: pay lip service to the principle, but nothing more. That is not entirely correct. It is true that we have limited our field of activity practically wholly to that of Christian education. But in that field we did establish a College first and a primary school later. The College was not meant merely for the training of theological students for the ministry. It was established in the hope and with the aim of embracing a wider field of academic training later in God’s time. We are therefore – somewhat hesitatingly – on the march already. However if the question complains of lack of straightforward leadership, I am afraid that this could be justified more than we may feel to be pleasant. Here we may have failed more than we care to admit.

We may have acquiesced too easily in the fact that there are no better schools or papers or radio stations or political parties . We may have accepted too readily the excuse that nothing else was available. Take for example the paper. We have said and say: One needs a paper, does he not? Well, what can we do but choose the best, the least harmful paper published in the town. But is it right?

Is it right?

Next time further.

J.W. DEENICK

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