Sunday Observance and Sunday Labour (4)

K. Runia. Trowel & Sword. Jan/Feb 1966

It will be clear to all readers of the previous articles in this series that in my opinion (based on my understanding of Scripture and in conformity with the attitude of the Early Church) the observance of the Sunday, as we are used to it, is a matter of CHRISTIAN LIBERTY. I do not believe that the New Testament requires from us a legal observance of the Sunday, as if it were the ‘Christian Sabbath’. In this respect the fourth commandment has been fulfilled in Jesus Christ and therefore abrogated. On purpose I say: ‘in this respect’. As I wrote in the previous article, I do believe that the fourth commandment is still a commandment in another respect. To put it in the words of Zacharias URSINUS, the main author of the Heidelberg Catechism:

“Although the ceremonial Sabbath has been abolished in the N.T. yet the moral still continues, and pertains to us as well as to others; for there is now just as much necessity for a certain time to be set apart in the Christian church for the preaching of God’s word, and for the public administration of the sacraments, as there was formerly in the Jewish church. Yet we must not suppose that we are restricted or tied down either to Saturday, Wednesday or any other day. The apostolic church, to distinguish itself from the Jewish synagogue, chose, in the exercise of the liberty conferred upon it by Christ, the first day of the week in the place of the seventh, because on that day the resurrection of Christ took place, by which the internal and spiritual Sabbath is begun in us… In other words, there is a necessity that we should have a certain day on which the church should be instructed and the sacraments administered; yet we are not bound or tied down to any particular day” (Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, 563/4).

The O.T. sabbath, however, as a legal provision, with its prohibition of all work, belongs to the past. It was part of the time of tutelage, but “now that faith has come, we are no longer under a custodian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith” (Gal.4:25,26).

But is such a view NOT DANGEROUS? The answer is both Yes and No. YES, IT IS DANGEROUS, if we are not real Christians or if we are carnal Christians. If such is the case, we may easily be tempted to misuse our freedom and completely ignore the fourth commandment, also in regard of the aspect that is still binding. But let us be honest, in such a case the fault is not in the Christian liberty, which God has given us, but in our misuse of it by unbelief!

At the same time we must also say: NO, IT IS NOT DANGEROUS AT ALL, namely, when we are real children of God. Then we know that the Lord wants us to worship Him and every Sunday it will be a joyful feast to join the congregation. As we sing in one of our psalms:

My heart was glad to hear the welcome sound,
The call to seek Jehovah’s house of prayer;
Our feet are standing here on holy ground,
Within thy gates, thou city grand and fair.’

As we have pointed out before, this was also the attitude of the early Christians. For them the Sunday was not a legal obligation, but an ever new feast. As Tertullian put it: “Sunday we give to joy”!

But what are the PRACTICAL CONSEQUENCES of this view? May we, for example, say that it does not really matter, whether or not we work on Sunday? From some letters, which I received after the publication of the first articles, I have learned that some readers did draw this conclusion. Some apparently have said: “Now we all may work on Sunday, for one of the professors in Geelong has said that there is nothing wrong with it”. I am afraid that these readers are rather ‘poor’ readers. This has definitely not been said by me, nor do I intend to say it at any time.

Personally I believe that there are many, very serious reasons which should cause us to refrain from all VOLUNTARY Sunday labour. 

(1) Every one who, OF HIS OWN FREE WILL, begins to work on Sunday assists in abolishing the day of public worship which God has given us in his gracious providence. I cannot imagine any serious Christian who VOLUNTARILY will contribute to the further secularisation of the day of public worship. 

(2) The facts of life show us very clearly that Sunday labour is also harmful to the public worship itself. Again, I cannot imagine any serious Christian, who finds it an unimportant matter that the public worship of the Lord does not received its full due and emphasis. 

(3) Sunday labour does harm to the Christian family. In most families the Sunday is the only day that all the members of the family can be together and enjoy one another’s fellowship. 

(4) In addition to all this, VOLUNTARY Sunday labour means that the public worship and the family are sacrificed to MATERIALISTIC DESIRES. Let us be honest, no one works on Sunday because he likes working so very much. The sole reason is the pounds and shillings! All VOLUNTARY Sunday labour, therefore, is evidence of a materialistic attitude. It means sacrificing one’s spiritual interests to one’s material interests. What is in such a case left of the joy of the Sunday, and of the public worship with one’s fellow believers? 

(5) The same is true, I believe, of those who regard the Sunday as a day for outings. Undoubtedly, the Sunday is also a day of recreation (cf. the reference to the servants and the animals in the fourth commandment), but our recreation should be in line with the public worship and it should never promote a further secularisation of the day of the Lord. It is good to listen here to Calvin:

“If we employ the Lord’s Day to make good cheer, to sport ourselves, to do games and pastime, shall God in this be honoured? Is it not a mockery? Is not this an unhallowing of His name?”

On the other hand, I also believe that those who, due to their special position in our secularised society, are UNDER OBLIGATION to work on Sunday, are not sinning against the commandment of the Lord, if they do work on Sunday. In this regard our situation is increasingly becoming similar to that of the early church. The believers of those early days also lived in a secularised society. A great number of them were slaves and HAD TO work for their master, also on Sunday. The New Testament nowhere rebukes them on this account or commands them to refuse further obedience to their masters. Must we then in our day lay a heavier burden on the Christians of today?

At the moment the Christians in CEYLON are very realistically faced with this issue. Recently the Ceylonese government, which is predominantly Buddhist, has proposed to abolish the Christian Sunday and to make it an ordinary working day, while the Buddhist holy days will become the public holidays. What are the Reformed Christians in Ceylon to do, when this proposal becomes law? In a recent issue of their church paper, “The Herald’, the matter was discussed by several people. One of the pastors pointed to the Conference in Jerusalem (Acts 15), which made no mention of the Sabbath observance in the requirements laid upon Gentile Christians. At the same time he emphatically referred to the clear N.T. enjoinment in Heb.10: 23-25 – “Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promised is faithful; and let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, NOT NEGLECTING TO MEET TOGETHER, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near”.

For a Christian who, in our secularised situation, has to work on Sunday I see only two possible attitudes on the personal level. (a) He can resign and seek another job, because he feels that this is better for his spiritual life, for the church, for his family, etc. (b) He will work on Sunday, if required to do so, but he also will limit it to the absolute minimum. If he has to work on certain Sundays, he will not neglect the church service, nor his family.

What should be the attitude of the SESSION in all this, especially with regard to DISCIPLINE?

(1) Concerning all VOLUNTARY Sunday labour the Session should frankly say that it is wrong. If, in spite of this, church members still do it, they should be admonished, The admonition should not stop at the mere fact of Sunday labour, but deal in particular with the SPIRITUAL ATTITUDE BEHIND IT. In addition, the Session should point out the spiritual dangers involved in regular Sunday labour.

Does the Session have the right to proceed to further discipline and, for example, bar such persons from the Lord’s table? I do not think that it is possible to give a general answer to this question. Every case must be adjudicated separately. In my opinion the reason of such disciplinary action cannot be the fact of Sunday labour itself (this would bring us back to the O.T. situation), but rather the wrong spiritual attitude behind it.

(2) Concerning COMPULSORY work on Sunday the task of the Session is more of an advisory nature. Here, too, the Session should point out the dangers involved and tell the church members that for a Christian the worship of God must always remain central. When Sunday labour becomes a regular affair, the Session may even ask the persons concerned: Is it not better to look for other work, for the sake of both your spiritual life and your family life? (As far as the latter is concerned, there is also the matter of the EXAMPLE, which we as parents give to our children!)

On the whole a Session should be very careful. Its approach should never be legalistic.This would reveal an attitude derived from the 0.T. rather than from the N.T. In addition, as a Session we should not underestimate the difficulties of our modern secularised society. Quite often we are confronted with situations which we cannot solve satisfactorily. Let us especially be careful not to load people with burdens which we ourselves do not touch with one finger (of. Matt. 23:11; Luke 11:46). Perhaps we as Session members have a job, which does not create any problem on this score. In such a case it is so easy to apply the ‘law’. But what would WE do, if we were involved in modern industrial life? Would WE resign, if we had to do shift work implying occasional Sunday labour? Ministers in particular should be very cautious at this point! 

Perhaps some, or even many, readers are not satisfied with this. Perhaps they find that I am not consistent enough. Either the fourth commandment is still binding, or it is not. In both cases the matter is clear and every one knows where he has to stand.

I am sorry that I have disappointed these readers, but it is not really my fault! This situation is simply due to the special, ceremonial character of the fourth commandment itself! God Himself has given it to Israel in this particular form! We have to acknowledge this and humbly accept the difficulties involved.

On the other hand, we should not exaggerate the difficulties. Personally I believe that, if we adhere to what our Heidelberg Catechism says, there are no real problems. Lord’s Day 38 gives a very clear exposition of the abiding significance of the commandment, when it says, “that I, especially on the day of rest, diligently go to God’s Church, to learn the Word of God, to use the holy Sacraments, to call publicly upon the Lord, and to give Christian alms. Secondly that all the days of my life I rest from my evil works, allow the Lord to work in me by His Spirit, and thus begin in this life the everlasting Sabbath”. In other words, the REAL QUESTION concerning this commandment (just as concerning all the other commandments!) is: Do I really believe what Lord’s Day I says? Do I know “that I, with body and soul, both in life and death, am not my own, but belong unto my faithful Saviour Jesus Christ, who with His precious blood has fully satisfied for all my sins and… by His Holy Spirit… makes me heartily willing and ready, henceforth, to live unto Him”? If this is true, there will be no greater joy than coming together on Sunday with all the other children of God to WORSHIP HIM.

THAT, AND THAT ALONE, IS TRUE, EVANGELICAL SUNDAY OBSERVANCE.

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

Leave a comment

Sunday Observance and Sunday Labour (3)

K. Runia. Trowel & Sword. December 1965

When we turn to the OLD TESTAMENT, we immediately observe that there is a very strong emphasis on the sabbath. It does not only have a very prominent place in the Decalogue (it is the longest of all the commandments), but also in other parts of the 0.T. revelation it is singled out as the divine commandment par excellence for Israel. Read, for example, Ex. 31:12-17 and Ezek. 20: 20-21. It is, of course, not possible in one article to give an elaborate exegesis of all these passages. It must suffice to mention some of the main points only.

Sabbath and Creation.

One of the most striking facts in the O.T. is that several times we read of a connection between the sabbath and God’s own work of creation. We find this in the fourth commandment, in Gen. 2: 3, but also in Ex. 31: 17. This connection has been the basis of the traditional view which regards the Sunday as the N.T. continuation of the 0.T. sabbath (cf. the Westminster Confession, Ch.XXI. Usually it was said that the sabbath is a CREATION ORDINANCE, i.e., a divine commandment that is given with the creation itself and therefore binding on all people of all places and all ages.

Prof. John Murray, in his book ‘Principles of Conduct’, mentions the following creation ordinances: the procreation of offspring, the replenishing of the earth, subduing of the same, dominion over the creatures, labour, the weekly sabbath and marriage (p.27). As you see, he also includes the weekly sabbath. If this is correct, the whole matter is definitely and conclusively settled. But is it correct? In recent times many Reformed scholars have increasingly become more hesitant to answer this question with a simple Yes. A while ago I read in ‘De Wekker’ (Christelijk Gereformeerd) an article of Prof. Oosterhof of Apeldoorn, in which he also expressed doubt on this point. The main reasons are the following:

(a) It is NOT SAID in Gen. 2: 3 that the sabbath was instituted as a creation ordinance. We do read that God blessed and hallowed the seventh day, but it is not said that God AT THAT TIME INFORMED ADAM of it and commanded him to keep this day. Even Prof. Murray, who is a staunch supporter of this idea, is very cautious in his expressions. “There can be little doubt that in Gen. 2: 3 there is AT LEAST AN ALLUSION to the blessing of the seventh day in man’s week; and, when we compare it more closely with Ex. 20:11, there is STRONG PRESUMPTION IN FAVOUR of the view that it refers specifically and directly to the sabbath instituted for man” (p.32 – capitals supplied by me, K.R.). Murray further assumes that God explicitly informed Adam of this commandment. Kuyper (Tractaat van de Sabbath, p.19) assumes that it was innate in Adam, comparable with the instinct of migration in some birds. But – these are all assumptions. The text itself is silent on the matter. Whatever books one studies, there is always the same fact: the thesis that the sabbath is a creation ordinance is a DEDUCTION from certain scriptural data. Nowhere is it stated in clear words. (Read, e.g., Kuyper’s argument on pp. 86ff.). We do not say that in itself it is an impossible deduction. We are even willing to admit that it seems to be a very logical deduction, Personally we would be quite willing to accept it, IF, yes, IF there would not be other arguments, which in our opinion refute it.

b) There is further the remarkable fact that we do not read of the sabbath in the life of the patriarchs. Of course, this too is not conclusive. It might be explained as evidence of moral declension on this point in the time of the patriarchs, just as their polygamous marriages showed a declension from the monogamous marriage instituted at creation (cf. Murray, p. 35). Indeed, this is possible. Still, the fact that there is no mention whatsoever, neither positive (commandment and observance), nor negative (non-observance and rebuke), remains remarkable.

(c) The main reason, however, is the fact that in the N.T. the sabbath is declared to be abrogated. This, in my opinion and that of many other theologians, is CONCLUSIVE proof that the 0.T. sabbath was NOT a creation ordinance. For if it were a creation ordinance, it COULD NOT POSSIBLY be abrogated, or even changed. The usual counter-argument is that the main point was the 6-1 rhythm and that the changing of the seventh day into the first does not really alter the ordinance. I cannot accept this. In Gen. 2 and also in Ex. 20 all emphasis is on the SEVENTH day. Gen. 2: 3 does not say that God hallowed one of the seven days and that as long as man has a rest day once every seven days, he follows the pattern of the Creator, but it says: God hallowed the SEVENTH day. The same is true of the fourth commandment in Ex. 20: the SEVENTH day is a sabbath unto the Lord thy God. We have no right to say that only this part is ceremonial or typological (pointing to Christ) and that the rest is permanent. In Gen. 2 and Ex. 20 the commandment is ONE WHOLE. The fact that the N.T. rejects the Jewish sabbath (which was the SEVENTH day) can therefore only mean that the WHOLE commandment AS COMMANDMENT is not permanent and that the sabbath was NOT a creation ordinance. Furthermore, the redemption never alters the creation, but only restores it. None of the other creation ordinances is altered by the coming of Christ. They are only restored to their original (cf. Jesus’ attitude towards marriage, Matt. 19:4ff.).

If the sabbath was a creation ordinance, we would have expected the same. But in actual fact we see that Paul says that the sabbath belongs to the past, and by saying this he declares it to be a PURELY JEWISH INSTITUTION.

Origin of the Sabbath. 

Where then do we have to seek the origin of the sabbath? The answer to this question is: no one knows. All that we know is that it already existed before the lawgiving on Sinai. This does not only follow from the fact that the fourth commandment begins with the word ‘Remember’, but we do actually read of the Sabbath before Sinai, namely, in Ex.16. When God promises manna, He says to Moses that on the sixth day the Israelites should gather a double portion v.5. In the verses 25-30 we then read of the seventh day as “a Sabbath to the Lord”. According to some commentators this very event means the beginning of the sabbath. Prof. Keil, e.g., writes (pp.68/69) :

“It is perfectly clear from this event that the Israelites were not acquainted with any sabbatical observance at that time, but that, whilst the way was practically opened, it was through the decalogue that it was raised into a legal institution”. This might well be correct, although we cannot be definite on this point. One thing is sure, however, viz. that it was the Decalogue which made it a permanent legal obligation for Israel.

The fourth Commandment of the Decalogue 

What then is the reference to the creation in the fourth commandment, as recorded in Ex. 20? We can find the answer only, when we understand the meaning of God’s own resting on the seventh day after the creation, as we read in Gen. 2:2. It has always rightly been emphasised that this RESTING OF GOD does not mean inactivity. God as the LIVING GOD is never inactive. On this seventh day, too, He is active as the Preserver and Ruler of the universe He has made. The ‘rest’ refers only to the termination of the creative activity. But why is this mentioned in Gen. 2:2 (and Ex. 20)?

Is it only a piece of factual information about God? Certainly not! The Bible never gives factual information for its own sake. It always has a spiritual intention, when it gives such information. This is true of the first six days – they are the most radical demythologisation of this world: all the powers and objects worshipped by the other nations as idols are nothing else than creatures made by God. It is also true of the seventh day. It is a message for ISRAEL (Gen. 2 was originally written for Israel) that there is a rest of God, which is the completion and perfection of the creation. The first man, Adam, was allowed to live and work as God’s child on this seventh day. His creaturely life was like playing in the light of God’s rest. But then sin came and life became for man a toiling ‘in the sweat of his face’ (Gen. 3:19). Yet the message of the rest remained as a promise. The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews has emphasised this ESCHATOLOGICAL meaning of God’s rest when he writes: “There remains a sabbath rest for the people of God; for whoever enters God’s rest also ceases from his labours, as God did from his” (4:9,10).

This was also the meaning of the reference to the creation in the FOURTH COMMANDMENT. It was not only a model for Israel’s division of labour and rest, but it was essentially a SIGN OF GOD’S GRACE TO ISRAEL. The commandment itself, as recorded in Ex. 20 – and this is fully in keeping with its character as commandment, i.e., part of a legal code – does not say this explicitly. It emphasises Israel’s duty to observe the day of rest. But the reference to God’s own seventh day of rest clearly intimates this promise of grace. In other passages it is openly stated. E.g., Ex. 31:13 says “You shall keep my sabbaths, for this is a SIGN between me and you throughout your generations, that you may know THAT I, THE LORD, SANCTIFY YOU” (Cf.also Ezek. 20:12 and 20). It is particularly clear, in the formulation of the fourth commandment in Deut. 5.

Here the reference to the creation has been replaced by that to the redemption from Egypt. The sabbath is a constant reminder of the redemption given by God and as such at the same time a promise of the great, eschatological redemption, which awaits God’s children. But, within the context of the law, it is given in the form of a commandment: by strict obedience Israel has to show its faith in this promise.

The Israelite sabbath had still OTHER ASPECTS too. It was also a day for SPECIAL WORSHIP (cf. Lev. 23:3; Numb. 28:9,10). It further had an important SOCIAL ASPECT: the sons and daughters, the slaves and servants, and even the animals should not be exploited but enjoy a day of rest every week. But these other aspects are subordinate to the first and primary aspect: the sabbath as SIGN OF REDEMPTION: “that I, the Lord, sanctify you. And it is this primary aspect that has been fulfilled in the coming of Jesus Christ. As Calvin states: “There is no doubt that by the Lord Christ’s coming the ceremonial part of this commandment was abolished. For he himself is the truth, with whose presence all figures vanish; he is the body at whose appearance the shadows are left behind… This is not confined within a single day but extends through the whole course of our life, until, completely dead to ourselves, we are filled with the life of God. Christians ought therefore to shun completely the superstitious observance of days” (Instit. II, viii, 31 – Calvin means here: as if the one day is holier than the other and brings us more closely to God).

Only nine commandments left?

Does the foregoing mean that there are only nine commandments of the Decalogue left? Or to put it even more pointedly: Should we omit the fourth commandment from the Decalogue, when the latter is read from the pulpit every Sunday morning? I believe that such a conclusion is TOO HASTY.

I would agree with Calvin when he writes: “Although the Sabbath has been abrogated, there is still occasion for us: (1) to assemble on stated days for the hearing of the Word, the breaking of the mystical bread, and for public prayers; (2) to give surcease from labour to servants and workmen. There is no doubt that in enjoining the Sabbath the Lord was concerned with both” (II, viii, 32). The second aspect is perhaps not the most relevant in our day with its general practice of a forty hours working week. Nearly all ‘servants and workmen’ ( a terminology which we hardly understand anymore!) have too much rather than too little leisure! But the first aspect is still fully relevant. I quote Calvin again:

“Meetings of the church are enjoined upon us by God’s Word; and from our everyday experience we well know how we need them. But how can such meetings be held unless they have been established and have their stated days? According to the apostle’s statement all things should be done decently and in order among us. It is so impossible to maintain decency and order – otherwise than by this arrangement and regulation – that immediate confusion and ruin threatens the church if it be dissolved. But if we are subject to the same necessity as that to alleviate which the Lord established the Sabbath for the Jews, let no one allege that this has nothing to do with us. For our most provident and merciful Father willed to see to our needs not less than those of the Jews. Why do we not assemble daily, you ask, so as to remove all distinction of days? If only this had been given us! Spiritual wisdom truly deserved to have some portion of time set apart for it each day. But if the weakness of many made it impossible for daily meetings to be held, and the rule of love does not allow more to be required of them, why should we not obey the order we see laid upon us by God’s will?”

This is also the teaching of the HEIDELBERG CATECHISM in Lord’s Day 38. In the first part everything is concentrated on the public worship of God. “First, that the ministry of the gospel and the (theological) schools be maintained; and that I, especially on the Sabbath, that is, the day of rest, diligently attend the church of God, to learn God’s Word, to use the sacraments, to call publicly upon the Lord, and to give Christian alms”. By the way, the expression ‘Sabbath’ does not occur in the original German edition. It only speaks of the ‘Feiertag’, ie., the holiday, or day-of-rest, or Sunday.) In the second part the full spiritual meaning of this commandment for the Christian of the new dispensation is brought out in almost blinding clarity: “Second, that all the days of my life I rest from my evil works, let the Lord work in me by His Holy Spirit, and thus begin in this life the eternal Sabbath”.

No, I do not want to do away with the fourth commandment. It still has a rich meaning for the believers of our day too. It calls us to worship the Lord with the whole congregation. The day as such is no longer a matter of ‘law’, in the sense of a legal code. The old prohibition of all work is no longer ‘law’, in the sense of a legal code either. These aspects have been brought out of the sphere of law into that of PRIVILEGE.  And the early church, almost from the very start, has seized upon this privilege with great joy and has chosen as day of worship the DAY OF THE RESURRECTION of their Master, who Himself was the fulfilment of the old shadow. As Barnabas writes at the beginning of the 2nd century: “Wherefore also we celebrate with gladness the Eighth Day, on which also Jesus rose from the dead”. Or as Justin Martyr says in the middle of the same century: “On the Sunday we all make our assembly in common. For it is the First Day, on which God, changing the darkness and the matter, made the world; and on the same day Jesus Christ our Saviour rose from the dead”.

Everything is new now. There is a new light shining over the day of worship. There is a new light shining also over the fourth commandment. It is the light of the rest that has been revealed in Christ’s resurrection, a light that points to the still greater light that is to come. Everyone who neglects the worship of God’s people on this day, neglects the light and so also breaks the spiritual meaning of the fourth commandment.

In our next article we intend to discuss the practical and pastoral implications of this view of the Sunday. At the same time we inform our readers already that, after the completion of this series, the Rev. J.W. Deenick, who believes that the traditional view is correct, will write some articles on the problem from his point of view. It will be interesting to see whether there are real differences in the practical conclusions.

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

Leave a comment

Sunday Observance and Sunday Labour (2)

K. Runia. Trowel & Sword. November 1965

When we study the NEW TESTAMENT concerning its teaching about the Jewish Sabbath and the Christian Sunday, we soon discover several remarkable features.

(1) There is HARDLY ANY MENTION OF THE SUNDAY in the New Testament.

Twice we read of ‘the first day of the week’ (Acts 20:7 and I Cor. 16:2). The Jews had no special names for the first six days of the week and therefore simply called them: the first, second, etc, day. Once only we read of the day of the Lord’ (Revel. 1:10). In both cases the reference is to the DAY OF THE RESURRECTION. Christ rose on ‘the first day of the week’ (cf. Matt. 28:1; Mk. 16:2; Luke 24:1; John 20:1a), and therefore this was ‘the day of the Lord’, that is, the day of the Lord Jesus Christ (and not: the day of Yahweh, as in the Old Testament the sabbath is called ‘a sabbath to the Lord your God’, Ex. 20:10). In none of these passages is there any reference to the sabbath. Nowhere is it said: the first day of the week is the Christian version of the Old Testament sabbath. Nowhere are the Christians commanded to rest on this day. All that we read is that they came together on this day for worship. Acts 20:7 speaks of being gathered together ‘to break bread’, while Paul on that day preached till midnight. We also read the exhortation ‘not to neglect to meet together’ (Heb. 10:25), which refers to all Christian meetings, but, no doubt, in particular also to the meetings on the first day of the week. From various extra-Biblical sources, too, we know of the custom to meet together on the Sunday. The Roman author Pliny, who was governor of Bithynia, wrote in a letter to the Emperor Trajan (c. 112 A.D.) :
“The Christians affirm the whole of their guilt or error to be that they were accustomed to assemble together on a fixed day, before it was light, and to sing hymns to Christ as a God, and to bind themselves by a Sacramentum, not for any wicked purpose, but never to commit fraud, theft,..; after which it was their custom to separate, and to assemble again to take a meal, but a general one, and without guilty purpose”.

And about 150 A.D. Justin Martyr writes:
“And on the day called Sunday there is an assembly in one place of all who live in cities or in the country, and the memoirs of the apostles of the writings of the prophets are read as long as time permits: then, when the reader has ceased, the president gives his exhortation to the imitation of these good things. Then we all stand up together and offer prayers and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread is brought and wine and water, and the president in like manner sends up prayers and thanksgivings according to his ability, and the congregation assents saying the Amen. And each one participates of the things over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the hands of the deacons. And they who are well-to-do, and willing, give each one as he wills, according to his discretion, and what is collected is deposited with the president, and he himself helps the orphans and widows and those who are in want through sickness or other cause, and those who are in bonds, and the strangers who are sojourning; and in a word he takes care of all who are in need. And we all have our common meeting on the Sunday because it is the First Day, on which God, having changed darkness and matter, made the world, and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead. For they crucified him on the day before Saturday and on the day after Saturday, which is Sunday, having appeared to His apostles and disciples, he taught them these things which we have submitted to you also for your consideration.”

However, neither in the New Testament itself, nor in any of the early writings of the fathers do we read about any prohibition of labour on the Sunday. In fact, we know that the early Christians worked on this day. Many of them were slaves and HAD TO work! For this reason they had their meetings before dawn and in the evening. Only gradually this pattern has changed and eventually the whole day became a day for worship. During the reign of Constantine the Sunday became an official, public holiday. The next stage was that Sunday labour was officially forbidden by both church and state (although in 392 the church father Jerome still wrote that on the Lord’s Day they went to church but on returning they took up their allotted tasks, making garments for themselves or others (William Hodgkins, Sunday – Christian and Social Significance, 1960, p. 28).

(2) What does the New Testament say about the SABBATH?

In the GOSPELS we read several statements of JESUS about the sabbath. More than once He was involved in a ‘sabbath conflict’ with the Pharisees and on these occasions He expressed His views quite clearly. We cannot deal with them all at length, but summarise them in the following points. 

(a) Jesus Himself keeps the sabbath (of. Luke 4:16), but this is not surprising, nor is it binding for us. Until the time of His own crucifixion and resurrection the Mosaic law was still in force and as THE fulfiller of the law of God Jesus subjects Himself voluntarily to this law and its curse!. For the same reason He was also circumcised on the eighth day.

(b) Jesus opposes the formalistic misuse of the sabbath and the legalistic emphasis on the sabbath rest by the Pharisees. As in all His teaching Jesus utterly rejects such formalism and legalism. 

(c) Jesus nowhere says that the sabbath is a creation ordinance. In the case of marriage and divorce He refers to the institution of marriage at the time of the creation (cf. Matt. 19:3ff. – ‘He who made them from the beginning’, followed by the quotation from Gen. 2:24), but He never does this with regard to the sabbath. Many commentators read an allusion to the creation-aspect of the sabbath in Mk. 2:27 (‘the sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath’), but this is an inference that finds no ground in the text itself, nor in the context. The Lutheran scholar R.C.H. Lenski rightly says: “Jesus is not speaking of Sabbath observance prior to the giving of the law on Sinai; for the entire discussion deals with the regulations that were delivered through Moses”. 

(d) Jesus explicitly places the sabbath in Messianic light. ” The Son of man is lord even of the sabbath’ (Mk. 2:28). Kuyper explained this in a trinitarian way: as the Son, Jesus has, together with the Father and the Holy Spirit, instituted the sabbath at the creation, but this is certainly not a correct interpretation. The text clearly speaks of Jesus as the MESSIAH, as appears from the title ‘Son of man’. AS THE MESSIAH Jesus is the Lord of the sabbath. For was the sabbath not given to point to Him? Lenski says: “The entire ceremonial law, all the forms of Jewish worship, in particular the Sabbath with its divine regulations, were given to Israel by God… as part of the great plan of salvation to be wrought out by the Messiah. The Sabbath was part of the preparation to fit Israel for its coming Saviour.” 

(e) Jesus clearly shows that the sabbath was meant as a blessing for man. It speaks of God’s rest, into which one day man shall enter too. Man is not subordinate to the institution, but the institution is meant to serve man.

When we read the ACTS OF THE APOSTLES we first notice that in the early days after Pentecost the apostles in Jerusalem apparently still observed the Jewish custom of worship. In Acts 3:1, for example, we read that Peter and John went up to the temple ‘at the hour of prayer’. It is not impossible that at first they still observed the sabbath day as well. Later on we also read that during his missionary journeys Paul used to go to the synagogue on the sabbath, but this, of course, was a matter of missionary approach rather than of religious observance. It is very striking that at the famous Conference at Jerusalem, described in Acts 15, the point of the sabbath is not mentioned at all. Apparently there was no problem yet. But the situation changed, when the Judaisers began to insist on the keeping of the sabbath by the Gentiles. Precisely this fact has led to the complete disappearing of the sabbath from the Christian scene.

This leads us to PAUL. Three passages in particular are of importance here. First of all there is ROM. 14:5, which gives the general rule: “One man esteems one day as better than another, while another man esteems all days alike. Let every one be fully convinced in his own mind’. It is not clear which days Paul means. Some think of special fast-days, others of special Jewish feast days, others again of all feast days, including the sabbath. One thing, however, is evident: Paul gives, as a general rule, the exhortation: ‘Do not judge and condemn another on this point, but let every one do what he thinks he has to do BEFORE GOD’.

The next passage that asks our attention is GAL. 4:9,10. Paul is speaking here to a congregation that is in danger of falling back in a pre-christian keeping of the law. Judaisers have tried to bring them again under the yoke of the law. This very fact arouses the apostle’s indignation and he writes: ‘Now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how can you turn back to the weak and beggarly elemental spirits, whose slaves you want to be once more. You observe days, and months, and seasons, and years!’ Although Paul does not mention the sabbath explicitly, nearly all exegetes agree that he refers to them, when he speaks of ‘days’. This, of course, would mean that according to the apostle these sabbaths should no longer be observed.

That this is indeed his view, appears from the third passage, COL. 2:16,17. Here he openly speaks of the sabbath. The first verse is very much like Rom. 14:5, but it is more specific: ‘Therefore let no one pass judgement on you in questions of food and drink or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a sabbath’. In the next verse he gives the reason: These are only a shadow of what is to come; but the substance (the body) belongs to Christ’. It is unmistakably clear that for Paul the sabbath belongs to the past, for – and this is very important – it was typological. It was a shadow that pointed towards Christ.This does not mean that it was unimportant. Lenski rightly says: “We should not think slightly of the shadow. It was no less than the divine promise of all the heavenly realities about to arrive. The shadow proved the actuality and even the nearness of the realities, for only an actual body and one that is not far away casts a shadow. So the shadow called out all the faith and the hope of the Old Testament saints.’ Yet it is not the reality itself. The reality, the substance, the fulfilment is in Christ. In Him we find what the sabbath foreshadowed. In Him we find the real rest from sin, its guilt and its power, but also from the law and its curse. (Paul has described this in the verses 9-13). And therefore the sabbath has come to its definite end. The shadow is good for its time; by means of it faith and hope embrace the coming realities; but when men prefer the shadow instead of the realities, they end with nothing, for even the shadow has disappeared when the shining heavenly realities stand in its place’.

We should further note that Paul, neither here, nor anywhere else in his epistles, speaks of the Lord’s Day as the New Testament prolongation of the Old Testament sabbath. H.N. Ridderbos says in his commentary: “The way Paul writes about the sabbath proves that for him the fourth commandment of the Decalogue has no continuing significance”.

This is actually all that the New Testament says about our problem. There is, of course, also a reference to the sabbath in Hebrews 4, but this is clearly in a figurative, spiritual sense. The author speaks of the eschatological ‘sabbath rest’, which ‘remains for the people of God’ (vs. 9).

We can SUMMARISE the New Testament teaching as follows. The sabbath has been abrogated, for it has been fulfilled in Christ. No one is any longer bound to it, although there is still liberty to keep the day, as long as it is not in a Judaising way and spirit. The new people of God have an altogether different day: the day of their Lord, the day of His resurrection, for on this day the new, everlasting life has begun. NOWHERE, however, does the New Testament say, or even suggest, that the Sunday has come in the place of the sabbath, or that the two are essentially the same.

In fact the Sunday is never prescribed, nor is it even suggested that it was ‘instituted’ by the Lord. It has gradually and naturally developed into the fixed day of worship, and its central aspect is the celebration of the resurrection of the Lord in common worship. In the whole New Testament there is no reference to the Decalogue on the point of Sunday celebration. In fact, as late as the fourth century, the church fathers still speak of the resurrection only. In 326 Athanasius, writing on Ps. 118:24 (‘This is the day which the Lord has made’), asks: ‘What day can this be but the resurrection day of the Lord, the day which brought salvation to all nations? Which had received its name from Him, namely, the Lord’s Day’ (Hodgkins, p. 28).

We believe therefore that it is fully scriptural when one of the famous Reformed confessions of Switzerland, the so called Second Helvetic Confession, declares: “We believe neither that one day is holier than another, nor that rest by itself is acceptable to God, but yet we keep the Lord’s day and not the Jewish Sabbath, BY A VOLUNTARY OBSERVANCE”, (Ch.24)

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

Comment From Last Week

Thanks Bert and Pieter
Wow… your “T&S Revisited” of May 11th brought back some memories. I’m old enough to remember the original article’s publication. I was just 20 at the time but I recall the discussion and debate that this article and subsequent ones generated in our family and in our church community – with friends of my parents on either side of the debate. Some held to the Westminster Confession’s rather more stringent view of the Sunday Sabbath while others were content with the Heidelberg Catechism’s more relaxed view on the subject.

The articles also had some significant implications for me nearly tweny-five years later. The town of the church I was serving at that time also had a Presbyterian Church – not the PCA but a much smaller breakaway denomination. Soon after arriving there I looked up the pastor of this church and told him I was looking for fellowship with like-minded pastors. When he learned that I was an ordained CRCA pastor he told me in no uncertain terms that he could not possibly have fellowship with me. When I asked him why, he told me that it was because back in the Sixties our churches had had this disagreement over the interpretation of the Sunday/Sabbath question and that the denomination had never decided on the one view or the other but had allowed both views to peacefully coexist in the denomination. I must say that evcer since I have felt sad that for this man it was “a hill to die on” – in the sense that it was cause for him to have nothing to do with CRCA or with me as one of its ordained pastors.

Keep up your good work of making the past come alive.

S.D.G.

John Westendorp

Leave a comment

Sunday Observance and Sunday Labour

(1)

K. Runia. Trowel & Sword. October 1965

Preamble: This week we begin a series of articles dealing with the complex and weighty issue of the observance of the “Day of Rest” – the sabbath. The older generation will recall that in the 60’s, the vast majority of shops and businesses closed their doors at midday on Saturday and did not reopen until Monday morning. This was in fact legislated law and huge fines were in place to dissuade business owners from breaking them. (Some things never change). With the increasing secularisation of society, these laws were eventually repealed and all restrictions removed with the result that Christians, and churches had to wrestle with the question of Sabbath or Sunday observance. Prof. Runia opened the debate in T&S with a series of articles in consecutive issues which was then followed by a number of articles by Rev. Deenick. These articles will be republished over the coming weeks without further comment of preamble.

Sunday Observance and Sunday Labour

There is in our day an increasing amount of problems, and consequently also of discussion, around the Sunday. In several of our own congregations it is a problem that creates headaches for sessions. The coming N.Z. Synod will have to deal with a report of its ‘Sabbath Committee’, defending the Westminster Confession position, while at the same time there is an overture of the Reformed Church of Dunedin, asking Synod to declare that sections vii and viii of Ch. 21 of the Westminster Confession are no longer binding on the churches.

In the Netherlands, too, there is much discussion AND confusion. In 1960 the Christian Trade Unions published an important report, which discussed the various aspects of the problem. As the main cause of the problem it pointed to the industrial development in our day. Modern industry requires enormous investments in machinery, buildings, etc, and such investments are economically justified only when the machines are used as intensively and efficiently as possible. Certain modern processes of production have to go on without interruption, for otherwise the factory has to be closed down for about half the week. For the same reason maintenance and repair work must be done on Sunday. In some industries the so-called sliding working week has already been introduced, whereby people work (in shifts) for ten days continuously and then have a break of four days. – It is evident that the motive behind this development is purely economical: the production must be increased continuously. The main reasons are: competition with other countries, employment for the greatest number of people, the raising of the living standard of the whole population.

To every one who wants to live according to the Word of God, this whole development means a serious problem. What should be his attitude? Should he accept this development and try to make the best of the Sunday observance by a process of minimal adaptation? Or should he speak an unqualified No?

Two categories of Christians do not see much of a problem here. On the one hand, there are the take-it-easy Christians. They simply do not care. They do what suits them best in the circumstances. On the other hand; there are the legalistic Christians. They do like Israel of old: they stick to the letter of the law and all problems vanish. Does the fourth commandment not clearly say that one should not work on the sabbath day?

The truly ‘evangelical’ Christian, however, cannot accept either of these ‘solutions’. He knows that Christ has fulfilled the law and that in the liberty of the Spirit (II Cor. 3:17) there is no place for legalism.”For Christ has set us free; stand fast therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery” (Gal. 5:1). But he also knows that Paul says: “Do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh” (Gal. 5:13). God’s law is still there as a rule of gratitude. His task, therefore, is to find an ‘evangelical’ approach to all his problems. That is, an approach truly based on the ‘evangel’, the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

I think we all agree that the Sunday is a tremendous blessing. It is a wonderful gift of God’s grace that we have a special day for worship; a day on which we may interrupt our daily work and concentrate on God and His service. By the way, are we really doing this? Are those who are so concerned about the Sunday doing this? How do they really spend the day? We may criticise others by making an appeal to the law of God and yet, in actual fact, be not any better! And what about those who plead for an ‘evangelical’ observance of the day? They like to speak of Christian liberty, but is it really a CHRISTIAN liberty? Is it a spiritual liberty, which always means a life in close relationship with God?

There is yet another reason too, why the Sunday is such a rich blessing. It means that we have the freedom to be together as a family and enjoy a measure of fellowship which the hustle and bustle of ordinary life often does not permit.

Today, however, the Sunday is threatened on all sides by the secularism and materialism of modern life. For many people the Sunday is not much more than a special opportunity for recreation. For others it is a good chance to earn some extra money. There can be no doubt that as Christians we have the task to fight for the preservation of the Sunday. If need be, we must be willing to make personal sacrifices.

But – how far should we go?

(1) PERSONALLY. – Should we refuse to do any Sunday labour in modern industry? Or to put it in another way: should we as Christians try to avoid the whole sphere of modern industry? Should this be a ‘prohibited area’ for the Christian?

But – is this possible, especially in our time, when we see that the world is returning to the pre-Constantine situation? (The emperor Constantine (284-337) raised Christianity to the status of state-religion and the first legislation on the Sunday dates from this time. Would such an attitude not mean that we force ourselves into a self-imposed social ghetto?

(2) AS A CHURCH. – How far should the session go in its disciplinary action? Is it possible for someone who occasionally works on Sunday, to be an office-bearer in the church? Is there really a difference on this point between the farmer and the one employed in industry?

The fundamental question behind all these specific questions is, of course: to what extent is the observance of the Sunday a divine commandment? Are we still bound to the fourth commandment and, if so, to what extent? In other words, we have to go back to Scripture and answer the question: what does God’s Word teach us on this point?

It is not sufficient to go back to the theologians. For example, one could go back to Calvin and the Heidelberg Catechism and the Second Helvetic Confession, which all give a rather broad interpretation of the commandment. Or one could go back to the Puritans and the Westminster Confession and most of the later Reformed theologians in the Netherlands (such as Kuyper, Geesink, Bourman, and others), who give a much more restricted interpretation. But this matter is not decided by theology or tradition, but by Scripture itself. Of course, we shall gladly listen to what the fathers before us have said. We realise that we are not the first ones to listen to the Word of God! Nevertheless, not the view of the fathers is determinative, but what we ourselves, today, find in the Word of God.

At the same time we should be aware that it is not an easy matter and that we should not be too dogmatic about it. The fact that such divergent views have been held by people who all accept the full authority of Scripture, should warn us beforehand that we must not expect a clear-cut statement that answers all our questions. There are exegetical problems here that have baffled theologians throughout the centuries.

The more traditional view, which has been held generally in Reformed circles for the last few centuries (but not by Calvin himself, see his Institutes, II, viii, 28-34) is that the Sabbath is a perpetual ordinance based on the creation. Admittedly, there is a ceremonial aspect in the fourth commandment and therefore it was possible to transfer the day of rest from the seventh to the first day of the week, after the resurrection of the Lord. But the ordinance of a day of rest (‘sabbath’) itself is perpetual. A very clear summary of this view is given in the Westminster Confession.

Section vii. “As it is of the law of nature, that, in general, a due proportion of time be set apart for the worship of God; so, in his word, by a positive, moral, and perpetual commandment, binding all men in all ages, he hath particularly appointed one day in seven for a sabbath, to be kept holy unto him; which, from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ, was the last day of the week; and, from the resurrection of Christ, was changed into the first day of the week, which Scripture is called the Lord’s Day, and is to be continued to the end of the world, as the Christian Sabbath”

Section viii. “This sabbath is then kept holy unto the Lord, when men, after a due preparing of their hearts, and ordering of their common affairs beforehand, do not only observe an holy rest all the day from their own works, words, and thoughts about their worldly employments and recreations; but also are taken up the whole time in the public and private exercises of his worship, and in the duties of necessity and mercy”

This view is still held by many Reformed or Presbyterian Christians all over the world. In fact, it is vigorously defended by the N.Z. ‘Sabbath Committee’ in their report presented to Synod. Personally we have great respect for those who held this view AND practice it in their own life (although we really wonder whether any Reformed Christian of today practices it according to the letter AND the spirit of the framers of the Confession). Characteristic of this view is that it generally takes its starting point in the 0.T. (especially Gen. 2:3 and the letter of the Fourth Commandment – the Westminster Confession speaks even of the ‘law of nature’!), decides on the basis of the Old Testament data that it is a creation ordinance, and then reads the N.T. in the light of this starting point. The Sunday is seen as a Christian version of the 0.T. (and perpetual) Sabbath. Hence the Westminster Confession speaks of it as the ‘Christian Sabbath’.

In recent years there is an ever increasing feeling among many Reformed theologians that this is not the correct procedure. Is it not the correct starting point of all biblical interpretation to begin with the N.T.? Is it not so that the O.T. must be read in the light of the N.T. and not the reverse? Is this not the way the N.T. writers themselves interpret the 0.T., namely, in the light of Christ who came to ‘fulfil’ the 0.T.? Is this not the method they had learned from Christ Himself? Read Luke 24:25-27 and 44-46.

It should not be objected that we do not always follow this procedure. For example, do we not found the good right of infant baptism on the O.T.? I believe that this objection is not valid. First of all, the N.T. ITSELF clearly teaches us that baptism is a divine ordinance. This is not an inference from the 0.T., but IN THE N.T. ITSELF we read in unmistakably clear words that the Lord Jesus instituted this sacrament. If this were not so, we would not baptise anybody! Secondly, INFANT baptism is not founded in the 0.T. either. If this were the real and only argument, we should immediately stop doing it. Why do we baptise children? Because we believe that the collective aspect of the covenant, which is so clearly part of it in the 0.T. dispensation, is continued in the N.T. ITSELF. If there were not clear indications of this in the N.T. ITSELF, we would never baptise infants!

We, therefore, believe that the only correct way of studying this problem is to start with the N.T. and to study first what this ‘charter of the N.T. church teaches about the Sabbath and the Sunday. Having done this we we shall turn to the 0.T. to read it in the light of the N.T. and to find out what, in the light of the N.T., it teaches us concerning the abiding validity of the sabbath and the fourth commandment. We intend to do this in a series of articles in the next issues.

One final remark. At this point already we want to state that we believe that in actual fact the appreciation of the great importance of the Sunday for the spiritual life of the individual Christian and of the Church as a whole, will not really differ, irrespective of what interpretation is accepted. In both cases we want to retain the Sunday. In both cases we are willing to fight for it. In both cases gross and wilful neglect of this day will be seen as sinful and subject to disciplinary action on the side of the session. The main difference will, most likely, be that according to the traditional view this retention of the Sunday is a clear divine commandment, while according to the other interpretation it is rather a matter of spiritual insight, based on an ‘evangelical’ appreciation of the great gift of the Sunday.

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

Leave a comment

Where Are The leaders? (IV)

J.W. Deenick. Trowel & Sword. October 1963

IS NATURALISATION COMPROMISE?

Preamble: In this final instalment of “Where Are The Leaders” Rev. Deenick considers the issues of citizenship, naturalisation and of course, politics. While the nature of the debate seems somewhat mundane by today’s standards, immigration and citizenship in recent times has again become a hot political football albeit for very different reasons. It’s a pity that Bill is no longer with us to give his take on what is again a hotly debated topic.

Question: A final quotation from the question sent in by a N.S.W. brother (see the issues of May, June and August): One of the points in which our spiritual leaders failed to give leadership has been the issue of naturalisation. By being in such a hurry to naturalise as Australian and New Zealand citizens they have confused our people. It seems as if we have given up all hope that we will ever influence the political life of these nations. We should have refused unitedly and as one man to consider naturalisation under a political system as now on operation in Australia and New Zealand.

Answer: This issue of naturalisation is apparently a point of paramount interest and concern to our N.S.W. reader. He feels that by naturalisation without further protest many of us have betrayed the principles of Christian political action to which we professed adherence when still in the Netherlands. In Australia and New Zealand there are but two political parties, both unacceptable for the Reformed Christian, and the system of election according to districts makes it impossible for any other political movement even to come to the fore.

There I disagree with my brother correspondent.

Not that I am defending my own position. I have to own up that I am not a naturalised citizen of Australia or New Zealand yet. I am one of these slow coaches who never came round to it. I apologise. But leaving that for what it is, I can honestly say that it was not on an issue of principles that I hesitated to naturalise. And as far as the principles of Christian political action are concerned, I do not believe that they could ever be a valid objection to naturalisation. On the contrary I believe that they should rather stimulate in that direction.

I will explain why. I believe that if anyone of us is sincerely concerned about the present political condition in these countries, he must shoulder his part of the responsibility in the undertaking of the necessary reconditioning. But he cannot do so without being naturalised. I know that our N.S.W. reader argues that because of the two party system we are as powerless after naturalisation as we were before. This, it seems to me, is not correct.

The two party system – and in general the system of district representation – has advantages and disadvantages and it could well be right that the disadvantages preponderate. But it is certainly not correct to think that they make a new political initiative or a third party impossible. The liberals in England never thought so, and so far the communists in Australia never gave up. And our N.S.W. reader cannot have forgotten that in Europa, in the Netherlands for instance, Christian political action came first to life under the district-system and that the Christian political parties of those days functioned quite effectively under that system. The first right wing governments – among others that under the leadership of Dr. A. Kuyper as prime minister, came to rule the country under the district system. In the Netherlands the proportionate system was not introduced until 1916.

I am not qualified to speak in matters of politics, but this I know that there are a good number of democratic countries where the system of district representation in parliament is practiced and I do not know of any objections on the ground of principle against it. As far as I remember the proportionate system was preferred in the Netherlands at the time on practical grounds. But I leave it to the political experts to decide which of the two systems ought to be favoured for the Australian and New Zealand circumstances. What is important in the present discussion, however, is that in my opinion the district system offers every opportunity for a new, a Christian initiative in political expression.

It has been argued that any such initiative would die in its very birth and that Australian and New Zealand protestants are not very likely ever to let themselves convince that biblical principles demand a wholly new approach to the nation’s political problems. I am not so sure that this is correct. When Groen van Prinsterer started his attack on liberalism in the Dutch parliament practically nobody but he himself was convinced that he was right. And not one single political movement of any importance started otherwise than small. One single man firmly convinced that he is right and prepared to live and to die for his conviction has more than once changed the whole destiny of a nation. Our problem today is that we desire hasty results and miracle trees.

Moreover it seems to me, that there is considerable dissatisfaction in protestant circles with present trends in both political parties and I am sure that already a single political initiative from positive Christian quarters would begin to exercise a certain influence on the dominant parties be it only because of their fear to lose any votes.

In an excellent article in the October 1961 issue of this paper correspondent C. de Bakker of Brisbane advised the readers how to vote in the latest general elections in Australia. This Reformed leader (apologies to Mr. de Bakker) sounded a clear trumpet when concluding that neither the liberal nor the labour party offered a reliable representation in parliament.This advice was that only when a positive Christian candidate offered himself for election – be he liberal or labour – readers could consider to give him their confidence.

When however Mr. de Bakker writes: “There is no Christian political party in Australia and there will not be one for a very long time to come, if there ever be one”, I would say: that depends on him and me. If we together take the initiative there could be one tomorrow. And if our N.S.W. reader and I myself would naturalise before the next elections we would command at least three votes to begin with.

I do not mean this entirely as a joke. I cannot quite see why we should not encourage positive protestant Christians to stand for office in the county, the state or the nation on a Christian political platform, be it as an independent or as a party candidate. Many Australians and New Zealanders stand for office as independents. And a beginning could be made in districts where there is a militant protestant Christian section of the population.

I am aware of the vagueness of the terms that I have used. What exactly is a positive Christian or protestant Christian political platform? I fear that I would “land” in hot political waters if I tried to specify what precisely I mean with Christian political principles. Still, I believe that it ought to be possible to formulate what are the demands of this moment and the more distant aims of Christian political thinking for the Australian and New Zealand situation. If we believe the kingship of Jesus Christ we ought to be able to formulate what we believe that the Lord Jesus as King demands from these nations in the sphere of government and social relationship.

So far my answer to the N.S.W. question. It may have provoked other questions. So such the better.

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

Leave a comment

Where Are The Leaders? (III)

Are We Compromising?

J.W. Deenick. Trowel & Sword. August 1963

Preamble: In preparing this preamble we thought about some of the colloquialisms that could be applied to Bill Deenick. Here are some examples:
He not only talked the talk but also walked the walk.
He didn’t beat around the bush.
He called a spade a spade – or – he called a spade a shovel.
He didn’t muck around.
We could go on but you get the drift.
So in this third instalment of “Where Are The Leaders”, he gets right to the point and pulls no punches.
We’ll let Bill tell the story.

Where Are The Leaders? (III)

Question:
Do you remember the question? It ran like this:
Our leaders are compromising. They do not give the right leadership in the battle for Christian organisations and schools. What is wrong with our ministers and their leadership?

Answer:
Last time ( in the June issue) I concluded by asking: Have we not acquiesced too easily in the fact that there are no better schools or radio stations or political and social organisations? Is it right that we read the daily and weekly papers, that we listen to the radio and T.V. programmes and send our children to the schools and universities, that do not in fact honour Jesus, but continually either ridicule or suppress His gospel and His commandments, even if they occasionally allow a Christian word to be written or to be spoken?

Is it right for me to send four children to the government school? Is it right for one to read the “Sydney Morning Herald”? We have no T.V., but I must admit that through the radio occasionally some very unpleasant rubbish resounds through the rooms of 6 Wattle Road. Is that right? Is that giving the leadership that is expected from me? 

This question embarrasses me. But gathering all my courage I say bravely: No, that is not necessarily wrong. Apart from that resounding rubbish, of course! But that about the schools, the paper and the radio programmes is not necessarily wrong, just as it is not necessarily wrong that an unbelieving neighbour or ‘friend’ visits us or that an unbelieving teacher would train my daughters to play piano. I say: that is not NECESSARILY wrong. I admit that under certain circumstances such friendly visits and piano lessons could present certain moral and spiritual dangers, but they do not NECESSARILY present these.

To begin with: we cannot go out of this world. We are not even allowed to. But being in the world and having a calling in the midst of unbelieving men and women we cannot get away from hearing and seeing a lot of sin and misery. Nor can we conceal it all from our children. They gradually begin to see and to hear the world in action. I admit that there is a difference between not being able to go out of the world and inviting the world to come in, as there is a difference between being forced to see the world in action and going out to see it. And that is precisely the point in question: by subscribing to the “Sydney Morning Herald” I invite the world to come in, and by placing a T.V. set in my lounge I go out with my family to see the world in action.

The “exclusive brethren” had the courage to face this problem. They have been in the limelight for that some months ago. They refused to co-operate with Australian unionism and objected to radio and T.V. in their homes. How they have been ridiculed for it by the secular press! Yet I admire their courage and their foresight and I am not prepared to brush their arguments aside too easily. I do not believe that they are as silly and misguided as their caricature in the worldly press would like to make us believe. I visited recently the non-reformed home of people who lived in the world for many years. They felt that their T.V. set had been a curse to them and to their children for a long time. And I would venture to believe that sone of our own people would be better off today without their T.V. than with it. I sometimes have the silly impression that worldly people distinguish better than we do. Did not Jesus Himself say that the children of the world have quite often more foresight and use their commonsense better than the children of the Kingdom? I have seen weekly papers in Christian homes that many a father outside the church would refuse to see in his.

And here, I believe, we come closer to our answer: i.e., that in the endlessly varying circumstances of a complex society we must leave it to the individual Christian to make his own responsible decisions; and that in this ministers and professors may be able to give some guidance or set an example but that they cannot take decisions for others. Because what is right in the one home is not necessarily right in the other, and what is extremely dangerous under certain circumstances is not necessarily dangerous in others.

Take the matter of the paper. There is no “Christian” daily paper in Sydney. Still, if I read a newspaper, and I believe that I do, I am justified in subscribing to the “Sydney Morning Herald” as long as everybody in the family knows that this paper is a regular but unreliable visitor, whose words are to be listened to critically, and as long as I am convinced that no real damage is done to the spiritual welfare of the home. But as far as I am concerned I would subscribe to the “Mirror” or the “Sun” no more than I would invite a foul-mouthed neighbour to come and see us in the family circle.

The same is true with regard to radio and T.V. If you really believe that these means of communication contribute significantly to the enrichment of your life, that they equip you better for the Christian warfare – and I will not deny that a discriminate use of both could serve to that end – you are justified in letting them enter the Christian home. But circumstances and situations differ. And what is wise here, may be very foolish there.

That is also true with regard to the school question. Here the problems differ from school to school, from child to child, from case to case. If I send my children to a “secular” school I am inviting unbelieving men and women to help me in their training. That is a risky thing to do. Am I justified in taking that risk? That again depends. I would believe that most Australian and New Zealand schools are like unbelieving “friends”, who cannot really be trusted in matters of education, but who if we keep a close eye on them can still be allowed to help us train our children in certain fields of education. But circumstances again differ from place to place. I know of Christian parents, who went to live in a different district to be able to send their children to a different school. And the time could come that we all would have to refuse to send our children to the government school even to the risk of being summonsed for it.

Some of us live under more favourable circumstances, or have themselves created such circumstances. They have a Reformed or a Lutheran school in their district. That is something to be jealous of with a holy jealousy and it is something to work for with a holy zeal, but in the meantime most of us have to battle under less favourable conditions. That does not necessarily mean compromising with the world and with sin in the sense that we neglect or refuse to deal with an unbelieving “friend”, paper, teacher, radio programme, in the manner in which Jesus would have dealt with them. I mean this: Co-operation does not necessarily mean compromise. If we keep our eyes open, and call sin – “sin” and unbelief – “unbelief” and keep a faithful watch over that part of Jesus’ Kingdom that God has entrusted to us, not letting paper or school or T.V. damage the spiritual welfare of our homes, then co-operation does not necessarily mean compromise. I do not think that as “spiritual leaders” we could do a great deal more than, in the first place: That we watch over God’s people and our own home to see to it that certain forms of co-operation with the world do not unawares become forms of compromise with sin. And in the second place: That we give purposeful leadership in the promotion of distinctively Christian means of communication, education and social and political expression.

Next time something more about the political issue in relation to the naturalisation question. 

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

Leave a comment

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

Leave a comment

Where Are The Leaders? (Question Box)

J.W. Deenick. Trowel & Sword. May 1963

Preamble: One of the benefits of Trowel and Sword, particularly in the early years, was that readers were able to send in questions and/or opinions to the editors about matters that were of concern to them. As a young denomination, made up mostly of immigrants from the Netherlands, the tendency was to compare the activities of the new denomination with what they had been used to in the motherland. Questions were mostly answered in a single article, although, as was the case here, a longer question combining a number of involved issues resulted in a series of articles each tackling a particular aspect of the original question. Bill Deenick was in his element in this situation treating each question with respect and giving carefully considered answers. In this article his focus is on the question asked, promising to carefully consider his answers before giving them over the next few issues.

Where Are The Leaders?

A New South Wales reader, perturbed about the present trend in Reformed circles, asks a few challenging questions.

Here they are, freely edited:
“Our Churches’ calling in Australia is that we are to introduce in this country a sound understanding of those Reformation principles which in other parts of the world induced Reformed Christians to establish Christian schools, to organise Christian political parties and trade unions, to publish Christian daily and weekly papers and magazines. Should not each member of a Reformed church look forward to the day that these aims are achieved also in Australia? Of course, it is impossible to obtain our objectives in a short period of time, but it is now eleven years since we established Reformed churches here and what has been done about it? We hardly made a start with even only one of these aims. On the contrary, it seems to me that in our circles the real interest in these principles is diminishing rapidly. Even our ministers and professors seem to be too busy explaining the doctrines which every communicant member should know anyhow. There does not seem to be time left for real action. Besides, our ministers and professors have neglected to give real leadership with regard to the questions around naturalisation. This has confused many of our people. We were always taught that the only political movement we could support were the Christian political parties. We were told to elect trustworthy Christian politicians for Parliament. We were in the position to do so because of the election system of proportional representation in Parliament. Out here they practice the district system in which the candidate has to gain the majority in his district in order to be elected for Parliament. This is the reason why many Reformed people hesitate to become naturalised Australians, seeing that no consistent Calvinist could conscientiously support one of the Australian political parties, materialistic and secular as they are.
These – my correspondent writes – are facts that cannot be denied. In contradiction to the will of God the Australian government profits from gambling and condones uncontrolled monopolism as also many other evils, which should be enough for every one of us – and especially for our Church leaders – to lodge a strong protest. Should we not think twice before we naturalise? I believe that in the circumstances we should decline to do so. I fully recognise the difficulties that we have to face, but I am convinced that there are ways and means to make our anxieties known to the government and to awaken our christian brothers and sisters in this land. Could we not petition the government for a change in the present election system and request the introduction of a proportional representation in Parliament so that the Christians in this country could be represented by their own man, politicians with Christian “back-bone” who could stand for Christian principles and so be of tremendous influence to the common good of the nation”.

So far our reader in New South Wales.

I do not know how other readers feel about it, but I like this question. I like it very much. I like its spirit and its scope. I like this appeal to the “leaders”, and the frankness with which they are called to task.

This brother is apparently happy and thankful that we have Reformed Churches, but he is not content with merely having the Church. He does not express himself in the “higher” language of the theologians, but what he means is this: I have always understood that the Church ought not to seek its purpose in itself. The Church is not there for the sake of the Church. The Church ought to be an army for a battle. And our battle is, in the first place, evangelism; but, in the second place, it is also the Christianisation of the national life. We must teach the nation to do all that Christ the King has commanded. What are we doing about it? What action do we take?

And the leaders? They have become Australian citizens and do not seem to be worried at all about sending their children to the public school, supporting the Liberal Party, reading the “Sydney Morning Herald” or the “Evening Star” and seem to be just as happy with the A.B.C. as they were with the Christian Broadcasting Corporation on the other side of the world. In the Netherlands we would have been just about disciplined by the Church had we dared to send our children to a public school, and we would have been certainly questioned by the elders about reading a secular paper. How then is it possible that here in Australia we seem to have forgotten about this? Were the principles to which we held not so valid after all? Or, if they were valid, why do we not live up to them?

I like this question. I would like to have asked it myself.

But now the problem is that I have to answer it. I would like some time to think about it, and I hope that the readers will do this with me.

The first question that I believe we should answer is whether these principles to which we referred were valid or not and how they are related to our being naturalised as Australian citizens.

(Stay tuned for the next instalment).

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

Leave a comment

Preface To Volume Eight

Editorial Paragraphs

K Runia. Trowel & Sword, October 1961

Preamble: At the beginning of the eighth year of publication, the then editor, Prof. K. Runia gave some insight into the thought, planning and aspiration that went into the development of the still fledgling magazine, Trowel & Sword. Even then the concept of “Moving Forward By Looking Back” was well understood. ie. “What have we done in the past and how can we do it better”. This is far superior to the notion of, We are in decline so perhaps we should quit. At TSR we are still of the belief that there is a need for a denominational magazine to rebuild the unity of the Reformed Churches in Australia and with New Zealand. The Christian Church is under threat from forces both outside and within. In the words of Runia, “Before us is a GREAT CHALLENGE for all of us. Let us realise that the LORD BLESSES them who in faith seize upon the challenge put before them”.

Preface To Volume Eight

With this issue we begin another volume of ‘Trowel and Sword’. As Editor I would like to use this occasion to make some general remarks.

  1. This is the first issue prepared by the new “ASSOCIATED PRINTERS” in Geelong. In another article in this same issue you will find more particulars about the plans of the “Associated Printers“. We will therefore refrain from giving specific information about the Press itself. But we cannot refrain from expressing our great joy about the fact that such a CENTRAL PRESS has been established.

Much good work has been done in the past. Yet there was too much waste of time and money, because the several activities in the field of publishing were not sufficiently co-ordinated. UNITY IS STRENGTH! That is particularly true of a small denomination as our Reformed Churches. We just cannot afford to fritter away our limited resources. At the same time, of course, we must realise that all our efforts completely depend upon God. We have to do our utmost, but He has to give HIS INDISPENSABLE BLESSING!

  1. No doubt the new printing arrangement will give us the opportunity to make ALTERATIONS and IMPROVEMENTS in the publication of “Trowel and Sword.” We have decided to keep things, as they are now, for the first three months. We do not want to experience disappointment similar to those of last year. Although our readers may rest assured that also in the past year Editors and Publisher have done their utmost, yet we must admit that in many ways the result was far below the mark. We want to openly express our appreciation for the patience shown by our readers. To prevent repetitions some CAREFUL PLANNING has to be done. But we do promise that in the coming year we will go ahead and, God willing, will get several improvements of lasting importance.
  2. Expansion and improvement, however, are only possible, when all our readers, or even better, ALL THE MEMBERS of the Reformed denominations STAND SQUARELY BEHIND our magazine. We all should realise how great the VALUE AND INFLUENCE OF THE PRESS is. In this regard we can learn much from the ROMAN CATHOLICS. On the whole they are well aware of the value of their papers. Their spiritual leaders regularly urge them to support their own press. Pope Pius X, for example, said:
    “In vain will you build churches, preach missions, found schools – all your work, all your efforts will be destroyed if you cannot at the same time wield the defensive and offensive weapon of a press that is Catholic, loyal and sincere. To be a Catholic, to call oneself a Catholic, nay to belong to Catholic organisations and associations, and at the same time to be indifferent to the interest of the Catholic press, is a patent absurdity”.

If we replace the word Catholic by REFORMED, we have a statement with which we can fully agree. We admit that ‘Trowel and Sword’ is but a weak attempt. We most certainly have by far not yet reached the ideal. Up till now ‘Trowel and Sword’ has perhaps too much been a theological magazine. I think we should try to make it much more a MAGAZINE FOR THE WHOLE FAMILY, covering all the aspects of family life. But all this is only possible if we have the full co-operation of all our Reformed people.

In the meantime we go onward. Before us is a GREAT CHALLENGE for all of us. Let us realise that the LORD BLESSES them who in faith seize upon the challenge put before them.

MISSION WORK IN WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Some of our readers may wonder why  lately we published so little about the marvellous work that is going on among the aboriginals in Western Australia. We assure you that this silence is not at all due to lack of interest. On the contrary, we do follow this work WITH ALL THE INTEREST OF OUR HEART.

The only reason for our silence is the fact that the latest reports had already been published in all the local Church papers. It would not be justified to use some of our precious space for material which has already been read in the papers. But we do hope that in the future we will regularly receive information about the progress of the work.

How good our Lord is that He has given us this opportunity to discharge our missionary task. His ways with our small Churches are wonderful indeed!

LOCAL CHURCH PAPERS

This is, of course, a touchy subject for the editor of “Trowel and Sword”.  Too easily readers and editors of local papers may explain any comment from our side as originated by a spirit of competition.

But let us state at the outset that we are NOT at all AGAINST local church papers! On the contrary, we are WHOLEHEARTEDLY in FAVOUR OF THEM. At least, if they meet their specific purpose.

The purpose of a local church paper is to supply information about the activities and problems of the local church (or: for that matter, of the classis concerned). A very good example is, in our opinion, the new monthly newsletter for the Reformed Church of Auckland and the Reformed Presbyterian Church of Bucklands Beach, called: “Peninsula Journal”. This newsletter limits itself strictly to local news, and in this way serves a very necessary purpose in the life of these two Churches. We want to congratulate the sessions, editors and voluntary publishers with this new “baby”. At the same time we do hope that in the future, when ‘Trowel and Sword’ returns to a fortnightly publication, it will be possible to have a COMBINATION OF LOCAL PAPERS WITH OUR MAGAZINE, as is already being done in some congregations. If both ‘Trowel and Sword’ and the local paper have the same size, it would not be too difficult to slip the local bulletin as a loose leaflet into it. The great advantage of such a combination would be that all members of the congregation receive (and, as we hope, read!) the local and the general paper!

THE IMPORTANCE OF A TRULY CHRISTIAN LIFE

The other day I read a very interesting and disturbing article about the progress and expansion of the Islam in Africa. I cannot go into all the details, but there are two points which I should like to mention here. One of the topics discussed was: “WHY DID SO MANY CHRISTIAN CHURCHES, which in the past centuries had been established in Africa, notably in North Africa, WHITTLE AWAY? Was it persecution? Was it fire and sword? No! The real reasons were: SAFETY, SECURITY and ENJOYMENT!

In many Muslim countries the taxes were much higher for the Christian than for the Muslim. In other cases the Muslim stood a much higher chance of promotion and of appointments in the Civil Service than Christians. Sometimes a Christian was compelled to wear a distinctive dress. In other words, the Muslims did not make it impossible to be a Christian, they only made it inconvenient and expensive – and conspicuous. And so the descendants of men and women who defied the wild lions,’ the roasting chairs and the crowds howling for innocent blood, gradually over the years drifted away from the faith”,

And, then, there is the second point. Sometimes the population hailed the Muslims as liberators. Egypt, for example, was very easily overrun by a tiny Arab force. Why? Because her professedly Christian population was WEARY OF THE OPPRESSION OF A PROFESSEDLY CHRISTIAN .ADMINISTRATION. The administrators professed to be Christians, but in reality they were corrupt and cruel. And the same has happened in many other places in Africa. Even in quite modern times whole tribes have gone over to Islam because Christian leaders and administrators were morally inferior.

It will not be necessary to draw the lesson from this segment of Christian history.   A TRULY CHRISTIAN LIFE is not only a mighty witness. It is an INDISPENSABLE WITNESS! Without it we are not merely deficient witnesses. Without it we are stumbling blocks! Our Churches are professedly Reformed. Are we also Reformed in life, in walk and talk? The future of Calvinism in Australia depends as much on Reformed doctrine as on a Reformed way of life. My own father often warned us as children: Be careful, boys and girls, the world looks at you. And he always added: and the world is right in doing so. If we profess to belong to Christ we should live as those belonging to Christ. Or to say it in Paul’s words: “IF WE LIVE BY THE SPIRIT LET US ALSO WALK BY THE SPIRIT” (Gal.5:25).

To realise and practise this would no doubt be the BEST COMMEMORATION OF THE REFORMATION, at the end of this month. It is not enough to say: Luther and Calvin and all the others were great men of God and we are thankful for what they have done for the Reformation of the Church. A true commemoration of their work is, first of all, a matter of DOING the same as they did: Trust in God’s sovereign grace and walk in the way of His commandments.                  

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

Leave a comment

Good News … Bad News (Meditation)

Rev. Ben Aldridge. Trowel & Sword. March 1991

Preamble: When growing up I was as confused about Easter, and particularly Good Friday, as the older member of Ben’s congregation mentioned below. I think I can confidently say that we weren’t the only ones confused. It comes under the heading of: ‘Questions we don’t know the answer to but are afraid to ask’. One could also ask: What does Easter have to do with chocolate eggs and rabbits? And why has it been turned into a public holiday for all; not just Christians? (Although as kids, we didn’t mind that at all). In this meditation Ben addresses some of these Questions and reminds us why we, as Christians, remember and celebrate that period between “Good Friday” and “Easter Sunday”.

Good News … Bad News (Meditation)

Last year at Easter one of our older members wanted to know why we called the Friday of Easter ‘Good Friday’? As far as he was concerned it was not a ‘good’ day at all. On this day we remember that one of the most heinous crimes ever committed, the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, the Son of God took place in Jerusalem in A.D. 30. I was moved by this to look up the origin of the term ‘Good Friday’ and to ask whether it indeed was a ‘good’ day?

I discovered that no one seems to be sure where the term comes from. In some places it is also known as ‘long day’, ‘Day of Preparation’, ‘Day of the Lord’s Passion’ and the “Passion of the Cross’. It is called ‘good’ because of the benefits that flow from what the day commemorates, that is, the death of our Lord Jesus Christ.

In much of the early church it was not celebrated as a special day and it came to be observed as a result of the development of the calendar in the fourth century.

While in most countries colonised by European nations it is celebrated as a public holiday, in some, like the United States of America, it is not. In fact, most Protestant churches in the U.S.A. do not hold services on Good Friday. This contrasts with a country like Indonesia, which is 90% Muslim, but does have a public holiday on Good Friday.

So is it a ‘good’ or ‘bad’ day? The apostle Paul answers the question, though surely without intending to, in I Corinthians 1:23-24:  . . . but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power and the wisdom of God.’

The message of Easter contains both good news and bad news. It is bad news for those who refuse to humble themselves, repent and turn from their rebellion against God. This is true whether they are rulers, like Robert Hawke or Saddam Hussein, rich business people, professors or academics, secretaries or bricklayers. God is no respecter of persons. If we live without Christ crucified, we will die without Him and death will be eternal. But those whom God has called, and that could yet be Saddam Hussein and Robert Hawke (God alone knows and we should pray for their salvation), Easter Friday, while it is a day on which we mourn our greatest crime, is also a day that leads on to Easter Sunday. And make no mistake, the crucifixion of Christ was our greatest crime. The horrors of the Second World War with the slaughter of 300,000 Gypsies, tens of thousands of allied troops, 6,000,000 Jews and 20,000,000 people of the U.S.S.R., terrible though these were, cannot be compared to it. All creation was so horrified by why we dared to do that there was darkness across the face of the earth for three hours. We must never forget that Easter has two parts. Friday leads on to Sunday. The crucifixion is followed by the resurrection. The work of Christ on the cross is accepted by God as sufficient for our salvation and God declares that He is satisfied by raising Christ from the dead, and seated Him at His right hand where sure where He ‘reigns until He has put all His enemies under His feet.’

We will continue to hear lots of ‘bad’ news this year. In fact the only news that seems to sell is ‘bad’ news. But for the Christian, even in the darkest hour of personal or global tragedy, there is always the Good News of the glorious resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ. The Good News that God is in control. The Good News that nothing, absolutely nothing can separate us from the love of God in Jesus Christ our Lord. And the Good News that Christ reigns and He will return to claim his inheritance and put a final end to sin and death and sickness and sorrow and the devil himself. This is truly the Good News of Easter.

Ben Aldridge

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

Leave a comment