The Space Age And Our Faith

Prof. K. Runia. Trowel & Sword. August 1960

Preamble: “Space: the final frontier. These are the voyages of the starship Enterprise. Its five-year mission: to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilisations, to boldly go where no man has gone before.” All dedicated ‘Trekkies’ will immediately recognise these words as the opening lines of the T.V. series ‘Star Trek’, which incidentally, hit our screens six years after Prof. Runia wrote this article. Captain Kirk and his successors have been exploring for the last 60 years but, despite many imaginative storylines, not to mention the vast amounts of time and money expended in real life on the S.E.T.I. and similar program, no new worlds, new life or new civilisations have so far been found – perhaps testament to the futility of the effort to find any evidence which could then be used to cast doubts on the Biblical narrative.

The Space Age And Our Faith

It may well be that the combination of these two words gives you the impression of being STRANGE, if not FAR-FETCHED. When we hear the words ‘Space Age’, we all immediately think of rockets, satellites, sputniks, trips to the moon, etc. In the last years these terms have all become more or less familiar. Fiction writers and the producers of comics have eagerly seized the opportunity to build up a new, mysterious world of sensation. We are also inclined to believe that we are living in a revolutionary age, which may bring many changes in our way of thinking and our daily existence.

But – does it have anything to do with our FAITH? We for us believe that this question has to be answered in the affirmative. No, we do NOT expect NEW REVELATIONS as a result of the future conquest of space. We wholeheartedly believe that the Bible is the final revelation for this world age. We have to expect only one new revelation, which at the same time will be the end of the history of this world: the glorious revelation of Jesus Christ, who will return as the Great Judge of all mankind.

We do not believe either, that anything in the Bible will prove to be UNTRUE or INCORRECT, in the light of the discoveries that lie ahead of us: we need not be afraid that there will be any conflict between the Bible and space science. True, the Bible also makes statements about the universe, but these statements are not meant, nor are to be read as scientific pronouncements. And yet we do believe that the new development in man’s exploration of the universe can be of great significance for our faith. For the discovered data, if understood in the right way, can be really helpful in a BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THE BIBLE.

We will illustrate this at three points.

In the first place, the discoveries of space can enlarge our understanding of the greatness of our God as THE CREATOR OF HEAVEN AND EARTH. As often as we open our Bible we are overwhelmed by those simple and yet so powerful words: ‘In the beginning God created the heaven(s) and the Earth’. For the Old Testament believer these words have always been a living reality. Time and again the prophets reiterate them in one form or another. Read only Isaiah 40: ‘Who hath measured the waters in the hollow of his hand, and meted out heaven with the span, and comprehended the dust of the earth in a measure, and weighed the mountains in scales and the hills in a balance? Behold the nations are as a drop of a bucket, and are counted as the small dust of the balance: behold, he taketh up the isles as a very little thing’. (KJV)

Read also the answer the lord gives to Job out of the whirlwind (Job 38-41), or read Psalm 104. Surely, these men did not need to know the results of space exploration to be filled with awe for the greatness of their Covenant God, who also was the Creator. Yet it cannot be denied, that our modern understanding of the immense vastness of the universe is far beyond what they ever could dream. Does our mind not reel before the immensities which have been brought to light by modern astronomy? What to think of the fact that this Earth, on which we live, is one of about ten million stars which form the Milky Way, *(current estimates range from 100 to 400 billion), and that the Milky Way itself is only one among innumerable galaxies which lie millions of lightyears distant? All our imagination utterly fails here.

In his booklet ‘The Blessing of Belief’ Gordon Powell gives the following information: The new Sky Atlas being published in America at a cost of £903 (Australian) per copy, consists of photographs taken by the Big Schmidt telescope. This telescope reaches out into space 3,600 million, million, million miles. The ‘Hale’ telescope, the largest in the world, reaches out three times as far as that – and they still haven’t got to the end of our universe. In fact they now tell us that stars in this expanding universe are rushing away from us so fast that their light can’t come back to us. In other words we can never see to the end of our universe, let alone think of travelling there. Moreover there are so many stars in the Atlas composed of photographs taken by the Big Schmidt telescope, that they will probably never be counted. If an Atlas were made with the Hale telescope it would take 10.000 years to photograph the heavens’.

And you know, we as Christians should not only say: what a mighty universe we are living in: Of course that is true. But still more wonderful is the other truth: what a mighty, almighty God we have!  He is the Creator of this whole, well nigh endless universe. “It is the work of His hands. He spoke and it was done, He commanded, and it stood fast. Yes, what a wonderful God we have! We can only stammer with Elihu:  ‘Behold God is great, and we know him not’ (Job.36:26).

A second point, where the increased knowledge of this vast universe may be very helpful for our faith, is the understanding of our own HUMAN SMALLNESS. What are we men in this infinitely big universe? This, too, is not a new understanding of man. The BIBLE has preached this same message already for ages. When the Psalmist looks up to the heavens and thinks of the fact that they are the work of God’s fingers, when he considers the moon and the stars, which God has ordained, he exclaims in amazement and wonder: ‘What is man that thou art mindful of him? And the son of man that Thou visitest him?’  (Ps.8:4).

And this same disproportion between themselves and the cosmic world around them has been experienced by many of God’s children throughout the ages. Thus PASCAL, the great Christian thinker of the seventeenth century said: “The whole visible world is but an imperceptible speck in the ample bosom of nature. No idea approaches it. We may swell our conceptions beyond all imaginable space, yet bring forth only atoms in comparison with the reality of things. It is an infinite sphere, the centre of which is everywhere, the circumference which is nowhere,.. What is a man in the infinite?” On an other occasion he wrote the haunting words: “The eternal silence of these infinite spaces frightens me”.

Is it not true? What is man in this immense cosmos, the boundaries of which are untraceable and unimaginable? Certainly man has an asset which gives him an outstanding place in the universe around him; man is endowed with the power of thought. The same Pascal also pointed to this, when he said: “Man is but a reed, the feeblest in nature, but he is a thinking reed”. We even must say more: man is created in the image of the almighty God. He does have a unique, unparalleled place in the whole cosmos. And yet – how small he is! How small compared with the universe, let alone with Him, who is the independent, all-embracing Creator of the universe! How is it possible that this utterly small man ventures to raise his voice against this God? How is it possible that he thinks himself to be independent and self-contained!

A Christian can only join in with the Psalmist and confess in profound wonder: ‘What is man that thou art mindful of him?’

For that is the third thing, we can learn to understand better. This incomprehensibly great God IS MINDFUL OF US. He not only created us in His image, assigning us by that special relation a unique place in His world and in the whole universe, but, what is more, He also redeemed us. Having fallen away from Him in sin and rebellion, we were not cut off from His love, but He renewed His love in His grace and mercy. Yes, He even sent His Son, His only-begotten to the insignificantly small planet amid the innumerable milliards of stars, in order to become man.

The INCARNATION OF GOD’S SON has always been a miracle beyond all human understanding and imagination. No apostle has ever been able to fathom it. No Church Father or Reformer could do more than but stammer about it. God’s Son in the flesh! For us! How precious we must be in his sight!

Yet against the background of our space age the miracle becomes increasingly more unintelligible. If ever we were forced to realise that we can only accept it by faith alone, it is now. But by this same faith we also know that it is true. And we joyfully join in with the Church of the Apostles which sang it in its hymn of worship about the mystery of Godliness: ‘He who was manifested in the flesh, justified in the spirit, seen of angels, preached among the nations, believed on in the world, received up in glory’.

And what about all the OTHER QUESTIONS, that sometimes are raised in our day? What, if there are man-like creatures on other planets? Would they also be fallen creatures? Would Christ have come to their planets too? What about the following lines of poetry: ‘God may have other words for other worlds / But for this world the Word of God is Christ’?

The only answer we can give is: Let us never, never indulge in any kind of pious SPECULATION: All such speculation is idle and sterile. In the first place we KNOW SO LITTLE yet about space. Rightly it has been said that so far as the exploration of the universe is concerned, it is evident that even under the most favourable conditions the space-traveller cannot do more than paddle in the rim of the vast ocean that surrounds us. Even if he could travel with the speed of light (186.000 miles per second!), it would take him two million years to reach the nebula in Andromeda! But what is more, the BIBLE itself does not give us even the slightest opportunity to indulge in such speculations. It does not invite us to be concerned about space men (if they exist!), but it asks us: WHAT ABOUT YOU? ARE YOU SAVED? For the time being (!) that is more than enough for all of us to ponder upon. 

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

Compulsory Reading For English

(A Letter To The editor)

Angie Rendle-Short. Trowel & Sword. October 1971

Preamble: While reading last week’s article, “The Catcher In The Rye“, it may have occurred to some of our readers to wonder why this article was written in the first place; after all, it may have appeared to come out of left field as a topic not normally dealt with in the pages of Trowel & Sword; ie. commentary on a book considered by many as both secular and controversial. The answer is that it was probably written in response to the following “Letter To The Editor” by Dr. Angie Rendle-Short which appeared in the same edition of T&S. After commenting specifically on the letter written by Dr. Rendle-Short, Bill Deenick realised that regardless of the suitability or otherwise of including this book in the English curriculum, students were still expected to comment on it as part of their studies, hence the second article published last week designed to assist students in making sense of this piece of literature.

Compulsory Reading For English

Dear Sir, Would you kindly give me space in your correspondence column to draw the attention of the Christian public to a matter of great and urgent gravity. I refer to the selection of books prescribed for the compulsory subject of English in the Senior and Matriculation examinations. I write more particularly of the situation in Queensland, but I suspect similar conditions pertain in the other States

I personally was alerted some weeks ago through a letter written to the press by a senior student from a convent school. In this she movingly expressed her consternation at the subject matter of the books which the students were required to read. Her letter was shortly followed by another from the pen of a mother of six children, a Christian woman, who is presently sending a signed petition to the Queensland Minister for Education on the matter. This lady suggested to me that I should read the book – “The Catcher in the Rye” by Salinger. 

This book, to quote the head English teacher in one of our Brisbane secondary schools, “was once controversial but is now no longer so, and is accepted as suitable material for class study in English, and is used in Queensland as a set book in the Senior examination”.

I too am a mother of six children; I am middle aged and a medical practitioner. It is impossible for me to find adequate words to describe the sordidness, the polluting power of this document. It is given to young students disguised in the plausible clothing of educational respectability and with the tacit approval of their teacher. Now, I can understand such a publication being read by a psychiatrist or a social worker, etc., in order to evaluate the moral and social trend of the times in which we live; but to put such a book into the hands of adolescent children for examination purposes in what is their only compulsory subject English, and to make it the theme for class study, is, to my mind, nothing short of criminal. It is, truly, a sin of the blackest hue because it is making thousands of our “little ones to stumble”, and for many of them it could be the first steps on the downward path to depravity and vice.

Now, “The Catcher in the Rye” heads a substantial list of similar books, all tarred with the same brush, which are used as prescribed English reading. The cancer is very widespread, hard to pin point, and closely tied up with the controversial issues of censorship, authority, and the widening generation gap. But THE MINDS AND SOULS OF OUR CHILDREN ARE BEING DESTROYED. It would seem that the educators and politicians have failed them, and it now remains for us, the mothers and fathers to fight on.

I would earnestly urge parents to procure from their local municipal libraries the books listed and to check the books of their secondary school sons and daughters; to teach their younger primary school children that, sadly, their teachers can no longer be trusted, and with God’s help, to nurture in them a discerning mind and spirit. I would urge parents to unhesitatingly resist the notion that the schools have the last word as to the choice of books for English. English is the only compulsory subject. It is the parents who, in the final analysis are responsible before God for the spiritual, moral and mental welfare of the child. The school must be answerable to the parents.

Father hear us, we are praying, 
Hear the words our hearts are saying. 
We are praying for our children.
From the whirlpool that would suck them, 
From the treacherous quicksand pluck them, 
Father, hear us for our children.
Amy Carmichael.

Yours faithfully,
Angie Rendle-Short

Notes From The Editor:

I. Dr. Rendle Short is perfectly right: evangelical parents are often no longer in the position to trust the schools or the teachers to which they send their children. We are deeply grateful for what committed christians still (try to) do before the class, but in general the parents themselves or others will have to take over and help the christian teenager to evaluate the books they have to read.

Il. It is also true that the list of books for English reading is compiled without noticeable consideration of the non-christian or even anti-christian philosophy expressed in them. Yet, even if we had a christian high school we would still have to take notice of Lawrence, Camus and Salinger. We are faced with the abysmal failure of evangelical christendom the world over in the field of literature. We have so precious little to offer.

III. A fact is that thousands of boys and girls from evangelical homes have read, and will be reading for many years yet, The Catcher in the Rye. Very few of them are educated in a climate so relatively protected as e.g. a convent school provides. After six years at a Sydney suburban high school they are not likely to find Holden Caulfield’s language to be too far removed from reality either in profanity or in sexual licence. In fact many of them are faced with worse in language and in practice. We better face this fact realistically in the biblical sense of the word and we better try to help them live in the world (and to understand the world) without being of the world.

IV. To remove Salinger’s novel from the list of required or recommended reading would help very little so long as so many other books, possibly less rude and profane in language but equally (or worse) anti-christian in their basic philosophy will remain on it.What we need is an educational system that is based on a christian world and life view and that makes young people understand non-christian literature in its basic emptiness.

V. For myself I must honestly admit that I love Holden Caulfield as if he were my own son

JW. DEENICK

*It is a terrible condemnation of a church member that no one should ever suspect him of being one. 
*We do not become righteous by doing what is righteous, but having become righteous, we do what is righteous.
– Martin Luther.

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

The Catcher In The Rye

J.W. Deenick. Trowel & Sword. October 1971

Preamble: While searching for articles to include in T&S Revisited I came across a debate from 1971 that had a profound impact on me. It concerned the use of “Catcher in the Rye” as a high school text. At the time I was at University preparing to become a teacher and wrestling with the idea of using secular sources in teaching from the standpoint of a Christian worldview. Rev. Deenick was my pastor at the time and I have come to realise over the years what a profound impact this man had on my thinking and approach to life – not just education. The phrase from this debate that I have remembered to this day is Rev. Deenick declaring, “For myself I must honestly admit that I love Holden Caulfield as if he were my own son.” It revealed to me that when I engage with secular literature, indeed any literature, I do so as a disciple of Christ, weighing the ideas, values, brokenness and hopes of the author as expressed through the characters, from my Christian Worldview. In the case of Holden Caulfield we see a young man grappling with his circumstances trying to make sense of it and finding his place in a crazy world. When exploring this with students in a class many of them will have the same struggles, and worse, but we don’t have to leave them Holden’s chaos; we can point them to Christ and a Kingdom where there is hope. Literature, music and art express the values, priorities, questions and angst of the age. We do not need to be afraid of them, because after all, we have been blessed with an understanding that can challenge, question and even point to healing for the ills and fears of our time. (Pieter)

The Catcher In The Rye

J.D. Salinger’s The Catcher in the Rye is one of the books that most high school students in Victoria have to read. From correspondence coming in from Queensland I understand that the same is true about that state, and also in N.S.W. the book has been on the high school list for years. In other states things are not likely to be different.

What I would like to do here first is to offer a bit of help to this category of T. & S. (non-)readers as they try to understand the book and try to come to an opinion about it that is consistent with the christian faith. Not many of them are likely to get much assistance of this nature at the high schools they attend; and (unfortunately) few of their fathers and mothers will take the trouble of reading the book and of helping them to arrive at a Christian evaluation of it. Consequently they have to sort it out for themselves, which may be a good thing but in which some may appreciate a few notes to help them.

I do not intend to discuss here whether Salinger’s novel is one that should be made compulsory reading for all seventeen and eighteen years old students. A Queensland correspondent voices a strong protest against this; see elsewhere in this issue, page 23. What I aim at primarily is that I would like to look for the basic philosophy behind the book and to test it in the light of biblical thinking. Whether this is a good Christian book or not is not finally determined by the obvious misuse (profanely) of the name of the Lord Jesus Christ in it, or for that matter by the frank but disarming way in which Holden Caulfield reveals the turmoil in his boyish heart as to matters of sex. It is with books as with people and institutions. The fact that we discover a measure of ethical imperfection, or even that we discover certain grave and sinful defects, may never lead us to the disqualification of a person as a Christian. The heart could still be loyal to Christ. This is also true of books. Reading a book is like meeting a person. What we should look for in a book is its heart. Admittedly there are many books in which it is very difficult to discover any heart at all in the sense that it is difficult to find any basic unity of thought in it. For that reason it is hardly worth the trouble to take any note of them. They are just a mess as so many people are a mess. But this is not our problem at the moment.

Salinger’s The Catcher in the Rye is definitely not a mess. It is a book to be taken seriously. People far more qualified to judge in these matters than most of us are of the opinion that it has been very capably written from the language and composition point of view, and that psychologically it is a little masterpiece. I would believe this to be true. It has been written entirely in the language of the American teenager of about twenty years ago in the idiom and with the repetitiousness typical for that age group. The only way for you and me to find out how psychologically well written it is, is to read the book and to listen to our own heart responding to it. We may then (more so than we care to admit) recognise ourselves in Holden Caulfield. Someone has described Salinger’s The Catcher in the Rye as “the case history of all of us …. not at all something strange and rich, but what every sensitive sixteen year-old since Rousseau has felt and of course what each of us has felt”. I cannot quite see where Rousseau comes in here; but it IS true; even Christian young people will recognise themselves in Holden Caulfield. As a matter of fact there is plenty evidence that teenagers, long before they were known under that name, even in the most distant past have felt as Holden did. It must have started with Cain, the first teenager of all times who rebelled in this way: And we all, if we are honest enough with ourselves, discover in our own hearts that same rebellion. Paul did in any case.

Now I am not going to work out what kind of a boy Holden Caulfield was as I see him. Salinger “created” him in the way he did with his profanity, his swearing, his love for his little sister and his dead little brother, his basic loyalty to his parents and his boyish bravado. If we take the trouble not to be offended by his swearing we are inclined to love him, because we are able to understand him. We are able to understand why he is so disgusted with the phoney-ness of the world around him. We are also able to understand his religious confusion. He boldly proclaims himself to be an atheist; yet, he tries to pray but finds it very hard. He never seems to have been confronted with the Christian message in a meaningful way. The man who “created” him, Salinger, was unable to make him meet the Lord Jesus Christ. Holden Caulfield has been cast in Salinger’s image and Salinger himself professes (at least in this book) to nothing much more but to an atheistic humanism.

What then is mainly wrong with this novel from a Christian point of view? It seems to me that the philosophy of unbelief, the fundamentally non-Christian approach to life, upon which this novel is based is evident mostly from the typically humanist arrogance with which it has been written. When all the chips are down Holden is an arrogant little boy, even in his kindness towards the girl-prostitute he invites to come to his room. In his opinion about people he is unrepentantly arrogant. Nearly everybody is phoney. This is not merely so because Holden is a teenager with the very typical self-fascination of the boy who discovers himself as a person. That would only be natural. But with Holden (as with his “creator”) his arrogance is more deeply rooted. Nowhere in his self-interest is there any humility. Practically everybody is written off except Holden himself with the little circle of his parents, his little sister, his dead brother and of course Jane. His basic spiritual conceit is nowhere broken through by flashes of true self-knowledge in the mirror of the law and the love of Christ. Salinger never confronts him with Christ. Holden looks at himself constantly in the mirror of the world and the people around him. That may not seem a very exhilarating reflector, but (precisely therefore) it presents him with an image of himself that boosts his self-esteem.

I must say that I am terribly sorry that I have to say this of Holden. I like him tremendously. More than I like his “creator”. He at least should have known better. But as far as Holden is concerned, I would like to be his friend. He reminds me in a way of the rich young ruler of whom the gospel says that Jesus loved him. This man was even in Jesus’ eyes a very attractive person, kindhearted, humane, a gentleman every inch. Yet, deep down he was a spiritually conceited man. Although he had covered it up very skilfully he bursted with arrogance.

In Holden I find this too. With him there is the apparent rudeness, but underneath we discover his tender heart. Do you know what I like in him most? His concern about and his attachment to this girl Jane. I do not know whether I understand it correctly, but I sense his frustrated indignation about Stradlater’s date with Jane as the deepest motive behind his erratic behaviour during the days following, even behind his wild language. He knows Stradlater and that worries him to the core. All the time he plans to give Jane a ring; but he cannot do it; he is too deeply shocked and worried. And mind you, deep down Holden still all the time sees himself as the catcher at the edge of the cliff of the rye field, saving innocent people from going over the cliff. That is the image of himself that he would like to hold on to. But has he failed Jane? His pride refuses to admit it.

I can understand Holden’s (and Salinger’s) spiritual arrogance. I understand it only too well. I find it in my own heart. My only hope (in life and in death) is that God by his grace has broken through that arrogance when He confronted me with the law and the love of Jesus.

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

Latest Posts

Leave a comment

Everybody Talkin’ ‘Bout Love Ain’t Lovin’

Olive Wilkinson. Trowel and Sword. November 1971

Preamble: What is love? There are times when I/we think we know exactly what love is and other times when I/we haven’t got the faintest idea. Case in point – a man who might say to his wife (or vice versa), “I love you but I don’t like you much right now”. How is that even possible? It probably isn’t possible if your only idea of love is warm fuzzy feelings for your partner. When those warm fuzzy feelings subside, so does your love. But is that all there is to love? Olive Wilkinson says no. There is so much more. In this article she sets out to explore the differences between ‘maternal’ and ‘paternal’ love. Read on.

Everybody Talkin’ ‘Bout Love Ain’t Lovin’

One almost fears to talk about that greatly-bandied-about word “love”, for most of us have become so familiar with it, switch off, or at best, nod intellectual assent when we hear it. In some of the churches, the whole message of “love” has become rather sickly and one suspects that many people who are earnestly urging “love and relationship” are perhaps not so good at lovin’as they sound (myself, included). Seriously, though, the more we are urged along the road of love, the more Studdert Kennedy’s words come to mind; “Weak tea, cold slops, cold leg of lamb without mint sauce!”

Why is it that the word which Jesus used in the second commandment has somehow lost its strength? R.L. Katz clarifies what has been happening in modern religion in these words; “There is in tradition an emphasis on the value of unconditional love, of support and of consolation. These values which might be called maternal are closely linked with the care of the sick, the protection of the weak and the indulgence of the dependent. But religion speaks of a parallel set of values which might be called paternal. These deal with the life of the individual in the community, with his responsibilities, his relationships and his commitments”. The maternal view of love appears to be emphasised in present religion at the expense of the paternal view. Parents know that both have to be present in the training of children. Without the basic needs for love and dependence having been met, the basis of personality is missing; but on the other hand, without the teaching of responsibility and all that that involves we get a personality which is characterised by ego-centricity and self-indulgence.

Taking up Katz’s comments on the need for paternal love to be restored to its rightful place in life and living, O. Hobart Mower, a psychologist who has gained renown through his emphasising the aspect of moral responsibility in personality growth and relationships, adds that he is convinced that “the typical ‘neurotic’ of today, (and let’s face it, we all have our own peculiar neurosis) is not so much in need of unconditional motherly love and acceptance, as of a clearer sense of duty and obligation, which is a way of manifesting love – and, ultimately, receiving it in the only mature way possible, which is to say, by deserving it.” These are strong words and perhaps better applied and appropriated to ourselves than to the other person if we are to avoid the pitfall of becoming judgemental or unloving. As soon as I say that, I want to qualify it, too, by adding that sometimes we insult our friends by not expecting enough of them, by being too accepting!

Within the Christian circle there are many of us who are having real troubles about being loving. Perhaps it is not overstating the case to say that as a fellowship we reflect in our interchange with one another the same kind of conflicts and difficulties we have about being “loving in every other aspect of life. Here, we cannot avoid looking at the quality of our home life, for the things that happen there will colour every other part of our life and living; in fact our family life has a direct bearing on the family life of the Church. .. (No wonder that fellowships are such mixed affairs!).

Granted that maternal love must pervade the family, let us have a fresh look at those values which Katz says belong to the realm of paternal love; responsibility, relationship and commitment, as they are seen in family life. A stock-taking inventory for the family, based on these values might read something like this: “How much trouble do I really take to know and reach out to my partner?” How much do I really care about his or her personality and spiritual growth?”; “Do I help or hinder?”; “Does our love spill over in mutual concern for the children?”; “Are the children safe in our love or have they an uneasy feeling that all is not well?” “Does our home welcome others, reach out in fellowship to other married couples, singles, children?” It’s so easy to be self-contained: “Us four, no more, close the door!”

Because I believe that Christian Fellowship is based on what happens in our more intimate family relationships and the maternal and paternal aspects of love expressed there, let us look at what happens between husband and wife and parents and children. It is not uncommon that even in Christian homes husband and wife have ceased to have any real enjoyment in each other. The spontaneous giving and sharing of early marriage has been replaced by separateness. Perhaps there have been times of disagreement where hurt feelings have been dealt with by withdrawal, or by increased criticism, both ways of erecting protective barriers and setting up walls of separation. The only way of breaking down the walls is to courageously lower the defences. Jesus said, “Give and it shall be given unto you”. This paradox is set firmly in the centre of every vital relationship.

Cecil Osborne in “The Art of Understanding Your Mate”, says that we all carry over immature longings from our childhood. He lists these longings as, 

(a) A conscious or unconscious desire to have all of our needs met; 

(b) We want to control or change those about us so that they will meet these needs; 

(c) We all yearn for unconditional love. 

He maintains that a marriage can only be successful in so far as we replace these immature desires with more adult attitudes. These are:

(a) Instead of demanding that all of my needs be met, I will seek to meet the valid needs of my marriage partner. (For instance, a woman needs to be reassured freely that she is loved and valued for herself, and time and trouble must be taken to translate these sentiments into making the routine and isolation of the daily housework a little lighter. What about a meal out, sometimes? It only makes you appreciate her cooking more! A man, just as much as a woman, needs to be built up as a person of worth, to be shown consideration, too. Neither party ever appreciates criticism!);

(b) Rather than trying to change others, I will recognise that I cannot change anyone else. I can change only myself, and when I change, others tend – in time – to change in relation to me!

(c) Instead of expecting unconditional love, I will face the fact that no one can give this kind of limitless love consistently. I will love rather than demand or expect it, believing that love begets love. Here, I would like to say that acting in a loving way often precedes feeling loving. Don’t wait until you feel loving or you may never get started!

It sounds simple, doesn’t it? All it needs is the will and commitment and a bit of help from your partner!

Some of us are just learning what real loving involves; others of us have come through many ups and downs but have won through to a deep contentment and enjoyment of each other. Could those who are more experienced share with the less experienced? It always helps a fellowship when its members can share with each other out of the depths of their experience.

Ultimately, as Christians, we have a great High Priest who has Himself been touched by the feelings of our infirmities and knows how frail we are; yet, He stands as the great example of disciplined, sacrificial loving and we are called to follow in His steps. There is nothing weak about His love; it is characterised by unwavering responsibility and commitment. It is from His example that we must learn to help each other.

OLIVE WILKINSON*

*Olive Wilkinson was the wife of Tom Wilkinson, professor at the Reformed Theological College for 17 years. Olive worked as a counsellor and regularly lectured students at RTC on psychology, mental health and welfare, relationships and pastoral counselling.

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

The Rev Aubrey P.F. Hoffman

13 July, 1955 – 21 December, 1988

Peter G. van Dam, Trowel & Sword. Jan/Feb 1989
With contributions by Willem Schultink & Jessamine Remminga (nee Schultink)

Preamble: What do you do when your best friend is killed in a traffic accident? When your daughter just survives the accident? When they are on the road to doing God’s work in this world. Aubrey Hoffman was good man who loved the Lord with his whole heart and gave all his energy to bringing God’s Word to people. Both those who already knew, and those who needed to hear. When this accident happened, he was on the way to Manjimup with some young people from our church for a letter box drop. My daughter, one of the young people in the car, has written some closing thoughts. They are at the end of this article. All of it is well worth your time to read. (Willem) 

The Rev Aubrey P.F. Hoffman

Silence fell upon our churches here in Western Australia and then also upon all our churches in Australia, when word reached them that the Rev Aubrey Hoffman and two young people of the Brunswick Junction Church had died in a traffic accident, on 21 December.

Mr. Hoffman and five young people of the Church had gone on their way to distribute pamphlets in Manjimup, 100 km south of Brunswick Junction, to invite people of the town to join in the Christmas service which he would conduct there with the members of the church and regular visitors in the area, for whom he had been conducting their twice-monthly Sunday worship service during the past two years. While travelling south, a truck moved out of a side road without giving any attention at all to possible traffic on the highway. A collision was unavoidable. Upon impact Mr. Hoffman and two of the young people, Hagar Carelse (22) and her brother Mark (14), must have died instantly before the mini-bus, in which they were travelling, burst into flames.

Hagar and Mark were the only two of the five children of Mr. and Mrs. Carelse who had come with them from South Africa when Mr. Carelse took up the position of principal of the small ‘Unity Christian School’ at Brunswick Junction which had been set up by the members of the church. A couple who had been driving behind the mini-bus helped the other three young people escape. Two of them are in hospital as they suffered from internal bleeding and cracked vertebrae: Jessie Schultink and Ida van Zonneveld. Marit Noordermeer was the only passenger who attended the funeral service.

Thus far the Lord has given Sister Hoffman extraordinary strength and courage. We were relieved to hear that her parents would come over the following day. For Mr. Hoffman Sr., Rev. Aubrey Hoffman’s father who had come over from Sri Lanka about two years ago to stay with his son and family, the event was tragic in deed; his son died on exactly the same day on which his wife had died five years ago. Our thoughts have gone to Mr. and Mrs. Carelse no less, in their distress; their other children being so far away.

Following the completion of his studies at the Reformed Theological College at the end of 1979 it took almost four years before the Lord called Brother Hoffman to the ministry of His Word. He was ordained in this His holy office in the Brunswick Junction Church, on 26 February, 1984. At that time the Brunswick Junction Church had been vacant for eight years as it had not been in a position to call a minister. When the Classis granted Brunswick Junction permission to call a minister it at the same time committed itself to assisting the Church in its support of a minister. However, as Mr. Hoffman continued his ministry with the church the moment arrived when it informed the Classis that it was no longer in need of its assistance.

Among the ways – besides those in his own church – in which the Lord had blessed Brother Hoffman’s ministry were those of the organisation of – and the ministry of the Word to – a group of former church members and other christians in Manjimup. He led them in their twice monthly worship services. Just very recently the decision was made that, beginning with the new year, worship services would be held every Sunday in Manjimup. During more recent years Mr Hoffman had taken on an active interest in the spiritual needs of students at the West-Australian College of Advanced Education, Bunbury Campus. Meantime, he had also endeavoured to come closer to the Aboriginal community in Brunswick Junction with which members of the church had already had contacts for many years. For the past two years the Rev. Hoffman had also served as the chairman of the State Youth Council of our WA Churches.

Perhaps there was no more convincing testimony to the way the Lord had used Brother Hoffman in the ministry of His Word than that of the very, very many who attended the funeral ‘Thanksgiving Service’, held on 30 December at the Brunswick Junction Church. More than two hundred people attended; far more than the church building could accommodate. Among them were many members of the Perth Churches and of Manjimup, people from other places such as Bridgetown, many residents of Brunswick Junction, students of the WACAE. And many aborigines.

In conducting the funeral service, Rev. S. Bajema preached on the well-known opening words of Psalm 91; words so full of truth and comfort:
‘He who dwells in the shelter of the Most High 
will rest in the shadow of the Almighty. 
I will say of the Lord, ‘He is my Refuge
and my Fortress; my God in Whom I trust.’

It is a text often read also at the close of another year or at the beginning of a new year!
A word was conveyed prepared by the Synodical Interim Committee on behalf of all the churches of our denomination. Sister Hoffman had prepared a very gracious response, inserted in the order of service, to the very many who had been supporting her. In her response she wrote:  ‘Aubrey would want the Brunswick congregation to remember these thoughts: ‘Don’t be fainthearted or afraid” (Deut.20:3);’ , those who hope in the LORD will renew their strength’ (Isa.40:31); ‘Finally, be strong in the Lord and in His mighty power’ (Eph.6:10).

She wanted the comfort of the Lord, once expressed by her husband when he wrote in the local paper on Psalm 23, to reach Mr and Mrs Carelse. And all of us. Brother Hoffman had also been very close to his colleagues in the small Classis of WA. More importantly at this time: the whole of the Brunswick Junction Church, all of its members, rallied round Sister Hoffman and the family, Brother Hoffman, Snr. and Brother and Sister Carelse. At the funeral service all present knew and experienced the blessing of the truth of Psalm 133: ‘How good and pleasant it is when brothers live together in unity …; for there the Lord be stows His blessing, even life for evermore’.

For, yes, at that service it was so evident beyond doubt that the Lord had taken from us those who had become dear to us who had known them. The memory we have of them will not fade easily.May the Lord then, by His own Word and Spirit, keep, guide and encourage Sister Hoffman in her care for the four children He had given our brother and sister, their ages ranging from six years to three months. They will move to Melbourne where Sister Hoffman’s relatives live. And where the body of Mr Hoffman will be committed to the earth.

May He keep Brother Hoffman, Sr. close to Himself.
May He continue to comfort Brother and Sister Carelse in the sudden stillness of their home.
May the Lord continue to show His love for the Brunswick Junction Church; prove and confirm unto her the blessings of the work which He had granted his loyal servant to do in her midst and with her support and whom He has now taken to higher service. May He Himself provide in the need for the Church of the continuation of the ministry of His Word.

On behalf of the Churches of Classis Western Australia.

Peter G.van Dam

My Grace Is Sufficient For You

Willem Schultink. Trowel & Sword. Jan/Feb 1989

Why?
That burning question. 
Why?

Aubrey.
My Brother.
I loved you dearly,
As my brother in the Lord.

We could uphold each other,
Build each other.
Share our joys.
And our sorrows.

Care for each other,
In the hard times.
Really Rejoice
In God’s blessings.

We had so many plans
So many things we
Were going to achieve together.
So much to do.

Now you are gone.
Why, dear Lord?
‘My grace is sufficient for you.’
Always.

27 December 1988.

Reflection by Jess Remminga (Schultink)

Any time is a bad time for a car accident, but I’d hazard a guess that just before Christmas is a particularly bad time for anyone. I was 13 when my pastor and two young people were killed as we were travelling for our church’s Christmas letter box drops. Chatting with the girls in the seat behind, all I remember was Aubrey’s shout, “Look out!”, a great swerve as I caught one glance of an ancient, faded blue-green Dodge truck before a horrendous crunch, and black, and fire. Then I was sitting on the side of the road, on a towel, in the gravel, with a trail of water running by, hearing explosions. A passer-by had gone into the burning wreck and pulled us out. 

The ripples ran wide. 
A church had lost its pastor. 
A wife, her husband. 
Four little children, one just a new baby, their dad. 
Parents, their children. 
A man, his best friend. 
And me? That single event has been the pivot point of my life. 
Before: A golden childhood, a simple faith, and a God who kept me safe. 
After: Long years of working out how a good God could allow such suffering. 
It felt like a slap in the face. 
Yet….he’s not a tame Lion.

The survivor guilt and the ‘what-ifs’ were bad. 
We had just stopped and swapped seats. I had been in the front. If we hadn’t Mark would have made it and I would have died. 
Hagar was right beside me. Death literally touched me as we were thrown about the car.
If we hadn’t stopped, or if we had stopped a little longer, would it have even happened? Would we have completely missed that truck pulling out when it did? 
Would those little children still have their daddy?
What was it like for my mum, fielding the first phone call (in the days before mobile phones) from a country hospital and hearing her daughter in tears on the end of the line; knowing it was bad and going straight to be with Debbie when the police came knocking. 

Nearly 38 years on, (yes, still counting, I think I always will) I still don’t understand why God allowed this great grief. It doesn’t seem to make sense this side of eternity.
I do know that I have been grown by this long, unfinished, wrestle with God. I understand Job better now, though it has taken a long time. 
I understand from the inside the grief that cries out AND the faith that holds on. 

There is a Love that will not let you go. 
There is a warm Presence who walks beside you through the dark night.
And in the blackest darkness there is a voice that whispers, “Courage, dear heart”.

For those who are suffering and it doesn’t make sense – it’s okay to question God. It’s okay to throw big emotions at him. 
He can handle it.
You can trust him to hold you even when you’re devastated and angry and in despair. 

Why?

Because ‘the eternal God is your refuge, and underneath are the everlasting arms.”

So I say with Job:
“I know that my Redeemer lives, 
and in the end he will stand upon the earth, 
and after my skin has been destroyed,
yet in my flesh I will see God. 
I, and not another. 
How my heart yearns within me.”

And I hold onto the promise that one day he will 
‘wipe every tear from our eyes. 
There will be no more death, or mourning or crying or pain, 
for the old order of things [will have] passed away. 
Behold, he is making all things new… 
… these words are trustworthy and true.’

Jessamine Remminga
July 2026

PS. Life is good, and I am thankful. pastedGraphic.png

Leave a comment

A Tale Of Sheep And Drovers

John Zylstra. Trowel & Sword. March 1987

Preamble: This poetic masterpiece was published in T&S not that long after I started a new job where, on the first day, I was advised by the Foreman not to do any more than the next bloke. It’s funny the things you remember. Has anything really changed in the nearly forty years since? We now live in a time when a man holding a lollypop directing traffic can earn more than a primary school teacher responsible for educating our children. Go figure! Pay particular attention to the last two verses of the poem next time you enter a ballot box to cast a vote. For many years we’ve been sold the pup that church and state should be kept separate. It’s time we stood up and said: NO MORE!!

Back in the eighteen hundreds
When Australia was young.
We had our squatters and our sheep 
And all the work got done.

For a worker was a worker then
And he gladly lent a hand.
For the fortunes that the squatters made 
Were ploughed back into the land.

For they had an ounce of common sense
And were proud to earn their keep.
T’was impossible to lead them on 
Like today’s two legged sheep.

It used to be a privilege
For one to have a part
In building up this country: 
Not tearing it apart.

When mates were mates and men were men. 
It used to be a shame.
To bludge the whole darn day away.
But now it’s just a game.

‘Now listen mate. It isn’t fair
That he’s got more than you.
You sit and bludge’ shop stewards yelp.
‘Until you get it too’.

‘Yeah, sure it’s  hard on poor old Bill
That he can’t get to work:
But any bloke who works that hard 
Is just a bloom’n jerk’.

“You’ve got to think of Number One. 
Remember, blow the rest.
Those over-conscientious blokes 
Are just a bloom’n pest’.

Thus speaks our new philosophy. 
And workers, just like sheep.
While Union Bosses crack The Whip 
Are driven up the creek.

‘I don’t know what you’re thinking mate.
But as for me. I guess
That all this grabbing for one-self
Will cause one stinking mess’.

‘Do unto others as you’d have 
Them doing unto you’.
Is what The Master taught.
And yes, I’m pretty sure its true.

Instead of grabbing what we can
Put God and country first. 
For if we keep this caper up 
We’ll end up much the worst.

John Zylstra

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

Comments from last week’s “Kyrie Eleison”

‘I really miss this in worship.
Also remember the psalms. There are some still in the 1990 book of worship, e.g. Psalm 6 “lord chasten not in anger, nor in your wrath rebuke me, give me your healing word..” and Psalm 77 “I cried out to God to help me … day and night I sought in vain, joy for sorrow, ease for pain…”

‘Yesterday I led congregational prayer using the last 6 Lords Day lessons (the Lord’s Prayer) of the Heidelberg Catechism. Many found it refreshing.’

Leave a comment

Kyrie Eleison (Lord, Have Mercy On Us) Contrition in Worship

Bill Deenick. Trowel & Sword. March 1987

Preamble: Background – When the Psalter Hymnal was no longer readily available from the U.S., the decision was made to produce a hymnal for The Australian Church. The first edition of the “Book of Worship”, produced in 1981, consisted of a brown, loose leaf folder containing three separate music sections, Psalms, Hymns and (Spiritual) Songs, as well as sections for Standards and Forms. It is to this book that Rev. Bill Deenick refers when he wrote about the song titled “Kyrie Eleison” in 1987. The final 1990 edition of the “Book of Worship” no longer divided the songs into separate sections and a number of songs from the first edition (including “Kyrie Eleison”) were dropped while others were added. With the advent of overhead projectors and electronic screens, the “Book of Worship” itself has passed into history and it would seem that the choice of music for Worship Services has now fallen to individual churches and their music teams.

Kyrie Eleison (Lord, Have Mercy On Us)

We do not sing it much. I do not remember having sung it even once in church. Yet, it is one of the songs in the Book of Worship (of the Australian Reformed Church);

Song 23. Kyrie Eleison; Lord have mercy on us.

In that particular section of the Book of Worship [‘Songs”] it is the only song in which the Church cries to God for mercy. There are plenty of hallelujahs, praise- the-Lord’s and hosannas in that section. There is also flag waving, clapping and raising of hands, laughing and shouting and dancing in it. But it has only this one cry for mercy; and it is hidden in Greek. Admittedly there is one set of bended knees in Song 10 and in Latin there is a prayer for peace but on the whole the Church singing the songs of this section is a triumphant and happy Church, full of joy, praising the Lord, living for Jesus, born again and with its sins forgiven, sanctified, one in the Spirit, walking hand in hand, sharing in Christ’s victory; and we will know that they are Christians by their love.

Well, is there any thing wrong with being a happy Church? Is it not pleasing to God when we sing cheerful songs of faith and rejoicing? Yes, sure it is; and I am ready to admit that I really love some of the songs in this section, such as the numbers 3 and 7; 20, 43 and 55:1&3.* And many of the others are quite alright too. Some of my grandchildren think that we have killed them by over-use. I have heard them say: “Oh no, not this one again” when a particular song was proposed. But then, they are still quite young. They may not yet appreciate the beauty of repetition!

My experience with Christian people [Reformed or otherwise] is that they are not really such a happy victorious band. The Church as I have come to know it is much more like a miserable, divided crowd of often small-minded and often discontented people;

My problem is a different one. I tend to be very suspicious about all that happy singing around me. To be honest, I am tempted to disbelieve it. I have never had much trouble in believing in the honesty of a man or a woman calling upon God for help, mercy and forgiveness. But when I hear all these triumphant hallelujahs I often feel very uncomfortable. They do not seem fair dinkum: They come too easily, even glibly. My experience with Christian people [Reformed or otherwise] is that they are not really such a happy victorious band. The Church as I have come to know it is much more like a miserable, divided crowd of often small-minded and often discontented people; and only very seldom was it possible to see that they were Christians by their holiness and love. I find that especially true with regard to evangelism. Everybody seems to be talking about church growth these days. Like the Pharisees of old, all Christians are supposed to make a few converts here and there [Matthew 23:15) but when all is said and done the Church as we know it in this country is unbelievably ineffective in its outreach, no matter how many training courses we organise or little books on church growth we read. In real evangelism – making Christ known to a lost nation – the Christian Church in this country is an abysmal failure. Yet, we sing our hallelujahs as if we really shared in the victories of Christ. And when a few souls are won we are so pleased with our little successes that we must report on them as soon and as widely as we can, counting the heads (how many we gained and lost) and making comparisons with others (how many they gained and lost). Forgetting about what we should really do: humble ourselves before God with cries and tears of contrition. Who knows, God may still have mercy on us.

In the Christian Church at worship a few more bended knees, a few more contrite hearts and a few more cries for mercy would seem more believable than the hallelujahs and the praise-the-Lord’s.

Now it could be argued that I have come to this negative view of the Church because I have always mixed with the wrong crowd and worked in the wrong church. But when I hear about their experiences from other Christians at times (when they are honest) and I listen to the testimony of church history I come to the opposite conclusion, viz. that God has rather blessed me in the Christians I met and the churches I worked in. But that does not alter my conclusion that the Lord’s unfavourable assessment of five of the seven churches in Asia Minor (Rev.2 and 3) is still very relevant to most of the Christian Church today, not excluding our own denomination. All these high spirited hosannas are out of character with the Christian reality of the day. In the Christian Church at worship a few more bended knees, a few more contrite hearts and a few more cries for mercy would seem more believable than the hallelujahs and the praise-the-Lord’s. Before too many hands are raised in jubilation, a few more tears of repentance and a few more prayers de profundis [Psalm 130] would not be out of place. After all, only the hallelujahs out of the depths of sorrow and of sins confessed, are truly believable.

I have a great problem on this score. As Christians these days we seem to be able to overlook without too much trouble the almost complete failure of our Christian life and witness in the world. To talk about God’s anger and revulsion at the sins of those who claim to be Christ’s is quite out of fashion. We are forgiven, are we not? We are in Christ, are we not? In our kind of welfare society we are faring very well, thank you, also spiritually. We seem tobe so satisfied with the kind of Christians we are. We do not seem to realise how ‘wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked’ we are (Rev.3:17) and we feel embarrassed and do not know what to say when we happen to meet a Christian who feels totally rotten about his life before the Lord. We will possibly try to assure him that it is not as bad as all that. Once again an incredible bourgeois satisfaction has taken hold of our middle class Christian world; as it often did in the past, e.g. in the days of Kierkegaard.

This is reflected in our Sunday worship. Do you remember the days when the Christian Church dared to pray prayers like this: ‘Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Judge of all men; we acknowledge and bewail our manifold sins and wickedness, which we, from time to time, most grievously have committed by thought, word and deed, against Thy divine Majesty, provoking most justly Thy wrath and indignation against us. We do earnestly repent and are heartily sorry for these our misdoings. The remembrance of them is grievous to us; the burden of them is intolerable. Have mercy upon us. Have mercy upon us, most merciful Father. For Thy Son our Lord Jesus Christ’s sake, forgive us all that is past and grant us that we for ever hereafter serve and please Thee in newness of life…’?  I quote from the Holy Communion liturgy of the Church of England. Such prayers kept the message of sin and forgiveness alive in the English Church even in its darkest days. But I could have quoted from the Prayers of the continental Reformed Church as well: “O eternal God and merciful Father, we humble ourselves before Thy great majesty, against which we have frequently and grievously sinned. We acknowledge that if

Thou shouldst enter into judgement with us, we would deserve nothing but eternal death. We are deeply conscious of the fact that on account of our original sin we are unclean before Thee and children of wrath. Since we are conceived and born in sin all manner of evil desire against Thee and our neighbour fill our soul. We continually transgress Thy commandments, failing to do what Thou has commanded and doing that which Thou hast expressly forbidden. We all like sheep have gone astray. We have turned everyone to his own way. We acknowledge our waywardness and are heartily sorry for all our sins. We confess to our humiliation and to the praise of Thy mercy that our transgressions are innumerable, and that our debt is so great that we cannot even begin to repay. We are not worthy to be called Thy children nor to lift up our eyes heavenward to Thee in prayer. Nevertheless, O Lord and gracious Father . . . etc.”

Thus the Christian Church confessed its sins in years past. You can still find such prayers in the back of the Psalter Hymnal. If we compare this language with that of the liturgical forms now proposed, and accepted by the Australian Reformed Church Synod (1985])for provisional use, we seem to enter a totally different world, not only language-wise but also content-wise. I could illustrate that from practically each of the now suggested forms.

Do you remember that in the past we asked parents at the baptism of their child: ‘Do you confess that our children, though conceived and born in sin and therefore subject to all manner of misery, yea to condemnation itself, are sanctified in Christ and therefore as members of His Church ought to be baptised?’ Later we had a ‘Grey Book’, provisionally adopted. In it we were told to ask parents: ‘Do you believe that our children are born with sinful hearts and yet are holy in Christ and therefore as members of His Church ought to be baptised?’ Then we had a ‘Blue Book’ provisionally adopted. The questions changed again and we asked, more in line with the old form: ‘Do you confess that our children, though sinful by nature right from the beginning of their lives, and consequently deserving of God’s judgement and even of eternal death, are by His mercy holy in Christ…?’ But now the questions have changed again (all within a period of 15 years; the earlier forms lasted four hundred years) and we are instructed to ask: ‘Do you believe that your child though sinful by nature, is received by God in Christ as a member of His covenant…?’ That is all: sinful by nature. How sinful by nature, just a little or a great deal, we leave that up in the air. In the original form we had a Reformational question. With our present question any semi-Pelagian could wholeheartedly agree. Sin has been played down and we do not talk about condemnation or judgement.

We could also have a look at the now proposed forms for the celebration of the Holy Supper. It is good that we do that. Synod 1985 encouraged us all to study the Liturgy Report and to discuss ti widely in the churches. That includes T&S, I am sure.

In past centuries the Holy Supper liturgy always included what the Presbyterians called a ‘fencing of the Table’, in which unrepentant sinners were warned to repent and to turn to the Lord before partaking in the Supper. In recent years this warning has still been retained in what we call the exhortation before the Supper, to be read on the Sunday before. The exhortation now proposed still has that one sentence of prohibition: the Table of the Lord is not open, however, to those who wilfully and unrepentantly live in sin. We urge them to seek – or rediscover – the abundant grace of God’

But what about the new forms for the celebration of the Supper? Do they still ‘fence the Table’; do they still reckon with unbelievers and unrepentant sinners who might possibly be present in the church and who could ‘eat and drink judgment’ on themselves? No, they do not. With not one word is anyone discouraged from taking part because of unbelief or unconfessed sin. Even the words of Paul in 1Cor.11, which throughout the ages have been part of the Christian Church’s Supper liturgy are not worthy of inclusion in the now proposed forms. The rationale behind it is, no doubt, that a positive invitation to repentant sinners should suffice. But why should we be wiser than the Lord himself and his apostles? His words are full of warning; and it is not only in 1Cor.11 that Paul tells us about all the sinners who have no part in the Kingdom of God’s grace. We read about it also in Galatians: I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the Kingdom of God! That was written to the Christian communities in the province of Galatia.

If the Reformed Church is not to be a sect but an ecclesia in the N.T. sense it needs to hear before its Holy Supper celebrations that no one can run off with someone else’s wife or live in the sins of tax evasion, gambling or quarrelling and still have part in the Kingdom of God.

From the apostle’s example we learn that we cannot presume everyone in the Church to be among the elect, a born-again believer living a sanctified life. Such a distorted view of the Church has sectarian but no biblical credentials. The Church of Jesus is not a friendly society of nice, like-minded and morally living Christian people with loveable children. In the Church, as the people of God, there are among us rebels and hypocrites; there are goats among the sheep and tares among the wheat. If the Reformed Church is not to be a sect but an ecclesia in the N.T. sense it needs to hear before its Holy Supper celebrations that no one can run off with someone else’s wife or live in the sins of tax evasion, gambling or quarrelling and still have part in the Kingdom of God.

Do you remember the old form that served us for four hundred years? It is still in the Psalter Hymnal. Read it once more. But you have to hurry; it is not likely to be incorporated in the new Book of Worship. When we still knew that the Reformed Church was not a sect but a Church, we read: *wherefore also, according to the command of Christ and of the apostle Paul, we admonish those who know themselves to be defiled with the following gross sins to abstain from the Table of the Lord; and declare to them that they have no part in the Kingdom of Christ; such as all idolators. all despisers of God and of His Word, and of the holy sacraments; all blasphemers…all who seek to raise discord, sects and mutiny in Church or State; all perjurers… quarrelsome persons… all adulterers… gamblers, covetous persons, and all who live offensive lives. All these, while they continue in such sins, shall abstain from this food which Christ has appointed only for his believers, lest their judgment and condemnation be made the heavier.” And then, of course, followed the delightful passage in which the invitation came to the “contrite hearts of the believers” who are “by the grace of the Holy Spirit heartily sorry” for their sins.

It pains me to think that there are young ministers in our church who have never read that form for their congregation; and possibly never even have heard it being read.

Now, I have quoted this from the continental liturgical forms of the Reformation period, but I could have quoted also the Book of Common Prayer of the English

Church. Please, check it for once, in the form for the Holy Communion.

One more point: the now proposed forms for profession of faith and adult baptism. Notice the questions asked and the statements expected from the candidates for baptism and confirmation. The form for adult baptism includes a straightforward confession of sins, as does one of the four (only one of the four) Holy Supper forms; however, such confession may have been included earlier in the service. But then the questions and the statements; especially the statements. The candidate assures us: “I profess… I want to follow and serve… I believe… / trust….. I continue to turn from my rebellion.. with repentance… I believe… I accept… I promise… I join..” in short a statement of good intentions, excellent intentions; and there is repentance of rebellion. All of that is nice enough. But again, where is the typical Reformation emphasis? Any semi-Pelagian could answer questions and make statements like these. In the questions we used in the past (which were introduced only at the start of this century) there was at least still: “do you abhor yourself and humble yourself before God because of your sins and do you seek your life not in yourself but only in Jesus Christ your Saviour?”

Throughout the history of Christianity the spiritual life of mature believers has been characterised by a deep and humble recognition not only of their creaturely insignificance but especially of their total original lostness in sin and of their abiding helplessness and unworthiness before God. The OT Psalms are full of it and so is the Book of Job. The Lord Jesus gave expression to it in his parables and miracles. He surrounded himself not with the nice people of his day but with the morally and spiritually down-and-out. In Jesus’ days the Pharisees were the praise-the-Lord party. Their hallelujahs resounded through the temple. They rejoiced no end about being Abraham’s children. Jerusalem, the golden! The temple, the temple is here! Hosanna in the highest! But it was the publican who went down to his house justified. Jesus said. Only “de profundis” is there hope”. Out of the depths I cry, o Lord, to Thee.”

Have we become a consumers’ church in which grace is readily available over the counter in neat little packages?

Have we become a consumers’ church in which grace is readily available over the counter in neat little packages? 

In short, and putting it in historical terms: surrounded by a Christian world of spirituality on-the-cheap, could we not have a little more Augustinianism, even Jansenism, in Reformed worship? 

In Eastern Orthodoxy the hallelujah of the “Christ has risen indeed” is properly counter-balanced by the humbling “Jesus Prayer”, “Lord Jesus, Son of God, have mercy on us, Sinners”. Kyrie Eleison.

Bill Deenick

*Songs referred to:
3 – Be Still And Know That I Am God
7 – Surely Goodness And Mercy
20 – Therefore The Redeemed
43 – Thy Loving Kindness
55 – Because He Lives (verses 1 and 3)
also 10 – They That Wait Upon The Lord

(Bill Deenick is a Retired Minister since 1983. He has served Reformed Churches in New Zealand, N,S.W., Vic. and S.A. For many years he has been Editor of Trowel and Sword and is still a regular contributor).

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

Recent Posts

Leave a comment

Australia – Mission Accomplished?

George Van Groningen. Trowel & Sword. Jan/Feb 1987

Preamble: The author, Dr. George Van Groningen served the R.C.A. (now C.R.C.A) and R.T.C. from 1958-1971, after which he and his family returned to the U.S. During 1986 he returned to Australia to lecture in Old Testament at the R.T.C. The following article was written by Dr. Van Groningen for an American readership, but was reprinted in T&S with the expectation that readers would be interested to read it, as an insight into how Americans viewed the progress of the Reformed Churches in Australia. He also gave an insight to the challenges still facing the Reformed Churches at that time; in particular the development of Christian tertiary education, a subject that was close to his heart. Another forty years down the track, how many of these challenges still remain, and what new challenges have arisen in the interim?

Australia – Mission Accomplished?

Forty years ago the first immigrants from The Netherlands arrived in Australia. For ten years there was a steady stream of new arrivals; since then it has become a trickle. Among these immigrants were a number of people who held to their Reformed convictions; they had difficulty worshipping and identifying with the various churches in Australia. They began to gather and worship separately. Thus the Reformed churches, a sister denomination of the Christian Reformed church, was begun.

The first congregations formed called pastors from the Netherlands. An appeal in 1957 to the Christian Reformed churches (in the USA) for ministerial help was fruitful. Three ministers and an evangelist arrived in Australia by 1960. We, the Van Groningens, were the first of these to arrive in 1958; we lived, worked and worshipped with the Reformed churches for thirteen years.

When we arrived there were fourteen congregations, some of these worshipped in two or three separate places; in time, most of these became separate congregations. Today there are forty congregations; some of these are sponsoring an outreach program with the hope of establishing more independent congregations.

During the year 1986, we assisted as a part-time volunteer lecturer in Old Testament studies in the Reformed Theological College – an institution we had helped to develop. Our lengthy visit gave us an opportunity to make some observations.

There have been changes. The Australian population increased from 13,000,000 to 16,500,000. But the general religious attitudes have not. A recent study by professors at Monash University reported the following results after surveying people from all walks of life. 87% of the people identify with some denomination and say they believe in God; but 57% consider themselves religious. While 67% said they pray or contemplate at times less than 30% attend worship services, some of these only once or twice a month. Mainline city churches were found to be almost empty on a given Sunday morning while middle-class suburban churches, often of an “ethnic” or “non mainline” type were filled. The greatest percentage of atheists, some of whom were outspokenly antagonistic to any religion, were members of the political Labor Party. The present prime minister, of the Labor Party, claims to be an agnostic atheist.

Changes in society and culture are evident. As in other countries the church has to face issues such as abortion, adulterous life styles, biological/genetic technological experimentation, divorce, euthanasia, homosexuality, use of nuclear power and weapons, radical feminism and radical socialistic and communistic ideologies.

The tremendous increase in affluence in the past fifteen years is obvious. New homes, late model cars and 4-wheel drive vehicles; new supermarkets and huge department stores; four lane highways and extended freeways; long vacation periods and numerous holiday houses.

Church life has changed. Efforts in ecumenicity resulted in the Congregational, Methodist and some Presbyterians forming the Uniting church. Presbyterian bodies increased in number; formerly there were three, now there are the Continuing Presbyterian, Evangelical Presbyterian, Free Presbyterian, Presbyterian Reformed, Reformed Presbyterian and Westminster Presbyterian. The Reformed Churches’ relationship to these is varied.

Worship services in the Reformed churches were quite uniform originally; now a great degree of variety and casualness has been introduced. Most of the ministers are young compared to the older migrant pastors of former decades. Of the fifty active pastors, professors, missionaries, forty have received their training at the Reformed Theological College.

It was a blessed experience to listen to former catechumens preach; to have former students as professorial colleagues and to see 12 year old cadets of years ago serve as office bearers in the church.

An increased awareness to reach out by means of evangelism, diaconal work/assisted by care groups and church planting is evident. Some folk of non-Dutch origins are active in the churches and some new ones affiliate each year.

One of the greatest changes has taken place in Christian youth work and education. Youth organisations, including Cadets and Calvinettes introduced from the CRC, have developed and their facilities improved. In the 1960s there were four or five Christian day schools, now the NUCS – CSI related number over forty. The acquiring of enough Christian teachers adhering to Reformed views is very difficult.

The Reformed churches are confronted by great challenges. Each area of change mentioned above presents ongoing challenges. The penetration of Australian society and culture at all levels of life with the gospel is very necessary. The uniting of forces by those adhering to Reformed confessions and principles of life should be a high priority.

The development of tertiary education is a prime requirement; ministers, missionaries and teachers for Christian schools must be trained but also people entering other vocations and professions should be prepared to serve as Christ’s representatives in their respective areas. There is a great need to foster a deep and abiding loyalty to the Reformed confessions and the working out of the meaning of these for all of life in terms of contemporary issues and by ways that meet the unique pressures of modern social life. Constant efforts must be made to remove the sources of tension within the Reformed Churches so that an effective and united witness will go out.

During the course of the school year we heard repeated expressions of gratitude for what the Christian Reformed Church has done in helping the Reformed Churches during their first forty years. Assistance was provided by supplying pastors, evangelists, teachers and funds for the Theological Student Aid Fund. With aid from the home office in Chicago, the Back to God Hour began to be broadcast. The Cadet and Calvinette organisations and materials were adopted and adapted. Christian schools and the World Home Bible league here received much encouragement.

The time for giving direct assistance has gone. An exception could be made in regard to an occasional guest lecturer at the Theological College. Other causes such as the Back to God Hour might need a boost. The Reformed churches are “coming of age”. Young vigorous leadership has been prepared and is taking shape. It is for the Christian Reformed Church now to demonstrate its readiness to be a model in Reformed believing, communication, life and service. It is for us to be a faithful supporting and encouraging sister church and to continue to share in mutual blessings.

Finally, to sum up our observations: the Christian Reformed Church’s mission to Australia is accomplished. Now is the time to stand shoulder to shoulder to carry out the mandate Christ has given His Church in the world of the 1980s and 1990s.

George Van Groningen

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

Ballad Of The Common Cup

Mike Vanden Bosch. Trowel & Sword. November 1988
From the Magazine “Reformed Worship”

Preamble: While many of the articles in Trowel & Sword tended to be weighty, theological treatises, (perhaps contributing to a common idea that T&S was mainly a magazine by ministers for ministers), we do sometimes come across an item such as the following “tongue in cheek” poetic composition describing how one particular congregation, led by its Minister and Elders, dealt with the vexing question of large, shared cups as opposed to individual cups when partaking of the communion wine. For our non-Dutch speaking subscribers we have included translations for the occasional Dutch words used in the poem which were not part of the original script.

Ballad Of The Common Cup

(In several of our congregations discussions are being held – and at times emotions are running high! – about some aspects of the Lord’s Supper celebration, viz. the common cup or individual cup, and wine or grape juice. We thought it good to introduce a lighter note as well, and received permission to reprint the ‘Ballad of the Common Cup’)

Grace CRC, some years ago,
served wine at its Lord’s Suppers. 
They passed a cup from hand to hand, 
for they were “common cuppers.”

The young resented cups from hands 
still stained from greasing tractors; 
some said their appetite for wine 
was spoiled by such factors.

If work-stained hands did not offend, 
long whiskers did much quicker; 
for wine like pearls of blood would stick 
to whiskers dipped in liquor.

Yet old folks loved the common cup 
the supper was their mecca. 
Jan Klinker, having sipped his wine, 
would whisper loud, “Smaakt lekker.” (tastes good)

But lo, a preacher came to town 
whose wife was somewhat spiffy. 
He said some habits would be changed 
in what he called a jiffy.

He lectured his consistory 
on germs and all diseases; 
He said a fly could put a germ 
on anyone it pleases.

He said a kiss imposed a threat, 
a real though hidden danger, 
especially from the lips of one 
who could be called a stranger.

Whenever pigs would die, he’d say, 
“The germs have been invadin’.”
Soon fear began to rise in hearts, 
and elders said, “Ach heden.” (Oh dear)

And so since lips had deadly germs, 
as preacher had been noting,
they asked the people to decide 
and waited for their voting.

Alas, the vote was tied that day, 
for older folks insisted 
tradition shouldn’t be changed for germs, 
and sternly they resisted.

They told the elders they believed 
that God ordained their sneezing. 
If germs in fact were on the cup, 
he gloried in their wheezing.

The elders sensed theology 
too deep for them to touch
so deep it couldn’t be explained 
unless one spoke in Dutch.

Alas, the preacher’s Dutch was weak 
in terms he sorely needed. 
He knew he wouldn’t convince a soul 
no matter how he pleaded.

“They’ll never change their minds,” he said. 
They see like old Cyclops.
No heads in all the world are like 
the ones we call Frieskops.” 
(Frieskoppen – person from Friesland, Northern Holland 
known for their stubborn nature)

So since he couldn’t wrench these folks 
by force from their tradition, 
he planned a skilful strategy 
to win by sure attrition.

He stopped his arguing at once; 
he vowed he wanted peace 
(but casually noted that his wife 
thought common cups were vies). (dirty)

The statement stabbed them to the quick, 
though some were quite offended.
But then he offered them a plan 
that everyone commended.

We’ll offer wine in common cups 
to you who love tradition.
You’ll choose the kind of cup you want 
by choosing your position.

“Those on the right, appropriately, 
get wine from cups prodigious;
but larger cups cannot be said 
to mean you’re more religious.

“Those on the left, you may have guessed, 
with fingers youthfully nimble, 
will get their wine in little cups 
no larger than a thimble.

“But they mayn’t think that dainty cups 
make holier Lord’s Suppers.
Nor should they brag because they are
the only bottoms-uppers.”

The elders sensed some wisdom which
the church so badly needed, 
but thought the preacher somewhat weak 
in having so conceded.

“Won’t strangers think we’re odd,” they asked, 
“with cups of different sizes?’
One thought perhaps Leviticus 
had banned such compromises. 

The preacher said such difference
could well be overlooked, 
but elders said, “Theology 
should save us from such drukte.” (fuss)

But soon they sensed the preacher’s plan 
though earlier confusing; 
he knew the flu could make them choose 
for cups no one was using.

So through the years the thought of germs 
and long untrimmed moustaches 
moved nearly all conservatives 
in silent, beaten batches.

From thimbles then one Sunday morn 
two hundred people sipped; 
around the rims of dinky cups 
their mouths were tightly lipped.

But from a cup ten times the size 
with others slightly jealous 
a lone man drank communion wine 
from one big silver chalice.

Jan Klinker was the man who drank
in swallows long and easy. 
The elders thought his attitude 
was just a bit too breezy.

Said one, “We shouldn’t have given in,
for now we pay the price.
We give the man ten times the wine
for being eigenwijs.” (pigheaded)

The preacher had been pleased because 
his plan to change some drinking 
had changed, without an argument, 
some quaint, outdated thinking.

But when he served Jan Klinker wine
his joy was somewhat muted;
his plan in Klinker’s stubbornness 
seemed oddly now refuted.

So soon the preacher hoped (in guilt) 
Jan Klinker would catch cold 
or flu or whooping cough and then 
get prematurely old.

Jan Klinker died a ripe old age, 
a chalice in his hand.
He said he’d drink from it in joy 
in heaven’s promised land.

But when Jan Klinker breathed his last, 
the preacher, with some malice, 
put in his hand a tiny cup 
and took the silver chalice.

“If heaven has the common cup, 
you won’t need this,” he sighed. 
“You’ll drink from golden goblets then 
and never be denied.”

The preacher spoke quite warmly, 
but his thoughts were more malicious.
A puny cup in Klinker’s hand 
brought feelings quite delicious.

“Big cups,” he said, “will always stand
for antiquated people 
who worshiped in a wooden church
with one old-fashioned steeple.”

But when he died, his heirs passed ’round 
a common cup for drinking; 
and they were praised for love and warmth 
and innovative thinking.

Mike Vanden Bosch

(Mike Vanden Bosch is a professor of English at Dordt College in SIOUX Centre, Iowa).

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

The Pain of Separation: “De Afscheiding”

Rev. Henk DeWaard. Trowel & Sword. Oct. 1984

Preamble: History! What is of greater concern? That history is often re-written to conform to the narrative of the day or that history is totally ignored? Have you ever heard of ‘The Great Emu War Of Australia?’ Perhaps the greatest concern of all is that history simply isn’t taught to new generations. How many members of the Reformed churches in Australia or New Zealand, particularly the younger generations, know of, or have even heard of a painful separation in the Dutch Reformed Church in the Netherlands called “De Afscheiding”? How many can even pronounce the words? Yet the effects of this division can still be seen today. Knowing the past often leads to a greater understanding of the present.

1834 The Pain of Separation: “De Afscheiding” 1984

‘We are not divided, 
All one body we..!

So we sing with great gusto, while the Body of Christ is in tatters! Never before in the church has there been such emphasis on unity, and never before has the church shown such division and diversity. It is 150 years ago this month that a painful separation took place in the Dutch Reformed Church of the Netherlands. The separation is called: De Afscheiding. Older readers will know something about this historical event. I hope the younger generation will want to know!

Why remember this event?

It is not popular in an ecumenical age to rake up stories of church division, yet the underlying issues at stake are of such importance that we would do well to take note of them through an examination of the Afscheiding.

Fifty years ago, when the centenary of the Afschiding was commemorated, prime-minister Colijn was chairman of the committee to organise activities to remember the event. Today it is inconceivable that a Dutch prime-minister would head such a committee. Rather, the importance of the Afscheiding will be downplayed and many would like to forget it altogether. They regard rememberance of this event as a misplaced triumphalism, for the Afscheiding not only split the church but in turn gave rise to many denominations all of which claim Hendrik De Cock as their spiritual father.

Why then should we remember this event? Obviously for some it is a churchly nostalgia. They want to idealise the ‘Golden Age’ of the Reformed church when men and women were prepared to fight for the faith! Publishers will encourage church historians to write books about the Afscheiding in order to keep printing presses busy. I believe that commemoration of this event only has meaning if we ask what motivated the men of the Afscheiding to separate from the church. What did they consider of more importance than unity? What was at stake at the time?

Decline and Revival

In the late 18th century, the impact of rationalism and the Enlightenment was keenly felt in the Dutch church. This was the movement which glorified human reason and the scientific method. According to the enlightenment view, only what can be observed, proved, analysed and understood can be accepted as truth. Since only ‘nature’ is objectively real, Nature (with a capital N) came to take the place of God. At best God became the Prime Mover who set everything in motion and then withdrew behind the natural processes. It was the time when there was widespread belief in the goodness and perfectability (sic) of mankind. Dogma became a bad word representing prejudice, superstition and non-scientific thinking. The only acceptable authority was the human mind, not God, Scripture or the church.

However, early in the 19th century, a revival took place in the Dutch church. Men such as Bilderdijk (1756-1831), da Costa (1798-1860) and Groen van Prinsterer (1801-1876) were the leaders of the movement. They met regularly for study and discussion on the condition of the church. In 1823 they published a treatise entitled: ‘Objections to the spirit of the age’, in which they concluded that the age of freedom and enlightenment, of which European culture was so proud, was in fact a dead end leading to unbelief, meaninglessness and ignorance.

These leaders sought to formulate ideas that would result in programmes to implement Reformational principles in society. Groen van Prinsterer is best known for his labours in the political arena and particularly for his activity around the question of the nation’s schools which were dominated by the liberal principle of neutrality. When optional religious instruction was refused by the government, Catholics and Protestants began establishing their own schools financed by parents.

Revival leaders also attempted to free the church from state domination and return it to its Calvinistic confessional basis. They did not leave the Dutch Reformed Church but hoped to renew it from within. However, secession could not be prevented in the conflict surrounding Hendrik De Cock.

The 1834 Secession (Afscheiding)

Some church history books tell us that this church split took place because De Cock provided pastoral care to neighbouring parishes and because he criticised the hymnal. To suggest this does not go to the heart of the matter. The cause of the Afscheiding is to be found in the devaluation of the Three Forms of Unity which formed the confessional basis of the Dutch church. The official teaching of the church was not adhered to by a number of ministers and professors. Without any action on the part of the church, doctrines such as the vicarious atonement of Christ, justification by faith, could be denied. This situation had been encouraged by a new Church Order of 1816 imposed by King William I. This church order made Synod accountable to the King and the church subject to the state. The King forbade the formulation of new doctrinal statements and denied the church’s right to make decisions in doctrinal controversies.

Hendrik De Cock, minister of the Dutch Re-formed Church in Ulrum, became the spokesman for the confessional group in the church. Protesting against the spiritual apathy and doctrinal laxity of the church, he was the focus of a controversy which led to his suspension in 1833. His reference to the ‘enlightened’ ministers as wolves who attack the sheep-fold of Jesus Christ did not endear him to the hierarchy of the church!

One of the charges against De Cock was that he baptised children of parents from neighbouring congregations. Parents who would refuse to have their children baptised by liberal ministers would ask De Cock to baptise them. The offence this gave led to his deposition from office in 1834. Yet De Cock had no plans to form a new denomination. The formation of a new church was encouraged by the members of his congregation who had endured injustices from church authorities and had been prevented from inviting Reformed ministers to their pulpit. On October 13, 1834, the greater part of the congregation seceded from the ‘synodical Reformed church in order to return to the foundation of our fathers’. They wished no fellowship with the Dutch Reformed Church until such time that the church would return to the true service of God. Wrangling about church property (usual after church splits!) caused much bitterness and even landed De Cock in prison for three months. Much persecution and ill-feeling were generated, causing considerable numbers to migrate to the USA where they founded the Christian Reformed Church in 1857. In spite of opposition, the secession movement grew so that by 1886, it had a membership of around 200,000.

The Question of Separation

What is the relevance of the Afscheiding for us today? Obviously, it raises the question of whether and when we may separate from a church. Separation is serious business and must always be a last resort. Christians should normally remain in the fellowship which gave him/her spiritual birth. I have no sympathy for those who continually transfer church membership, never satisfied, always looking for (and finding!) heresies, always angry at the church because the church is not perfect. 

Admittedly, at times ‘abnormal’ things happen in a church. The New Testament speaks of apostasy, that is, a falling away from the faith. The whole Christian era is marked by evil, violence, godlessness, paganised religion (Matthew 24:4, I Tim. 4:1- 4, Il Tim. 3:13, John 15:19, 20). The church and the world are at odds with each other. One way to ease this tension is for the church to compromise the message of the Gospel. It is against such a course of action that the N.T. warns, calling on the church to deepen its loyalty to Christ and not to fall away from the faith. The church is vulnerable to penetration by corruption and must fight for its integrity. I Peter 2:1-3. This is what occurred in the 19th century Dutch Reformed Church. The Church did not deal with teachers that spread heresy. Nor was De Cock free to protest against abuses. Rather, he was deposed and the formation of a new denomination was inevitable.

While the unity of the church is a very important matter and a Biblical command, the desire for unity has its limits. When ‘another Gospel’ is proclaimed, the limits of unity have been reached and truth must triumph over unity, Gal. 1:9. It is precisely this concern for truth that has caused such intolerable tensions within the Reformed Ecumenical Synod.

Some Questions

No reader of T&S will have problems with the above. We have been used to defending the faith, coming down hard on the side of separation from other denominations, World Council of Churches and such like. While I would uphold the need for separation, I also believe that we have been far more concerned to reject fellowship with those who fail the test of truth than to seek fellowship with all who confess Jesus Christ as Lord. In that respect I believe we are not fulfilling our ecumenical calling. Perhaps we would do well to ponder the following questions – Do I sincerely believe that there are Christians beyond my own group? Do I ever pray for them? Do I really believe that the expression of unity is a Scriptural command, Eph. 4:3? Is the Lordship of Christ expressed in my attitude to Scripture, sacraments, discipline and evangelism? Am I allowing an emphasis on doctrinal purity to detract from the search for the unity of the church?

We must be continually grieved by the fact that our commitment to Scriptural truth has cut us off from millions of people who say they believe in Jesus as Saviour and Lord. Can anyone be satisfied about that?

Reunion in 1986?

In 1834 Hendrik De Cock reluctantly separated from the established church, but… only as long as the church would continue in its disobedience. At present there are very serious efforts to undo the Afscheiding (and a later separation called the Doleantie, 1886). Leaders of the Dutch Reformed Church and the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands (GKN) hope that in 1986 they will be able to declare a state of union. Does this mean that the Dutch Reformed Church has returned to the foundation of the fathers? If that were so, we would rejoice.

The opposite, I fear, is the case. The churches that once separated, are themselves moving from the foundation of the fathers!

So we must pray.
Pray that a new ‘afscheiding’ may be prevented.
Through renewal and revival.

Henk DeWaard.

Footnote:
In 1986, the synods of the Netherlands Reformed Church (Nederlandse Hervormde Kerk or NHK) and the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands (Gereformeerde Kerken in Nederland or GKN) formally approved a document declaring they were in a “state of reunion” to facilitate an eventual full merger.
The Outcome: The journey was long and marred by intense debates among conservative factions. However, the process ultimately succeeded, and the denominations officially merged into the Protestant Church in the Netherlands (PKN) in 2004.
Churches Involved: The Netherlands Reformed Church (NHK), the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands (GKN), and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in the Kingdom of the Netherlands (ELK).
The 2023 Merger: The New Dutch Reformed Churches (NGK)
While the mainline churches merged into the PKN, the orthodox/neo-Calvinist churches underwent their own massive reconciliation. On 1 May 2023, a historic split that occurred during the Cold War era was completely healed.
Churches Involved: The Reformed Churches in the Netherlands (Liberated) (Gereformeerde Kerken Vrijgemaakt or GKv) and the Netherlands Reformed Churches (Nederlands Gereformeerde Kerken or NGK).
The History: The two groups had painfully fractured in 1967 over church exclusivity and strict dogmatic binding. Over decades, the GKv loosened its stance, opening the door for dialogue.
The Outcome: The unified denomination adopted the name Dutch Reformed Churches (Nederlandse Gereformeerde Kerken, also abbreviated as NGK). With roughly 130,000 members across 320 congregations, it is currently the second-largest Protestant body in the Netherlands.
(Source: AI Overview of reunions in the Dutch Reformed Churches in the Netherlands).

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