The Billy Graham Crusade – What Shall Our Attitude Be?

Rev. G. Van Groningen. Trowel & Sword, November 1958

Preamble: Consider the context. A mere seven years previously, Calvinist migrants from the Netherlands had established the Reformed Churches of Australia as they had not been satisfied with any of the existing denominations. Now they were faced with the prospect of an evangelist from the Southern Baptists in the USA, who had been drawing huge crowds, coming to Australia. The debate centred on whether or not the Reformed Churches should participate in the coming “crusade” alongside or even in partnership with other churches which they had previously rejected. An important part of that debate centred on the teachings of Graham himself and whether they were compatible with the doctrinal standards of the fledgling Reformed Churches. In this article Rev. van Groningen, who had himself recently arrive from the USA as a missionary to serve the Reformed Church of Geelong as its minister, and who later became a Professor at RTC, looked at the cases for and against participating in what would become the largest evangelism effort in this country. For the record, the Billy Graham Crusade still holds the record for the largest one day crowd ever at Melbourne’s MCG with estimates ranging between 130,000 and 143,000 people.

The Billy Graham Crusade – What Shall Our Attitude Be?

At the outset; let us recognise that the Question – what shall our attitude be toward the Graham Crusade is an involved one. We realise this especially when we try to answer the question. For in so doing, we find that there are various possible answers.

1. We will participate in the Crusade with all our endeavours: attend pre-crusade prayer meetings and join in organisational work, assist in counselling, singing, teaching, attend work-shops etc.

2. We will co-operate; that is to say, work along in some respects.

3. We will attend the meetings occasionally, more or less as a spectator with a prayer that our presence may be of moral or spiritual aid.

4. We will not attend at all but pray for the conversion of sinners, strength for the preacher, spiritual blessings for all who hear.

5. We will ignore it completely.

6. We will oppose it and condemn it outright as detrimental to the cause of Christ.

As we seek the proper answer to our Question, we must remain tolerant of our brothers and sisters who also have struggled with this question but who arrived at a conclusion differing from our own. Let us get this straight; every TRUE Christian is deeply and vitally interested in:

a. His own spiritual welfare. Yes, by all means, he must consider this as he seeks an answer to this question.  2.Tim.2:1,

b. His neighbour’s spiritual welfare. He prays and longs that his unsaved neighbour may be brought into the fold of Jesus Christ and there be nurtured, guided, developed as a child of the Lord and thus become one with the church of Jesus Christ.  John 10:16.

c. His Lord’s special delight and love, the church. The church is precious in Jesus’ eyes. He gave His blood for it.  Acts 20:28,

d. His sovereign God’s eternal glory.  Rom.11:36.

Now then, just because every Christian is so vitally interested in these things, mentioned above, we may not close our minds or shut our eyes to the facts as they pertain to the Crusade. Preconceived notions, dreams of full churches, desires to be identified with a big movement etc., have no place in a mature Christian’s evaluations and decisions at any time; and not in face of the Crusade either.

What are some of the facts with which we are faced? Facts in favour and not in favour will be cited; thus we can weigh the evidence.

What is for participation, and/or at the least, co-operation with the Crusade? Here are some facts:

1. There are so many non-Christians and nominal church members in the world today . A real coming to life is needed. The Graham Crusade is used with varying results; let us therefore join in. (At times one hears or reads remarks to the effect that churches in America and England are “streaming full” again once the Graham Crusade has been active in a given area. That is not the case in America; true some churches have enjoyed an increased attendance, at least an increased enrolment).

2. Billy Graham is able to reach hardened sinners who would otherwise not be reached. Such a person can be persuaded to come and see the Crusade in action, but he cannot be persuaded to enter a church, or even listen to a sermon on his wireless. Numbers of incidents can be recited where this has proven true; again with varying results.

3. Billy Graham does distinguish between a Biblical and a non-Biblical message.

He will have nothing to do with the modernistic perversion of the gospel. He preaches the Lord Jesus Christ as the only hope for sinful man.

4. Billy Graham doos not in any way compromise with the liberals, though he does seek their external organisational co-operation.

5. If a church does not in any way work along with the Crusade, no references will be made to that church. Thus a church would miss out on receiving enquirers and converts who sorely need the further ministrations of the means of grace and who would add to the membership.

6. The ministers of those churches which co-operate preach more evangelistically, directly, personally once they have worked along with the Crusade.

7. The Crusade is a means of uniting many churches and many Christians: of various confessions into one mighty praying force for the conversion of sinners. Surely no one would want to miss out on that unified prayer activity.

8. Workers who serve as choir singers, ushers and especially the counsellors get a great personal blessing.

9. The ministers who attend the workshops are greatly stimulated in their task of active evangelism.

10. God in His providence is bringing the Graham Crusade to this part of the world. Dare we ignore or oppose God’s providential provisions for the preaching of the gospel as it is done in the Graham Crusade? (But, did anyone speak this way when Oral Roberts and his band moved into Melbourne and other cities? God in His providence placed the Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist and Anglican churches here long ago. Yet we are convinced we should not be identified with these “providentially present” denominations and rightly so). 

Undoubtedly one can add to this lineup of arguments favouring participation of some kind in the Crusade. But now, is there anything to be said which might lead one to view the Crusade in an unfavourable light? Here are some facts:

1. The results of the Crusade up till now have been varied. Much superficiality has come to light. There are those converted, and they are many, whose zeal is short lived. They gave every evidence of a true conversion; seemed to taste the joys of spiritual awakening and life. But they dropped away soon after the Crusade moved away. What of these? Heb. 6:4-6 tells us a frightening truth. Revivalism has been and still is a means of unnecessarily exposing many people to this great threat of the impossibility of repentance and renewal. 

2. The superficiality of the Crusade comes to light in the lives of many other folk who became or who were Christians before. These folk, once having enjoyed the Crusade meetings are disappointed and often deeply critical of the church and its work. Graham’s sermons are considered the proper regular diet, which he himself denies. The regular church services are too dead, formal: people long for the thrill and drama of a large mass meeting with a prepared psychological atmosphere produced by music, choir, manner of speech etc. Solid, soul building, doctrinal instruction in Catechism and preaching is strongly frowned upon if not openly rejected. These folk also become critical of and often retard their own church’s mission activity.

3. The Scriptural teaching regarding the church is sadly neglected. Though Graham wishes to channel the converts into the church, the entire Crusade is pervaded by a pietistic, fundamentalistic atmosphere which has been particularly harmful to the organised church of Jesus Christ. The church does not receive its proper due. Though churches invite, participate and co-operate, the Crusade as such is an independent organisation. It does not come forth directly from the church. The Crusade thus encourages an individualistic or organisational preaching of the gospel which results in the church’s increased lack of responsibility for and execution of its witnessing task. Then too, it is happening in various places that Graham organisations are arising, meeting separately which are actually considered a substitute for the church. Does not anyone who takes Paul’s letter to the Ephesians seriously, especially Chapter 2, hesitate to join in a movement which does not meet up to the Scriptural teaching of the church?

4.The Crusade hampers, rather than aids, a truly Biblical program of evangelism. Jesus spoke to multitudes, but his meetings were entirely different from the present day organised mass meetings. And Christ knew how to conduct such a meeting; read how He did that in John 6. The altar call, the pressing for public show of an intimately personal, spiritual decision is foreign to Scripture. It is true, the Graham Crusade endeavours to do the correct thing in making personal contacts after the meeting and to have these continue; but these are overshadowed by the psychology of the “mass meeting”. Peter gives us the Biblical example – he went to the home of Cornelius and there dealt with him in the living situation in which Cornelius lived day by day. Paul entered into the Jailor’s home and evangelised. Phillip made a fruitful personal contact with the Eunich. “What” you ask, “no meetings then?” Yes, meetings are Biblical. Notice what Paul did, e.g., Acts 18. He first went to the established customary place of worship, the 0.T. church. From there he went into the homes.

5.The history of revivalism in the U.S. has a sorry tale to tell us. With each wave of revivalism there was a seeming upsurge in spirituality. But – viewed from a further perspective, after each wave of revivalism, about 25 years later, the churches were worse off than before the revival; Biblical theology was watered down even more than before; rampant individualism was more deeply entrenched than ever. Read the history of the U.S. See what happened after a Charles Finney, Billy Sunday, D.L. Moody swept across the nation!

6. Australia and New Zealand have been witnessing too many hit and run evangelists in the past. There is an anti “Evangelists” mood prevalent. The Crusade will quite likely drive many folk to a more hardened resistance against the gospel, which will make it the more difficult to win such a person if and when a more Biblical method is employed.

7.An amazing confusion will be a most logical result from the mixing of our Reformed witness with the fundamentalistic Arminian teaching and method of the Crusade. A few clarifying statements are in order: 

a). Though Graham is utterly and genuinely sincere in his attempt to keep out emotionalism and to present a simple Biblical gospel message, the co-workers all too often negate Graham’s endeavours. Too many of Graham’s teams are employing emotional techniques and are extremely Arminian in their preaching and teaching.

b). Though Graham wishes to be as true to the Scriptures as possible, he is still a product of his training. Graham is growing, developing in the truth of the Scriptures; for that we praise God. But at present Graham’s preaching is cast in the frame of an over emphasis on the will of man. At a press conference in New York, Graham stated, “Primarily, however, when a person comes to Christ it is his will – he is saying: I willreceive Him. I will follow Him. I will serve Him.” The Reformed witness says, “no man cometh unto the Father except he be drawn” and “for by grace ye are saved through faith and that not of yourself, it is the gift of God; yield then, your heart, your mind and your will, your entire personality as a whole to this sovereignly gracious God.

8 .The problem of referring converts to any church of their choice I need not deal with. I wholly agree with what Rev. J. Deenik wrote in the September  issue of “Trowel and Sword”,

The Crusade has been placed in the balance. How are we to judge as to what our attitude should be?

We can ask: how is tho greater glory brought to God? Some say, “by the conversion of sinners, using whatever methods are at our disposal”.  Others say, “By being a true, loyal church of Christ, avoiding all that hinders, detracts from, and or that brings unnecessary disrepute to the gospel and to the church”.

I personally am convinced that I must give the latter answer. But be sure to realise this: if the church is true and loyal to its Lord, not only will the church grow and develop, avoid unnecessary disrepute for itself and the gospel committed to it, but sinners also will be brought to conversion. The point is this: let us be a true church. Let us take our Christ-given mandate seriously to go forth and evangelise. From within the established, consecrated church the program of evangelism is to issue forth. Under the impetus and supervision of the church, the members must carry the witness to their neighbours. Do YOU want a church full? Do YOU want your neighbour to be saved? Then YOU as a church member go to him, talk to him, take him along to YOUR CHURCH and to YOUR CHURCH’S MEETINGS. Then we will have numerous conversions, Then the church will grow, then we will make an impact on our communal, national life. Biblical evangelism does not ask another to witness to my sinful unsaved reighbour, it demands that I do it.

If we would get busy and be a CHURCH we would have little if any NEED for the Crusade. Indeed, if we would truly be a church, we would not even have the TIME to join the Crusade.

The Crusade is coming.

What shall we do?

My position is becoming increasingly a strong conviction in my heart. May I add that past experiences play a part also. As a youth at home in California, and as a soldier in the army working in spare time with the Chaplain, I have attended and participated in many “Youth for Christ” and various other revival type meetings. Having been somewhat enamoured by these for a while, actual participation did give a rather unwholesome reaction. Today I would urge no one, if only for his spiritual wellbeing, to join in fully and actively in such ventures. Likewise, my attendance at the Graham meetings and hearing him often over the wireless and T.V. in the U.S. all influence my position.

My position is this: I cannot recommend participation or co-operation with the Crusade. I do not feel conscience free to again participate in a movement the like of which I have been deeply disappointed with before. I must spend my time and energy in the Reformed church, endeavouring to awaken it increasingly and guiding it in the direction of Biblically prescribed means of growth, development, zeal for and method of evangelism.

This does not mean I will ignore the Crusade. I may visit once or even twice. That, for one thing, will help me to remain alive to what the Crusade is. I will gladly work with any convert or enquirer that is referred to our church. I will pray for Billy Graham as a preachor and for the preaching of the gospel. I will pray the Lord to use the Crusade as He sees fit. But praying this, I still cannot feel free to join and strengthen the Crusade as it now is.

G. 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

The Telly: A Spiritual Health Hazard

Rev. Raymond O. Zorn. Trowel & Sword, June 1996

Preamble: Just under thirty years ago when this article was written, life was so much simpler than it is today. We only had the “evils of television” to worry about. Today we also have the internet, mobile phones and social media platforms multiplying rapidly. So while this article may seem somewhat outdated, the issues and problems that it raises are equally relevant when applied to today’s technologies. In fact, Prof. Zorn could not have imagined the extent to which technology has take over our lives, nor the effect it has had on our culture. Add to that the rapid development of artificial intelligence and one can only wonder, where (or when) will it all end?

The Telly: A Spiritual Health Hazard

The shortcomings of television have, over the years, been well-documented. That it encourages a passive, couch-potato mentality, treats subjects superficially, portrays a false sense of reality, is uncritically misused by the hour as a children’s baby-sitter and, worst of all, is too easily enjoyed even by adults whose critical perceptions have in the meantime all but disappeared, is virtually beyond dispute.

In addition to the above “health” hazards, however, TV too easily escapes detection as a spiritual health hazard for Christians. This is not to say that all TV viewing should be banned, which has been an extremist position adopted by some in the past but which has proved untenable – unless one refuses to have a TV set in the home and is able to keep the children from watching it on sets in the homes of other children the neighbourhood.

It should be recognised that the issue about watching TV is not just whether, instead of being a servant, it becomes a master. Nor is it that there is nothing worthwhile to watch on TV. In some instances, it can even serve a useful purpose, and these different levels of usefulness should be acknowledged and appreciated.

One useful purpose would be the viewing of news. While, admittedly, that offered by the local stations is often superficial and parochial (compare it for example with world news), getting the visible picture of TV is graphic if not powerful. Think of the plight of war victims, refugees, etc., which in being publicised by TV brought the refugees much needed relief aid.

Another level of usefulness would be the educational realm. “Sesame Street” for children has limitations with which parents by now are familiar. But there are travelogues, animal and nature studies, gardening tips, current affairs, etc., which increase the knowledge and understanding of the viewer.

A popular level of TV use is for sports. Those who like to be entertained in this way have a large variety from which they may make regular selections. The viewing of some forms of sports is perhaps questionable. Is the deliberate mayhem of boxing a sport? Do the frequent violent smashes which occur in auto racing make it a good sport to watch? Should the gambling associated with horse and dog racing be encouraged, even if only by viewing it on TV? However, sports-viewing is usually only a hazard when too much time is given to watching it. Like everything else in life, the exercise of self-control and moderation is necessary, especially in matters of entertainment and recreational pursuits.

Can the same be said for other forms of entertainment on TV? Here is where factors arise that need serious consideration. Not just the questionable pop psychology of some talk-back shows like “Oprah Winfrey” or the greed-promoting ones like “Sale of the Century”, even if the feelings of greed can only be satisfied vicariously. Matters are even more serious when it comes to virtually all “sit-coms”, for these shows uniformly present and promote a lifestyle that is inimical to that which should be the Christian’s.

The apostle Paul wrote, “Do not be conformed to this world…” (Rom.12:2). If his original readers were in need of this warning, how much more this is true of the viewers of sit-coms. In many of these programs blasphemy (“My God” is one of the more milder but frequent epithets) is habitually used, vulgarity (think of the “Golden Girls” who one would think should know better) is promoted under the guise of comedy, immorality is worked out in fine detail (“L.A. Law” was particularly lawless in this regard, with its adultery, homosexuality, and shady ethics at the top of the list). The attack upon the family and its values is also a favourite target, a typical sit-com being, “Married With Children”, with its portrayal of father as a brainless oaf (or is it victim, one is never quite sure?), the wife as a brazen hussy, and the children as unruly, cheeky upstarts sadly in need of discipline.

More also needs to be said about a lifestyle in sit-coms that is commonly but unrealistically lavish. Money never seems to be an object of thrift nor is frugality even considered, let alone encouraged, as a virtue. Religion of course gets no mention, or where in rare cases it does, it is only the object of a joke or ridicule. Gambling, drinking, adultery, homosexuality, etc., seem to be part and parcel of most plots. Pervading the whole atmosphere of the presentation is humanism, with its teaching of man as basically good, independent and autonomous, free to do his own thing and not really in need of the restraints of discipline.

Oh, but someone may say, why be so critical? It’s only entertainment and therefore not to be taken seriously. Would that this were the case. Just one example proves the contrary, namely, marital break-ups, which were rare in the church a generation ago but which have become as much a problem in the church as in the world. The observation of the German philosopher, Feuerbach, aptly applies, “Man ist was man isst” (literally, “One is what one eats.”). In similar vein the English poet, Alexander Pope, pointed out, “Vice is a monster of so frightful mien, As to be hated needs but to be seen; Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face, We first endure, then pity, then embrace” (from An Essay on Man).

It’s the old story of salt, instead of fulfilling its purpose of being salty, losing its saltiness and becoming worthless, as our Lord Himself reminds us (Matt.5:13). What our society so desperately needs today are Christians whose pattern of living is not shaped by the artificial and harmful reality of TV sit-coms but by the morality divinely prescribed in the Ten Commandments. Scripture warns, “Don’t be conformed”, because it’s an ever-present danger, and never more so than with the influential pressures of TV upon the lives of God’s people.

Are sit-coms without any merit whatsoever? One could hardly say this without first having sat through most if not all of them. Moreover, certain detective series (“Poirot”), and drama (“Shadowlands”), etc., might in a sense be classified with sit-coms, though in the former, the redress of wrong more than anything else is to the fore, while in the latter a true autobiographical story is portrayed. However, discerning viewing here is also required.

A good principle to be followed when watching sit-coms (whose specific aim is to depict, in some measure at least, a true to life situation) is, what if any is the moral basis of this program? Does it foster a morality in keeping with Christian principles, and if not, does make clear what the consequences are when these principles are violated? Or is its basis actually anti-Christian and the goals it portrays intended to magnify the humanistic spirit of arrogantly independent, seemingly self-sufficient man? If the latter is the case, such sit-coms should be avoided, not only for the sake of one’s Christian testimony, but because such are clearly a spiritual health hazard, not only to adults, but even more so to children and young people.

The secular and pluralistic spirit of our society has put TV beyond reformation in harmony with Christian standards, unless the Lord in his mercy sends revival to our society. Since this is true, it is also true that Scripture exhorts Christians not be conformed to the pattern of this world, not only for their spiritual health, but also that by their uncompromising lifestyle, they may be means that God is pleased to use for the conversion and transformation of increasing numbers in society.

Rev. Raymond O Zorn, Emeritus Principal and Professor, RTC. Geelong.

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

What Does Our Church Teach?

C. Schaveling. Trowel & Sword, June/July 1959.

Preamble: This article was originally published across two editions as shown above. It begins with a brief introduction, presumably written by Dr. K. Runia, in which he invites readers to share their copies of Trowel & Sword to people who may be interested in learning more about the teachings of the Reformed Churches. A much more comprehensive summary of the Christian Reformed Faith was also written by Dr. Runia in the Dutch language and later translated into English by Rev. Martin Geluk for use in Catechism classes. It is titled, “A Summary of the Reformed faith”.This booklet was published by the Reformed Church Publishing House in Geelong and printed by List Print which was operated by Rev. John Piening. We at TSR have reproduced this booklet to make it available to any church interested in using it for current catechism classes; at no cost for an electronic version or for the cost of postage for hard copies. In the process, we have changed the scripture quotes from RSV to NIV.

What Does Our Church Teach?

(This article was prepared by Mr. C. Schaveling of South Australia. The reason was that so very often we are asked: “What does your church teach?”, and so very often we have much difficulty in formulating this teaching. In order to give some help he collected the following items from the February, March and April 1959 issues of the Family Altar, published by the Back to God Hour organisation of the Christian Reformed Church. If you have friends who are genuinely interested in our Churches, you might pass this, and the next copy of “Trowel and Sword” on to them. Editor.)

Sooner or later, if we don’t believe in isolationism, we will be confronted with the question; What does your church stand for, is it an all Dutch concern? What does it teach, and why does it differ from other denominations?

Are you able to give a satisfying and convincing answer?

Are you propagating and supporting the Back to God Hour? Are you circulating your “Trowel and Sword” and other literature?

Well, here is your golden opportunity, let this magazine be read by as many as are willing to read it; don’t think, they won’t, because they are eager to find out the”TRUTH”; John 14:16.

Here then follows condensed what the Reformed Church teaches.

THE SAVIOUR

The Reformed Church teaches that Jesus Christ, the Saviour, is the Son of God, and equal to the Father in all things; that he is also the son of the virgin Mary and became like unto all men in all things, sin excepted; that he satisfied the demands of the divine law by his life, passion, and death; that he arose bodily from the dead, ascended to glory, and is now our intercessor with the Father; and that he will return visibly at the last day to judge the living and the dead. John 14:9; Gal. 3:13; Matt, 1:18-25; Heb. 2:17; Heb. 4:15; Rom, 4:25; Acts 1:9-11; 1 John 2:1; Acts 10:42.

THE ATONEMENT 

The Church teaches that the justice of God required that the demands of the law be met; that Jesus Christ as a substitute atoned for the sin of mankind and wrought an eternal redemption for man; and that the satisfaction of Christ applies to those whom God in His sovereign love has chosen as His people and secures their salvation.

The Reformed Church repudiates the doctrine which holds that the atonement is universal and that man’s actual redemption depends on his own free choice. Is. 53:6; John 10:11,15; Matt. 1:21 Acts 20:28; Eph. 5:25-27.

THE GOSPEL 

The Church teaches that the gospel is the revelation of that which God in Christ Jesus has done and will do for the salvation of sinners and to His glory, and that to all who hear the gospel God offers salvation in the way of faith and repentance. Mark 1:15; Mark 16:15; John 3:16; Rom. 1:16; Acts 15:7.

REGENERATION 

The Church teaches that regeneration consists in the implanting of the new spiritual life in man by God through the Holy Spirit; that this radical change is not a gradual process, but is completed in a moment of time; that the in man evidences of this change are seen in a new life; and that without regeneration it is not possible to enter the kingdom of God. Ezek. 11:19; John 3:3; Cor. 2:14; Eph. 1:18; Col. 3:10, Gal. 6:15.

CONVERSION 

The Church teaches that conversion is not a mere reformation of habits, but change wrought by God in which the to a regenerated man consciously turns

him in repentance and faith; that repentance is a sincere sorrow for and an acknowledgement of sin with a trustful appeal to God for forgiveness and a resultant change in life; and that it is a condition of the heart without which no man can hope to be saved, Acts 17:30; Joel 2:12,13; Is. 55:6,7; Luke 13:5; Acts 3:19; Acts 2:38; 2 Cor. 7:9,10.

FAITH 

The Church teaches that faith is the act of the soul by which the convicted sinner receives the truth of the gospel, relies upon the promises of God, and thus embraces Jesus Christ with all his merits; that such faith is not a personal achievement but rather the result of the work of the Holy Spirit in the sinner’s heart; and that without it no salvation is possible. Eph. 2:8; Acts 10:43; Acts 16:31; Gal. 2:16; John 3:18.

JUSTIFICATION 

The Church teaches that on the basis of the finished work of the Lord Jesus Christ God grants forgiveness of sins and declares the sinner righteous before him; that God imputes Christ’s righteousness freely of his grace and not because of any merit of man; and that this righteousness becomes the possession of all who believe in Christ with true faith.  Eph. 1:17; Rom. 3:24; Rom. 5:1; Rom. 3:28; Acts 10:43; Gal. 2:16.

SANCTIFICATION

The Church teaches that God, having renewed the sinner by the operation of the Holy Spirit, enables him to live a godly life; that all christians manifest the fruit of their faith in good works; and that, though sanctification is progressive, perfection is not attained until man enters glory. 2 Cor. 5:17; Gal. 5:24; 2 Cor. 7:1; James 2:22; Gal 5:6; James 3:2; Rom. 7:7-26; Philip. 3:12-14; 1 John 1:8.

DIVINE ELECTION 

The Church teaches that God in his eternal plan for all creatures has foreordained all things that come to pass; that in his sovereign love and according to his good pleasure he has chosen in Christ out of the whole human race a people unto eternal salvation; that from this election proceed faith and all the gifts of salvation; and that the ground for this election is not anything in man which would merit for him any favour but solely the good pleasure of God. Is. 46:9,10; Eph, 1:4; Acts 13:48; Psalm 33:11; Eph. 1:11; 2 Tim. 1:9.

ETERNAL SECURITY 

The Church teaches that by virtue of their election, the substitutionary atonement of Christ, and his intercession for them, the salvation of God’s people is assured; that God will not suffer those who are joined to Christ in true faith to totally fall away from faith and grace; and that by reason of the continuous abiding of the Holy Spirit the believers will persevere in the way of salvation to the end. John 10:28,29; Heb. 7:25; Rom. 11:29; Philip. 1:6; 2 Thess. 3:3;  2 Tim, 1:12.

THE CHURCH 

The Reformed Church teaches that there is an invisible Church, which consists of all true believers; that Jesus Christ is the Head and King of the Church; that this Church is one; and that this Church has been from the beginning of this world, and will be unto the end thereof.

The Reformed Church also believes that this invisible Church becomes visible in the fellowship of those who profess the true religion together with their children; and that it is the duty of every Christian to join and support that section of the visible Church which stands for the pure preaching of the Word, the Scriptural administration of the Sacraments; and the elimination of those from its membership who are not sound in doctrine or lead offensive lives. Eph. 1:22,23; Tim, 3:15; Col. 1:18; 1 Cor. 12:13; Matt, 16:18; John 8:32,33; Acts 2:42; Matt. 18:18,

BAPTISM 

The Church teaches that Baptism, even as circumcision in the Old Testament days, is a sign and seal of the Covenant of Grace; that children, as well as their believing parents, are included in that Covenant and hence are entitled to that Sacrament; and that God in baptism seals his promises of the forgiveness of sins and eternal life to those who profess their faith in Jesus Christ, and to their children. Gen. 17:7; Acts 2:39; Matt, 28:19; Matt, 19:14; Col. 2:11,12; Rom. 1:11.

THE LORD’S SUPPER 

The Church teaches that the bread and wine in the Lord’s Supper represent the body and blood of the Lord Jesus Christ, broken and shed upon the cross; that by these visible signs and seals of his love the believer is assured of the promises and blessings of God’s Covenant; and that through the proper observance of his ordinance of Christ the faithful believer grows in the grace and knowledge of his Saviour. Cor, 10:16;  Matt, 26:28;  Mark 14:22-25; 1 Cor. 11:23-29.

THE LAW

The Church teaches that the Law of God is the divine revelation of his will for all rational creatures; that it serves to bring man under the conviction of sin and to lead him to Christ; that in the light of the law man learns more and more to know his sinful nature: and that it is the rule of life for believers in showing their gratitude to God for their salvation. Rom, 3:20; 1 John 5:3; Psalm 19:7,8; Gal. 3:24; James 2:10. 

THE CHRISTIAN LIFE 

The Church teaches that, having been implanted into Christ, the child of God delights in bringing forth fruits of thankfulness; that he shows his love for God by doing good works, namely, such as are done from true faith, according to the Law of God, and to his glory; that he should manifest a zeal for the honour of his God by recognising him in every sphere and relationship of life; and that he should labor ceaselessly for the propagation of the gospel and the evangelisation of the world until the kingdom of God shall embrace the whole of God’s creation. Matt. 7:17; Eph. 2:10; 1 Cor, 10:21; Matt, 5:16; Rom, 11:36; Matt, 28:19,20.

PRAYER

The Church teaches that prayer is the chief part of thankfulness which God requires of his children; and that the prayer of faith has God’s assured promises of acceptance and answer because of the merits of Jesus Christ, in whose name alone all men should pray. Psalm 50:14; James 5:16; John 14:13; Matt. 7:7; 1 John 5:14; Is. 65:24; Matt. 21:22,

DEATH 

The Church teaches that physical death is God’s judgment upon man’s sin; that for the Christian the sting of death has been removed through his deliverance from sin and its punishment; and that for the Christian death now is the means whereby God delivers him from the body of death and prepares him for Entrance into glory. Rom, 6:23; John 11:25,26; Rom, 5:12; Philip. 1:23; 1 Cor. 15:55-57.

THE INTERMEDIATE STATE 

The Church teaches that the believers enjoy a conscious life in communion with God and with Jesus Christ immediately after death; that sinners as well as saints continue to exist for ever; and that man’s eternal state is irrevocably fixed at death and no opportunity for repentance is possible beyond the grave. Luke 23:43; 2 Cor. 5:8; Rom, 5:12; Philip 1:23; 1 Cor. 15:55-57.

THE RESURRECTION AND THE LAST JUDGMENT 

The Church teaches that the body which in death was separated from the soul, will be raised on the Last Day and will be reunited with the soul; that the believers will be judged by Jesus Christ according to what they have done, whether it be good or evil; and that all the righteous will enjoy the perfect bliss of glory forever while all the ungodly will be sent to eternal condemnation. John 5:28,29; Matt, 25:31-46; Rev. 20:12-15; Gal. 6:7,8; Rev. 21:3,4.

APPENDAGE

CHRISTIAN EDUCATION 

The Reformed Church maintains that the education of children is the task of parents; that it is proper for the parents to organise Christian elementary and high schools for the purpose of assisting them in bringing up their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord; that parents owe it to themselves, their children, and their God to cooperate in activities undertaken for the Christian education and training of children and young people; and that the Church should urge the opening of private Christian schools and lend such moral and financial support as may be required and is possible for the Church to give.

LIFE OF SEPARATION

The Reformed Church holds that Christians should lead a life of spiritual separation from the world; that they should avoid all fellowship with institutions and organisations that are anti-Christian in character or are guilty of un-christian practices; and that they should manifest in their lives an aversion to participation in activities and amusements which injure their spiritual and moral well-being.

CHURCH GOVERNMENT 

The Reformed Church maintains that Christ is the head of the Church and the source of all its authority; that Christ exercises his authority by means of the Word; that Christ as King has endowed his Church with power to carry out the work which he has entrusted to it; and that the ruling power in the Church sides primarily in the local consistory which consists of elders chosen by the congregation and, together with other consistories, deal in major assemblies, classis and synod, with matters of doctrine, church government, discipline, and all that pertains to the preservation of unity and good order in the Church of Jesus Christ.

C Schaveling

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

Please leave an expression of interest in the comments box if you or your church is interested in the above mentioned, “A Summary of the Reformed Faith”.

Leave a comment

Spiritual Effects Of Rock Music

Bill van Schie. Trowel & Sword. April 1975

Preamble: Has there ever been a more contentious topic of discussion between parents and and their offspring than music? As a general rule each generation has a preference for the music that they grew up with. The advent of Rock and Roll in the second half of the twentieth century produced many a lively discussion of the various styles of music being played at the time. But was it ever any different? Just as music differs from one generation to the next, so it also differs from one culture to the next; each having its own distinct sound. In this article Bill attempts to draw a distinction between between what he regards as “good” music and “bad” music by comparing “Rock” to Christian music. He also attempts to define what constitutes “good music”. He’s a brave man. We would particularly love to receive some thought and comments on whether you think he succeeded.

Spiritual Effects Of Rock Music

When talking to young people about this subject the first reaction I always receive is, “You take rock music too seriously. More seriously than we take it. Yes, we like the sound of it, we like to dance to it but we don’t take this religious nonsense of the Stones and the others seriously at all. We only listen to it as a means of entertainment. Mum and Dad have Beethoven, Mozart and Bach; well, I like the Stones, Bob Dylan and Frank Zappa. It is just a matter of taste in entertainment.”

When young people talk like this I am worried. It reminds me of the illustration that Frank Garlock uses to describe many teenagers in the church today. There was a man who had a Mercedes Benz. He didn’t have his own house, he didn’t have much money in the bank but his pride and joy was his Mercedes. He made out his will and stated that when he died he would like to be buried sitting behind the steering wheel of his Mercedes. One day he died and the funeral directors saw to it that his last wish was carried out. They dug big hole, lifted the Mercedes by crane and put the dead man’s body behind the steering wheel. As they lowered the Mercedes into the great grave one of the dead man’s friends standing by watching said to another friend, “Boy that is really living”. Although the man was dead this was classed as really living.

Many young people could be doing and saying the same thing today: Look at those Rock groups with their free and easy style. Look at the groupies, their followers who can let go and be free. Look at the young people who go to their concerts and do what they want to do without inhibitions. Boy, that is really living.

Rock is Dead 

But Rock and what it has to offer is dead. The whole Rock culture, the drug culture is dead. It may give a few kicks, but it is dead. Rock may encourage young people to let their bodies move to the impulse of Rock’s beat, but Rock is dead. Rock may encourage young people to blow their minds and think as the groups think, but Rock is dead. Rock may claim to have religious answers and spiritual experiences, but Rock is dead, it is satanic, anti-Christian and of this world; and the things of this world will pass away. Yes, it looks attractive to young people, the whole life style looks attractive; but those in it are washouts and spiritually dead. Only the saving power of the Lord Jesus Christ can save them from their deadness. Our young people should not be asking: How far can I go with Rock? Where is the border-line and I will live right on it. Young people should be encouraged to seek the things of Christ.

In Christ Alive

In Ecclesiasties 12:1 it says, “Remember your Creator in the days of your youth.” Religion is not only for when you settle down and get married. Remember your Creator in the days of your youth. With your studies, with your boyfriend and girlfriend, with your social life and with your music; remember your Creator in the days of your youth.

In 2 Cor.6:14-17 the Bible commands Christians, which includes the covenant youth, to be separate and not unequally yoked to unbelievers. This applies to marriage, to business, to friendships and whereever yoking (binding) would mean that we would have to bend our principles. This also applies to our music and social life. Young people are not to be involved in, or committed to, a style of music that is anti-Christian in meaning and direction. Instead young people should be free to serve the Lord with all their heart, bursting with song.

In 2 Tim. 2:22 Christians are encouraged to aim not at the things that defile and stain with sin. But to aim at righteousness, holiness and purity; the things of God. Instead of dabbling in Rock and seeing how far they can go, our young people should be aiming at what is righteous, holy and pure and as young people they will lead happier and more satisfying lives in Christ.

In Cor.10:31 Christians are encouraged to do all things to the Glory of God. This means that also with their music our young people need to glorify God. Can this be done with groups, songs and music that preach free sex and rebellion; that worship evil and personify the devil himself; by dabbling in the occult? No, must be the answer. For what has light to do with darkness and the kingdom of heaven with that of the evil one? The break must be a clean and complete one.

The Alternatives

We must not overlook that for young people Rock music is not only a means of entertainment but also a means of social expression. It is theirs and it is what distinguishes them as individuals. The social importance of Rock Music may be of more importance to young people than we may realise. So if we are to encourage young people to make a clean break with Rock then we must also help them find an alternative. What kind of music can be a satisfactory alternative?

We must be careful here that we do not fall into the trap of recommending to the young people what we may find is suitable according to our tastes. Some may like the more classical type of Beethoven and Mozart. Others may like the popular types of Bacharach and Kostelanetz, while yet others may like the country and western types such as Johnny Cash or the Carpenters. Rather than say one type of music is better than another or that one piece of music is better than another, it is better to teach the PRINCIPLES OF GOOD MUSIC. Remember what Dr. H. Hanson said about music, “Music is made up of many ingredients and, according to the proportions of these components it has powers for evil as well as good.” The question is which proportions of musical components make up a good piece of music?

Principles of Good Music 

Frank Garlock in his book “The Big Beat” lists three major characteristics to be found in good music.

1. Good music must have beauty of design and coherence of form.

2. A good composer must have discipline, consistency, originality, subtlety, variety, dignity and a comprehensive detailed knowledge of the tools of composition.

3. The composer must show an innate sense of balance between the intellectual and the emotional elements and an impeccable sense of relation between tension and relaxation, contraction and release, dissonance and consonance, motion and response.

Testing Music

Besides these major characteristics there are other tests that can be applied to see if a piece of music or a style of music is sick or not. The listener should ask the following questions:

1. Is there a variety of volume changes in the music? A good piece of music changes its volume from loud to soft or soft to loud as part of the constant pattern.

2. Are there tempo changes in the music? A good piece of music changes its speed quite often and very soon after it has begun.

3. Are there rhythmic changes in the music? The rhythm is normally found in the background and with the help of pauses it changes throughout the piece of good music.

4. Does the melody fluctuate? In a well balanced piece of music we have normally four stages. There is the introduction which leads into the well developed melody which builds up to a climax after which the music slows down to a rest.

5. Is there variety in the music? The key to all good music is variety. In volume, tempo, rhythm and melody there must be variety. Variety is important to maintain the balance of the music. The balance between tension and relaxation. Music that is all tension with little relaxation is sick music, as is music that is all relaxation and no tension. There must be a balance between tension and relaxation. Rock music is all tension with little relaxation.

Alternatives Available 

Are there alternatives available for our young people? Music that is exciting, thrilling and also well balanced? Is there good Christian music available so that they can sing out their hearts to the praise of God?

Yes, there is. Recently some very good material has become available. Groups like the Proclaimers, the Medical Mission Sisters, Nigel Brook Singers, Young World Singers and people like Ralph Carmichael are producing music that is an acceptable alternative to Rock. These are only a few of the many groups and composers writing good music today.

Our Aim

Christian parents have vowed to bring up their children in the fear of the Lord. This includes education in the powerful sphere of music. Do we train our children in everything except in the way they must distinguish good music from bad? Christian parents must train their young people to distinguish what is right and wrong in music. Too often it is left to the young person to work this out all by him or herself. Yet, with the increasing deterioration of the values and morals of society Christian parents must be aware of the deterioration of the music that is an expression of the values and morals of our society. Let it be our aim to equip our youth with the ability to judge what is pleasing to God in the sphere of music.

Johann Sebastian Bach once said:

“The aim and final end of all music should be nothing but the glory of God, and the refreshment of the spirit”.

Bill Van Schie.

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

Should We Still Commemorate October 31?

Is Rome Really Changing?

Dr. K. Runia. Trowel & Sword, October 1964

Preamble: Is Reformation day still remembered and celebrated by your local church? In our church, Reformation day was always celebrated with a combined service with the Presbyterian and Reformed Presbyterian churches. Then came the covid lockdowns and the service had to be cancelled. To this day it has not yet been revived. In this article Dr. Runia gives a concise outline of the reasons for the Reformation and the differences in theology between the Church of Rome and the Reformation churches. While at one time there were hopes held that reunification might be a possibility, this possibility, even today, seems unlikely. His closing paragraphs also sound a warning for churches faithful to the teachings of the reformation in 1964, (and even more so today); to beware of churches “who call themselves Protestants, but they are not”. He writes, “we do not want to glorify history. But we want thankfully to commemorate that great re-discovery of the Gospel.

Should We Still Commemorate October 31?

At the end of this month we shall again commemorate Reformation day. Usually we take October 31, 1517 as the starting point of the Reformation. To a certain degree this is correct, for on that day an action was performed, which was to be of decisive importance for the whole Christian Church. At the same time we must remember that at that time no one, not even Luther himself, was aware of the tremendous significance of this action. At that moment Luther definitely did not envisage a break with the Church of Rome, his own Church. As someone has said: “It had never been Luther’s aim either to found a new Church, or even within the historically existing Church to carry out any elaborately pre-arranged form of organisation”.

And yet it was bound to come! For Luther had made the greatest discovery of his day, of much greater importance even than the discovery of the new world by Columbus. Luther had re-discovered the original Gospel, the Gospel of Jesus Christ as the only Saviour, the Gospel of justification by faith in this Saviour, as expounded by Paul and all the other writers of the New Testament. This re-discovery was not a thing that could take place ‘in isolation’. It could not but break the old ecclesiastical structure, which had been erected on the basis of an entirely different understanding of the Gospel. And so it happened. After a few years only, there was a new Church, the Church of the Reformation.

It cannot be denied that the old Church, too, did some cleaning up. Rather soon after the Reformation a council was convened, the famous Reformed Council of Trent (1545-1563). This council did some good work. Some of the worst and most conspicuous abuses were removed. Yet on the whole, this council was one loud and strong confirmation and perpetuation of the old understanding of the Gospel and of the ecclesiastical structure based on it. The council consciously and intentionally took a position which was in direct opposition to the Reformation. At this council the theology of the Counter-Reformation was doctrinally formulated and fixed. And as such it has been decisive for the Roman Church and it’s theology. The decisions of the First Vatical Council (1870), which defined the infallibility of the Pope, were an immediate continuation of the theology of Trent. The doctrinal decisions regarding the Mariology (1854: the immaculate conception of Mary herself; 1950: the ascension of Mary) were another manifestation of the same theology.

In our day one hears many voices which say that the situation has completely changed, for Rome is in the process of a new reformation. They point to the new interest in the study of the Bible in Roman Catholic circles, to the new attitude of openness towards the Protestants (John XXIII), to recent changes in Church polity (the mass may be said in the vernacular, etc.), and other matters. Some observers are so optimistic that they do believe in possible union of the Roman Church and the various Protestant Churches. Of course, no one expects it in the near future, but there is such a fundamental change in the Roman Catholic Church that such a union does not belong to the impossibilities any longer.

But – is Rome really changing?

Of course, the above mentioned things are true. There are certain changes in Church polity (although they do not go very far), There is a different attitude to believers of other churches. What has never happened before, has happened in our day: we Protestants are called ‘separated brethren’ (although one does not notice much of it in Australia). There is indeed a growing and gladdening interest in the Bible. In some countries of Europe (e.g. Germany and The Netherlands) all members of the Church are encouraged to read and study their Bibles daily. Roman Catholic scholars are studying’ the Bible as never before and many valuable commentaries are being produced by them, The present Vatican Council has rejected the theory of the two sources of revelation: the Bible AND the tradition as being on a par.

But does all this mean a real change? Can we expect much for the future?

Viewing the situation as it is today we doubt it very much. Why? For the simple reason that we see nothing of a NEW UNDERSTANDING OF THE GOSPEL! This was the secret of the Reformation of Luther and Calvin and the other Reformers. In their case there was the re-discovery of the original Gospel and THEREFORE they became the Reformers of the Church.

At this moment there is no trace whatsoever of such a new understanding of the Gospel in the Church of Rome. On the contrary. On all sides we are assured, even by the most prominent representatives of the new, ‘open! attitude, that the dogma of the Roman Church (that is, Rome’s old, unscriptural understanding of the Gospel) is and remains infallible. We give some examples.

Professor Hans Kueng, one of the younger and leading theologians, brilliant spokesman of the ‘new theologie’ (the so-called ‘theologie nouvelle’), wrote a book in 1961 entitled “The Council and Reunion”. In this book he shows his openness towards the Churches of the Reformation and expresses his hopes that his own Church in this council may pave the way to a better understanding and, if possible, a future reunion. Here and there he makes amazing statements, but on page 163 he tells us : “Dogmatic definitions express the truth with infallible accuracy and are in this sense unalterable”.

Cardinal Auguste Bea, president of the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity and the uncrowned leader of the new movement in the Roman Catholic Church, has more than once expressly stated that re-union, as far as his church is concerned, can only take place, when the other churches submit in matters of doctrine and discipline under “the Supreme Pastor the successor of St. Peter, the bishop of Rome”.

The new ‘Catholic Dictionary of Theology’, now being produced, declares that reunion always means acceptance of “the supremacy of the Holy See and the doctrinal definitions of 1854, 1870 and 1950, together with those of the Council of Trent”.

In a recently published volume of essays on ‘The Church’, written by the present Pope, when he was still a cardinal, we read among others: “The Church’s present juridicial structure certainly does need a few touches, though it cannot be substantially changed”. Of the Papacy he writes: “It is in the Pope that the Church centres its unity. The raising of the Pope, not only to the centre but to the summit as well, both moves and intoxicates the Church. His titles… do not signify that the Pope derives his functions from the Church, but rather that he sums up in his person the full powers of the whole Church. The Pope can act with full authority and efficacy without a council”.

From these few quotations it is more than clear that Rome continues to maintain its theology, that is, it’s old understanding of the Gospel. In my opinion this means that, humanly speaking, we cannot expect any real reformation. It remains a matter of reform, not of reformation. And therefore we have every reason still to commemorate the great Reformation of the 16th century. Yes, particularly in our day we should do this. For this is a day of utter confusion. Many Protestants seem to have lost every sense of discernment. They are so much caught up in their own ecumenical desires that they do not realise any more that between Rome and us (and also between us and many who call themselves Protestants, but they are not) the understanding of the only and true Gospel of grace in Jesus Christ is at stake.

No, we do not want to glorify history. But we want thankfully to commemorate that great re-discovery of the Gospel. This Gospel can be summarised in a few expressions: SOLA GRATIA-by grace alone; SOLUS CHRISTUS – Christ alone; SOLA FIDE – by faith alone; SOLA SCRIPTURA Scripture alone.

These are four different expressions, but they all say the same thing; there is but one Gospel, the Gospel of God’s grace in Jesus Christ, revealed to us in Scripture and to be accepted by us in true faith. There is no other Gospel, and we dare to say with the apostle Paul: “Even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed, (‘ Anathema sit’). As we have said before, so now I say again: If any one is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed (‘Anathema sit’).! (Gal. 1:8,9). 

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

At home With One Another In The Church

Rev. John Westerdorp. Trowel & Sword, April 1996

Preamble: On reading this article from John Westendorp the thought struck me, have we learned anything in the last thirty years? Worse still, are we going backwards? Have you come across any Reformed recluses lately; or Reformed church surfers, looking for that perfect church just as a surfer might spend a lifetime looking for that perfect wave; or members making judgements base on emotion rather than objective truth? Nearly thirty years ago John issued a challenge to the church and to the people who make up the church. In effect he is saying, unity is life but division leads to destruction.

At Home With One Another In The Church

Lessons From A Talk Show

The orthodontist’s waiting room was empty, the receptionist filling in her time watching a lunch-time talk show from the U.S. of A. In response to my greeting and a comment about the unusual emptiness of the waiting room she reminded me that holidays were over and all the kids back at school. Just then the phone rang. While the young lady dealt with the caller I tried to figure out what issue was being debated on the talk show. It seemed two young women (single mums) had been sharing a flat but had fallen out with one-another. I picked up enough of the story to know that there had been some arguments over a boyfriend and the kids. What struck me was the abuse they were hurtling at one another. Here were two very angry young women. Apparently each had been trying to get the other kicked out of the flat but both regarded it as their home. Despite attempts by others to intervene they were at a stalemate. So here they were venting their spleen on (inter-) national television. When the receptionist got off the phone I asked her, “Are these two for real or is it just an act they’re putting on for the talk-show audience?” With a sigh, she replied, “It’s for real!”

Driving home I reflected on that brief scenario. Of course two Christian people would never get into a situation like that. They would resolve that kind of difficulty in the light of the gospel of Christ. And if they could not work it out then one would be willing to be the least and let the other have her way. Maybe, if the worst came to the worst, the pastor or the Elders might have to do a little mediating but surely the matter would be satisfactorily resolved before too long. One certainly wouldn’t see the anger or hear the vitriolic language that was evident in that lunch-time talk show.

As a pastor I know better than to day-dream like that. Ideally, that is indeed how it ought to be in the community of God’s people. The reality is far different. I think of two brothers who had a run-in over a business venture that went sour some eight years ago. The Session tried to mediate and saw fault on both sides. Today they cannot be together at the same family celebration nor worship in the same church. And because Session did not decide in their favour, their view of the Elders is nothing if not hostile. 

Or I think of the man and the woman who went through a bitter divorce. They both faithfully attend church and claim to believe that Jesus came to make all things new. But they both try, in unsubtle ways, to turn their children against the other parent. The divorce was ten years ago but the anger and hatred come out every time I raise the subject with either of them.

The relationship breakdown on that talk-show is typical of relationships gone sour in a fallen and broken world. And the sad part is that these relationships can break to such a degree that it seems even the gospel of Christ can’t mend them again. That is not a reflection on the powerlessness of the gospel of Jesus but on the hardness of sin. As a pastor it is especially these situations that make me sigh with the receptionist: this is for real! Except that I go one step further and long for the return of Jesus. Today we still live in a world in which all too often we can’t be at home with one another…  only the coming of the Saviour on the clouds will usher in that time when we can live with one another again in peace and harmony.

My reflections on the way home from the orthodontist also took another turn. Here was a parable of what we have seen too often in the Christian church also in recent times. Division occurs within the local church community. Maybe over the person of the pastor, perhaps over worship, or maybe over some decisions made by Session. That division grows to the point where one faction tries to get the other faction out of the church. And like those two young Mums, neither faction wants to go because both regard this church as their home. Others try to mediate but over a period of many months the alienation only grows and increases until the inevitable happens. All this is often accompanied by bitterness and anger that is openly aired before a watching world. In the last twelve months or so several congregations in our denominations on either side of the Tasman have been traumatised because some of us could no longer find ourselves at home with others in the church.

Lessons From A Reformed Hermit

It would be interesting to attempt an analysis as to why such breakdowns have occurred in congregations in New Zealand and Australia. Were there common factors that led up to the breakdown in each instance? What role did the personality and the priorities of the pastor play in the whole affair? I suspect that such an analysis would be frightfully complex and someone highly skilled would be needed to give a full and correct assessment of each situation. I won’t even begin to attempt to do that in these pages of T&S.

What I do want to do is mention one point that has cropped up again and again in several of these churches that have gone through a crisis. There have been some who have said categorically that the issue was one of being faithful to the Reformed faith.

I read a story recently about a man of Reformed convictions. Every Sunday he would call his family together for worship. They would sit together in the family lounge – the father, the mother and the five children. Father would then lead in a family worship – he prayed, selected the psalms that were sung, and read a sermon from an old book of sermons written many years ago when people still knew what it was to be Reformed. The problem was that the man had become critical of the church he had grown up in when there had been a change of ministers. It came to the point where he could no longer consider that church his spiritual home. He took his family off to another Reformed church but there they occasionally allowed females to read the Scriptures. In yet another church he found he couldn’t handle the singing of ‘Scripture songs’. Trying yet a third church he had a run in with the preacher over some finer points of theology. One church where he felt they could fit in belonged to a denomination that was “too liberal’. The upshot was that the family now worshipped at home. He found, however, that as his children grew up they didn’t want to be part of this family ‘church’ and when his wife died he really did become a Reformed recluse. Lonely and isolated… but at least he had kept the faith. Thankfully the story ended on a more positive note as God in grace dealt with this man.

I am most certainly not an advocate for unity at the expense of truth. Genuine unity is always a unity in the truth. Furthermore, I am alarmed that today truth counts for so little. This has been highlighted by several Christian writers recently. Over the holidays I read John MacArthur’s “Ashamed of the Gospel” and David Wells’ “No Place for Truth”. These and other writers are highlighting their concern that the church at large is becoming “theologically illiterate” (Wells). We are more and more in danger of substituting principles from the business world for Biblical directives. Today we too often make our judgments based, not on objective truth but on emotions. It is hardly surprising then, if the standard for feeling at home in the church is not because this is where the truth of God is proclaimed but because this is where we get plenty of nice warm fuzzies. Small wonder too that when the flow of ‘fuzzies’ is then interrupted for one reason or another that we claim we no longer feel at home in the church and look for a new church home elsewhere.

Having said that, it also needs to be added that it is possible to go to the other extreme too where truth gets divorced from relationships. Dry orthodoxy that rides roughshod over people’s feelings is inexcusable. The Reformed hermit reminds me how easy it is to draw the boundaries of the Reformed faith ever tighter. The result will be an ever decreasing number of people with whom we can agree and with whom we feel ourselves to be at home. Smaller and small churches of people who agree on less and less.

Preserving a Balance

In this post modern society where objective truth is sacrificed to pragmatism (does it work?) and emotionalism (does it make me feel good?), it is going to be increasingly difficult for us to hold on to one another in the church.

The challenge for us in the years ahead will be to remain theologically literate, faithful to revealed truth. That becomes increasingly difficult in a world where our feelings about things are too often seen as the decisive factor and where the pragmatism reigns supreme. But that is only the first half of the challenge. The other part is to hold on to one another in love whenever the differences and difficulties surface. This is not a case of ‘either-or’, rather, ‘at homeness’ in the church will be at its healthiest where both these challenges are taken seriously.

Rev. John Westerdorp

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 ages past.

To view previous posts visit our website at www.tsrevisited.com

Leave a comment

Living By Faith

Rev. Don Baird, Trowel & Sword, April 1996

Preamble: This short article by Don Baird would seem to be stating the obvious to a Reformed Christian. Salvation is by faith alone. This seems straight forward enough, but Don takes it one step further. Faith in what? Faith in God? Read on to see where Don takes us in answering these questions.

Living By Faith

Last Sunday we celebrated the Lord’s Supper again. May I ask you: What do you think about when you come to the table? I mean: After you have found your seat and taken in who you are sitting with, what do you focus your thoughts on?

Maybe the words of the minister will determine that. You may hear him say, “That we, then, may be nourished with Christ, the true bread from heaven. Let us lift up our hearts to heaven, where he is; our Mediator, at the right hand of the Father.” Or, at least, you would hear him say that if he was using form 1 or 2 from the RCA Book of Liturgical Forms. Otherwise it would be simply, “Lift up your hearts! Look to your Lord in faith!” But anyway, your thoughts are being directed to Christ in heaven. From there he sends his Spirit so we may commune with him in a living way.

On the other hand, you may just sit there looking at the bread and the wine before you on the table. And, when it is passed around, eating and drinking those elements. At the same time we hear the familiar words, “Take, eat, remember and believe that the body of our Lord Jesus Christ was given for a complete forgiveness of all our sins.” Which leads our thoughts to focus on the historical event of the cross and what happened there. The bread is a sign and seal of his body given there; the wine of his blood poured out there. So we remember him in his death.

The way we focus our thoughts – and our faith – at the table portrays how we are to focus our thoughts – and our faith every day. Each day we want to commune with our Lord. We think of him reigning in heaven at the right hand of the Father. From there he has spoken his word, and from there he has sent out his Spirit so we may believe that word. But the more we hear of that word, and the more we trust in it, the more we realise its central message is the same as the Supper: the historical event of the cross and what happened there. The central focus of our faith is to be that event.

Recently we attended a funeral in another church. The service included the Geoff Bullock song, “Have Faith in God”. The verses speak of “the power of the presence of God” and the chorus continues,

“Have faith in God 
Let your hope rest on 
The faith He has placed in your heart; 
Never give up 
Never let go of the 
Faith He has placed in your heart.

Very disappointing. If we are to continue in faith, as the song encourages us to do, we would do well to focus our faith on what God has accomplished in Christ at the cross, and not so much on what he is doing in our hearts.

We can do no better than imitate the confession of Christ’s apostle:

“the life I live in the body I live by faith in the Son of God who loved me and gave himself for me. (Gal 2:20)

 It is by faith that we are to live. But not so much in the Son of God who loves me and is now at work in my life, although that is wonderfully true. We may rejoice at what the Lord is doing in our lives, but the focus of our faith is to be on the objective fact that Christ loved me so much that he gave himself for me on the cross.

That is the focus of God’s word; that is the focus of the Supper; because the cross is the ground of our redemption and the source of everything God graciously gives us. It is tempting to try to short-circuit God’s way. To become engrossed in what the Lord seems to be doing in us and with us. After all, that seems immediate and relevant. And it takes precious time to come to grips with the apostolic teaching on how we are involved in the cross. And yet faith is the Lord’s way. Faith in the Son of God who loved me and gave himself for me.

Don Baird

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 ages past.

To view previous posts visit our website at www.tsrevisited.com

Leave a comment

Calvinism And 1959

Prof. K. Runia. Trowel & Sword, April 1959

Preamble: It seems somewhat ironic that while we worship an unchanging and unchangeable God, Christians, including Reformed Christians, are constantly trying to change the church and themselves on the pretext of “keeping up with the times”. Last week our post looked at whether we should be calling ourselves “Calvinists” or “Christians”. This week’s article by Prof. Klaas Runia, written 16 years earlier, takes for granted that we are Calvinists and urges 1959 be a year of commemoration of John Calvin’s birthday (450 years) and 400 years since the publishing of his “Institutes”. Today Calvin and Calvinism hardly rates a mention; and these days, when (or if) we still celebrate Reformation day, it is more likely to be a celebration of Martin Luther than John Calvin.

Calvinism and 1959

Perhaps some of our readers ask themselves the question: why this combination of Calvinism and the year 1959 in the heading of this article?

The answer is very simple. 1959 is a year of commemoration for the Calvinists all over the world. And that in two regards. First it will be 450 years ago that the great Reformer John Calvin was born in Noyon, France.

Secondly it will be 400 years ago that the final edition of his masterpiece, the Institutes of the Christian Religion, was published by Calvin himself.

Are these two facts not worth to be commemorated by the Calvinists of today? The answer can only be: Yes, of course. And therefore in many countries preparations are made to celebrate these facts by special conferences, lectures, publications, etc.

–   –   –   –   –   –

At the same time, however, these same two facts call us to reflection upon the situation of present-day Calvinism. Is Calvinism of our day still the Calvinism of John Calvin? Or, to put it in a more personal way: Are we, who call ourselves Calvinists, indeed Calvinists? Or is it only a name?

In the Banner of January 2, 1959, the Editor, the Rev. John Vander Ploeg, tells a story about the inaugural address given by a Dr. John Newton Thomas, when he was installed in the chair of Systematic Theology at Union Theological Seminary.

“In the opening paragraphs the speaker introduced an imaginary Martian visitor who asks: What is the cardinal principle of your theology in the Reformed Churches? When he is told it is the sovereignty of God, he sets out to visit a representative group of Southern Presbyterian Churches to hear their ministers preach.

“Later he returns, and reports that he does not understand, seeing he has been visiting Southern Presbyterian Churches for six months or more and has yet to hear the first sermon on the sovereignty of God. He doubts whether it is true that this is the cardinal doctrine, the distinctive principle of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.

The person addressed then settles the argument by drawing & small, dust covered black book from his shelf containing the Confession of Faith (the Westminster Confession), which he hand’s to the imaginary visitor from Mars.

‘After studying it for a moment, the telling, not to say the crushing reply is made ‘Yes, here it is. But in my judgement, sir, if I may be permitted to say so, the convictions which are vital, the doctrines which are real, are the truths your prophets herald from the pulpit, the counsels your pastors whisper at the bedside of the sick and dying. I care nothing for a doctrine which reposes cadaverously in your Confession, however beautifully embalmed or perfect its state of preservation. I am interested, not in the dead, but in the living!”

–   –   –   –   –   –

I am interested, not in the dead, but in the living!

Rev. Vander Ploeg applies this to his readers from the Christian Reformed Church. But have not we to do the same here in Australia?

O no, it will not be as bad as it is pictured by Dr. Thomas, when he speaks of his church. When I glance through the sermons of our ministers which are published in the “Word of Salvation” I find sound Reformed preaching.

But what about us personally? Are we real Calvinists? Do we personally live out of the basic principle of Calvin’s teaching: the sovereignty of God, revealed in Jesus Christ?

To quote Rev. Vander Ploeg again (with some slight variations): “Are we really believing it? God is sovereign means that He is supreme in power and authority. His sovereignty is gracious, just, and also absolute. Of Him and through Him and unto Him are all things. Everything revolves about Him even as all the planets in our solar system revolve about the sun. Either God is sovereign or else He is not”.

Would a visitor from Mars be able to detect this if he visited the Reformed Churches of Australia and New Zealand? Would Paul, Augustine and Calvin recognise us as their spiritual sons in this, if they could return to Earth, and be with us for the next six months?

Are we true Calvinists?

I think we had better alter the question. For Calvinism wants only to be the expression of the Biblical revelation, the revelation in Christ.

Are we true Christians?

Paul and Augustine and Calvin will not come to visit us this year. But One will be present, in our congregations, in our families, in our personal life. Always and everywhere. Jesus Christ, the Lord of Calvin will be there. He is our Lord too,

The best commemoration of John Calvin will be a life of total obedience and trust in Jesus Christ. Then we are true spiritual sons and daughters of John Calvin.

–  –   –   –   –   –

It is, however, also fitting to give special attention to the life and work of Calvin in this year’s issues of our magazine. We will not do that to glorify Calvin. He himself did not like that at all. In one of his letters he once wrote that he did not want his followers to be called Calvinists. Not the servant is important, but the Master. Soli Deo gloria”.

But is it not the honour of God, if we give proof to appreciate his gifts to his Church? John Calvin was such a gift: One of the greatest gifts. And in commemorating John Calvin we want to thank the Lord for his goodness towards his Church.

Here then follow a few of our plans for this year.

In the May issue we will give some information about commemorations in various parts of the world. This survey will certainly help us to see again that Calvinism is a true world-movement.

In June we plan to publish a joint article of the Rev. R. Swanton ( Presb.), Dr. Leon Morris (Anglo) and myself on the Status and Prospect of Calvinism in Australia”.

For July Prof. Barkley will write an article on the Life of Calvin, followed in August by an article from the pen of Prof. Schep on Calvin as the author of Commentaries.

–   –   –   –   –   –

Finally I would give an advice in the form of a request.

I would advise all our sessions to set aside one special Sunday to observe the two facts that mark this year as a year of commemoration for all Calvinists. Probably the best date would be the Sunday preceding 10 July, the birthday of Calvin. That would mean Sunday, the 5th of July. I would like all the sessions to ask their minister to have a special sermon of commemoration.

And may I request the editors of the “Word of Salvation” to ask one of the ministers to provide for this occasion a special sermon, that will be published before July 5, so that these facts can be commemorated also in the reading services?

We, who received such a rich inheritance, owe much gratitude to God, who blessed us so abundantly in giving us this inheritance!

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 ages past. To view previous posts visit our website at www.tsrevisited.com

Leave a comment

“Calvinist” or “Christian”

Rev. Ray O. Zorn. Trowel & Sword, March 1975

Preamble: What’s in a name? This could well be considered a subtitle to this week’s post. In the early days of the Reformed Church, its leaders went to great lengths to proclaim to its members and indeed to the world that here was a church which unashamedly followed the teachings of John Calvin. This was reflected in the naming of many of its groups, particularly its youth groups. For example, we had Calvinettes, the Calvinist Cadet Corp and also the Federation of Calvinist Youthclubs of Australia. Some twenty-five years later the mood started to change. Some wanted to become more closely associated with Christians of other denominations, hence the push to drop the “label” Calvinist and replace it with “Christian”, while others argued for the distinction to be retained. The following article by Rev. Zorn was part of that debate.

“Calvinist” or “Christian”

The Editorial Secretary has asked me to respond to certain questions which have arisen in connection with the change of the name of the Calvinist Cadet Corps to the Christian Cadet Corps. Mrs. J.F. Schouten in the August issue of Trowel and Sword wrote a letter expressing her “dissatisfaction and unhappiness with the change as it waters down the principles for which we stand”. (p.25).

Mr. J.W. Bonker in the October issue wrote a letter in defence of the name change, “for we are followers or disciples of Christ (as e.g. Luther and Calvin were) and therefore we and our associations are called after Christ and not after certain men”. (p.25).

Mr. W. de Vries then wrote in the December issue that he thought it would be better to keep the old name, since “The Reformed Church stands for the teachings of John Calvin and so does the Cadet movement. It is not Lutheran or Baptist. Let it then be so and do not change the name because you are confusing others and maybe yourself too.” (p.26).

In the meantime another letter was received by the Editorial Secretary which raised the question whether the majority of Reformed Church members are indeed Calvinistic or merely Christian? For, the letter-writer alleges, aren’t the ordinary members simply bound to the Twelve Articles of our catholic and undoubted Christian faith? However, he admits that the office bearers must subscribe to the Three Forms of Unity (e.g. the Belgic Confession, the Heidelberg Catechism, and the Canons of Dort) before taking office. The letter-writer concludes by saying, “I confess that Calvinists are also Christians and that all Christians are not Calvinists, but to say that the Reformed Church – as a whole! – stands for the teachings of Calvin … that is not true!”

Without going into the issue of whether the Cadet Corps was right in changing its name from Calvinist to Christian, it seems to me that the above correspondence deals with two basic questions which need clarification.

The first is, what does the word Calvinist express? The answer to this is really quite simple. For the word stands for a movement of reform in the Christian Church of which John Calvin was a leading exponent, as over against another movement of reform of which Martin Luther was the initiator and leading exponent. Calvin’s movement followed Luther’s and was more thoroughly biblical as can be seen, for example, by the principle he advocated in the worship of God; namely, what is not commanded by God is forbidden (reflected also in the answer to Question 96 in the Heidelberg Catechism). Luther’s more mediating principle was, what is not forbidden by God is allowed.

Just as Luther’s movement of reform came to be known as Lutheran, Calvin’s came to be known by the terms Reformed, or Calvinistic. Therefore, though none of the creedal standards of the Reformed Churches of Australia were written by Calvin, they are nevertheless a part of the Reformed, or Calvinistic, movement. So also are the Westminster Confession and Catechisms, even though they were written some 100 years after Calvin’s time.

A Calvinist is therefore a Christian in the Reformed tradition. Hence, it would at any rate seem that the Cadet Corps by changing its name now wishes to identify itself more broadly with the mainstream of Christianity rather than with the narrower Reformed movement that gave it its birth. Whether this is an improvement or not we leave to the judgement of others.

The second question arising out of the above correspondence is, how Reformed (or Calvinistic) are the Reformed Churches and their members?

It is not hard to establish the fact that the official position of the Reformed Churches is a wholehearted commitment to the Reformed (or Calvinistic) faith. For the office bearers at their ordination are required to give their assent to the question, “Do you believe the Old and the New Testament to be the only Word of God and the doctrinal standards of this church to be in harmony therewith?” (Psalter Hymnal, p.106): which in the provisionally adopted new Liturgical Forms booklet is, if anything, put even more strongly, “Do you believe that the Old and New Testaments are the only Word of God and that in them the way of salvation is taught completely, also accepting the Confessional Standards of this Church as being in harmony with Scripture, and do you refute all doctrines conflicting with them?” (p.41).

Moreover, in the Form of Subscription which all office bearers are required to sign before commencing their official duties, they pledge that they “heartily believe and are persuaded that all the articles and points of doctrine contained in the Confession and Catechism of the Reformed Churches, together with the Canons of Dort do fully agree with the Word of God.” They “promise diligently to teach and faithfully to defend the aforesaid doctrine….” They moreover declare that they “not only reject all errors that militate against this doctrine… but that they are disposed to refute and contradict these and to exert themselves in keeping the Church free from such errors” (cf. p.71 of the Psalter Hymnal for the full text from which the above quotations in part are taken.)

It is therefore not easy to see how one of the letter-writers quoted above can, while admitting that the office bearers must subscribe to the confessional standards of the Reformed faith, nevertheless declare that “to say that the Reformed Church as a whole! stands for the teachings of Calvin … that is not true!”

In all fairness to him we should recognise that he bases this claim upon the fact that “ordinary members, when they confess their faith, are bound to the Twelve Articles of our catholic and undoubted Christian faith.” This reference to the Apostles’ Creed, however, which he makes is based upon a quotation found in the form for the celebration of the Lord’s Supper (Psalter Hymnal, p.95) and refers to the liturgical use members of the Reformed Churches make of the Apostles’ Creed when, as they confess their faith in its terms, they make clear the fact that they are a part of the body of Christ as a whole.

However, when they make public confession of their faith at the time they become confessing members in full standing in the Reformed Churches, they are required to give assent to several questions, the first of which is, “Do you heartily believe the doctrine contained in the Old and the New Testament, and in the articles of the Christian faith, and taught in this Christian church, to be the true and complete doctrine of salvation, and do you promise by the grace of God steadfastly to continue in this profession?” (Psalter Hymnal, p.88). In the new Liturgical Forms booklet the question equivalent to this one is even more pointed in its reference to the Reformed faith, for it asks, “Do you believe the Bible to be the Word of God, and the doctrinal standards of this church to be in harmony with that Word?” (p.36).

It should therefore by clear that the members of the Reformed Churches, no less than their office bearers, are required to give their assent to the Reformed faith as being that which they believe “to be the true and complete doctrine of salvation” since it is “in harmony with the Word of God.”

However, we are prepared to admit that there are possible (indeed probable) differences between the official position of the Reformed Churches and their actual practice, at least in some specific instances. For Christians (even Reformed ones!) are in this life in a stage of spiritual development. Therefore their grasp of truth, while it may be correct insofar as they possess it, is yet incomplete. With others it may even be somewhat deficient, due to the remaining effects of sin or to intellectual limitations. A session must therefore decide on each particular case as it examines the applicant for church membership. And because such evaluation, being subject to human frailty, is faulty at times, there will be some who are unreformed and some even who are hypocrites who go undetected by sessions and become members in the Reformed Churches.

Moreover, the writer knows of at least one case where session was faced with the problem of what to do with an application for membership by a family who was Reformed in every respect except in the matter of infant baptism which they rejected. Finally the session, not willing to make membership in the Reformed Churches more difficult than getting into heaven (as was being alleged against it), accepted the family as members, with the stipulation that they not openly oppose the Reformed teaching on infant baptism nor seek to impose their less scriptural views upon other members of the flock.

No doubt many would hail such a resolution of a difficult problem as a wise course of action. And sessions generally may be tempted to follow such a procedure with similar cases which they encounter. Consequently, cases like this may indeed exist in the Reformed Churches. None of these instances, however, is proof of the claim that the Reformed Churches stand for less than the teaching of the Reformed faith. On the contrary, if and when sessions are induced to take such a course of action for these admittedly difficult cases, it is not because the Reformed Churches are thereby less than Reformed; but rather because it is hoped that such people thus admitted to membership and subjected to the teaching and preaching of the Reformed Churches’ ministry will ultimately see the light and wholeheartedly embrace Reformed truth as the truth fully taught by God’s Word.

Sometimes, however, such members ultimately wind up in the unhappy position of being discipline cases for one reason or another. Perhaps it is because they refuse to have their children baptised, or seek to propagate their unreformed views, or lose interest in supporting the church, etc. It may therefore be questioned whether sessions are acting in wisdom when they lower the Reformed bar of admission to church membership in any way for the sake of expediency. For oftentimes they are merely postponing the day of ultimate reckoning with such cases to a later and perhaps more difficult time.

At any rate we may conclude by saying that the Reformed Churches are doctrinally committed to the Reformed position and practically maintain it, howbeit in an imperfect manner at times.

Ray O. Zorn

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 ages past.

Leave a comment

Children’s Ministry

Helen Vanderbom. Trowel & Sword, February 2003

Preamble: The growth of Christian Schools in the last fifty years or sons an indication that Christians take the raising of their children in a Godly environment very seriously. But is it the case that an unintended consequence may be that parents today may not be as diligent in teaching their children in the home as their parents and grandparents were when they were growing up? Helen was well know for being passionate about children’s ministries and for bringing up children in the Lord. In this article Helen writes about some of the issues in raising up godly children in a Christian environment in the home.

Children’s Ministry

The new year with its challenges has now come upon us in earnest. Children and Youth ministries leaders are finalising the year’s aims, programs and activities. Many plan to come to the “Strength for the Journey” conferences run in almost every state, and to other local training opportunities. Parents are sacrificing again to send children to Christian schools.

Once again we must ask, what do we want for our children? What do we want for our churches and families?

Our affluent Australian lifestyle encourages us to provide videos, video games and play stations, camps, birthday parties, trampolines, cubby houses, indoor and outdoor entertainment, takeaways and outings, music and sports lessons all for our children’s well rounded education and social development. Our children have tremendous opportunities to develop their gifts and interests.
Despite all these distractions, as Christians we still believe that the most important thing we want for our kids is that they hear and respond to God’s message and desire to serve Him with their lives.

And despite the great programs our churches may run, the home continues to play a central role in the faith development of our children, both positively and negatively.

One question I’d like to examine is the place of family devotions in the life of the Christian family. How important is it to have devotions and Bible reading as a meaningful part of the family’s regular routine? Many of us know of people who were put off the Christian faith because Dad or Mum made them sit very still after the evening meal to listen to a long Bible reading, followed by an obscure prayer. My own memories were similar except that the chapter read to us was from a children’s Bible and I loved it. The prayer was okay and we had opportunity to talk about things if we wished. 

Many ‘old generation’ parents wanted their family to hear God’s Word together and to be trained by it. Fathers as head of the household took on the priestly task of leading in worship and teaching, not with harshness but love and respect. Mothers also accepted this task and took it seriously. Such was obviously the ideal family situation. We know not all our parents were like this. When parents had Godly wisdom and loving discipline, the children were able to respond and experience the love of God and learn His ways.

What about our modern Christian families? Many of us have cast off these old ‘shackles’, and no longer believe in this Reformed tradition of evening meal Bible reading and prayer because it was so boring’ and ‘old world’. Or we do not see it as all that important. Or we would like to maintain the custom but do not have the time.

So how do we reach and teach our children effectively today?
For those of us whose children are able to go to Christian schools we expect to rely on them to do the hackwork of helping children gain an overall understanding of the Bible.
Cadets and Gems (Calvinettes) have Bible badges that also give knowledge of what the Bible is about.
VBS and Holiday Clubs generally by their nature of being short term, must concentrate on particular stories or themes of the Bible that teach about God’s love for them in Jesus.
Sunday school and after school clubs. These have a number of functions in relation to the Bible. To tell the Bible stories in a regular, refreshing and interesting way. To present the central message of the Bible, God’s ‘Big Story’ so that children can come to know, believe and have Life. To teach the Bible so children will learn how God wants them to live in response to Him. All the above programs include having loving Christian leaders who by their lives, words and actions challenge the children to respond to the Good News they hear and see.

Teaching the Bible at Home
Aren’t the above aims broadly similar to what we want for our children at home? Today’s families are very busy people. Fathers work long hours, often cannot get home till late, perhaps even after the children go to bed. Then Mum has the major part of being with the kids until the weekend. Or there is shift work, or both parents work either full or part time. There can be unemployment with a little more time but also with the issues of seeking work and struggling with feeling depressed. The financial burden of paying for today’s modern home as well as Christian school fees also adds to the mix. The complexities are immense. This is the reality for the family today.

Can families still afford to worry about daily family devotions? Can’t these church programs do the job so families can use their spare time to do fun stuff, relax, watch TV and get out a bit?

God makes the parents’ task very clear in passages like Deuteronomy 6:5-9, Deuteronomy 11, Proverbs 22:6 and Ephesians 6:4. In these Scripture passages teaching and training are emphasised. Teaching and training always involve regular effort and the setting of priorities. Although the task can be shared with the various other programs, the central task is still there for the parents.
So God’s Word seems to point us towards having regular family times where we can train and teach about God and His Word. Using our mealtimes is a good start although the Deut. 6 passage reminds us to use every family outing and opportunity. Mealtimes are generally regular, readily available opportunities to talk and share.

It may mean that one parent takes on the responsibility of leading the family devotions much of the time because of circumstances. It is much more likely that regular Bible reading happens when it is a daily habit. A daily routine does not take away its effectiveness if it is done thoughtfully and appropriately. Just as we need to feed our bodies and clean our teeth every day, we need to feed our souls and meet with God daily. Our children learn much about our relationship with the Lord by these everyday habits. In Psalm 119, verse 105 we read Your Word is a lamp to my feet and a light for my path. Helping our children to see the immediate relevance of God’s Word to daily living, as well as having a wider overview of God’s Word will enable them to use God’s Word in decision making as they grow. It is important to choose a children’s Bible suitable for their age. Children need ‘milk’ rather than ‘solid meat’. Only slowly are children ready for an adult meal. There are also devotional books around to provide variety, but it’s important not to neglect reading God’s Big Story.
Asking questions and encouraging the children to ask questions ensures that they understand the story and issues involved.

I believe it is appropriate to leave out passages that deal with things that are beyond the kids’ understanding, and to make the teaching time interactive, relevant, lively and of appropriate length. Again the ‘milk passage’ is applicable.
If fathers are not often able to be around for this daily devotion time, it is important for them to be involved as often as possible. The kids need to see that it is Dad as well as Mum who loves interacting with God’s Word and believes God’s Word to be central to their lives.

We must not neglect prayer time as part of the daily family devotions, perhaps using a variety of approaches. Most of our children learn to pray spontaneously if we encourage and guide them. And we too may become more comfortable with prayer if we make the effort for the sake of our children. It is realistic to accept that we cannot fulfil this regime for half an hour every single day. However, God does want us to make family devotions, like our own private devotions, a priority, and put time and prayer into planning it. It takes effort to decide what is appropriate at each stage of our family’s life. And God can help us with that too. God will also help us review our priorities and activities from time to time so that we continue to be blessed by our family devotions.
May the Holy Spirit give us the desire to look at this aspect of our family life so that families and His church may be built up through Godly parents and children growing together in love and knowledge of Him.

H Vanderbom

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 ages past.

Leave a comment