Annus Liturgicus (The Church Year)

Bill Deenick, Trowel And Sword, December, 1977

Preamble: It would be fair to say that the worship services in many Reformed Churches today are substantially different to how they were conducted in the 60’s and 70’s of last century. Part of this may well have been due to a fear that services had become too ritualised, with little room for spontaneity. In the following article, Bill Deenick discusses the pros and cons of an adherence, at least in part, to a church calendar which has been developed over the centuries, how it developed and the biblical basis for its existence. In this, the beginning of a new year, what better time to take stock of what we have been doing in our worship services and look to answer the question, “Can we do better?”

The Church Year

Although the ecclesiastical year has never been a very big thing in the Reformation Church, most formed Churches have promoted the observance of at least a bare minimum of the church calendar.

Admittedly not all Reformed Churches have been equally enthusiastic in doing so. Some hesitated for a while whereas others like the Church of Scotland abolished it altogether. Some branches of Presbyterianism still oppose it. The English Church in its Book of Common Prayer maintained the calendar rather more rigidly than most other Reformed Churches did but in general it may be said that the Reformed Church accepted as useful and constructive the observance of the main festivals  of the Church Year together with several weeks of preparation before Christmas and Easter.

Historically it is not very difficult to explain why some Reformed Churches insisted more on maintaining the church calendar than others did, but I prefer not to go into that at present. What interests me more is the reasons why in later years the Reformed Church did not only maintain the observance of the three or four Christian festivals but went to considerable trouble to promote a more strict observance in the morning worship of the whole period from the first Sunday of Advent to Trinity Sunday, the Sunday after Pentecost.

The Origin of the Church Year

From a Reformed point of view there is no reason to be particularly delighted about the manner in which (and the reasons why) the annus liturgicus was originally introduced in the Church.

It appears that a bishop of the Jerusalem Church, a man of the name of Cyril has been mainly responsible for it. This bishop has been a much more influential man than often is realised. Although he lived in the 4th century, in the time of the great controversies about the deity and the humanity of Jesus Christ as the Son of God and the Son of Man, his main interest was not in doctrine but in liturgy, not in the preaching of the gospel but in the dramatisation in Christian worship of the events of redemption as they had taken place in the person of Jesus Christ. In his catechism instruction he aimed at making people see what had happened rather than at letting them hear about it.  He went so far as to say that to behold is more important than to hear. Being the bishop of Jerusalem, he was in the fortunate position that he could arrange for the liturgical re-enactment of the suffering, the death and the resurrection of Christ at the very places where they had taken place. Karel Deddens in his doctor’s thesis on the subject comes to the conclusion that “the Christian Year of Jerusalem, of which the development took place during the episcopate of Cyril, was conditioned by topographical factors (factors of place and surroundings). The bishop performed as a holy person impersonating Christ. The places at which he performed were carefully chosen according to the requirements of the situation and the time was perfectly accommodated. A dramatic repetition was staged of the things which happened when salvation was accomplished”.

Cyril’s influence spread far beyond Palestine. In the Eastern Church the acceptance of the Jerusalem liturgy was immediate and spontaneous; and they never looked back. But also in the West Cyril had many admirers. One of them was Ambrose, bishop of Milan, who introduced the Jerusalem year in the churches of his diocese. And so we come to the discovery that the ecclesiastical year did not travel from Rome to Jerusalem but from Jerusalem to Rome, and on to the whole Western Church.

This is not to say, however, that in the West during the Middle Ages all of Cyril’s thoughts on liturgy were universally accepted. The annual liturgical dramatisation of the main events of redemption never became such an integral part of Christian worship in the Western Church as it did in the East. The oriental Easter Cycle e.g. never gained the exclusive prominence which it did in Eastern Orthodoxy. It was in the mystery of the Mass rather than in the  celebration of the Church Year that the death of Christ and His sacrifice for sin was re-enacted. Moreover, the different monastic orders which concentrated on the art of preaching began to specialise on passion preaching rather than on passion plays in the weeks of Lent, and throughout the West they became famous for their passion sermons.  Passion plays with their stages of the cross became very popular in the West as well but they do not seem to have had the sacramental significance which they received in oriental liturgy, and the preaching of Christ crucified retained a significant place throughout the period of Lent.

Yet, all in all, we cannot get away from the conclusion that originally the Church Year as such did not have its roots in a very biblical theology; and that even today, when people feel so very strongly about the Christian festivals, they are often more socially and sentimentally motivated than biblically.

Of course, the social value of the Christian festivals can hardly be denied; and the social argument is not necessarily an unbiblical one. But is that all that we have to say in defence of the annus ecclesiasticus?  Deddens believes that it is. But if that were so we could hardly speak of an ecclesiastical YEAR. Then we were left with no more than three or four high feasts to be observed and enjoyed by the Christian community for their own social-spiritual benefit. But is that really all that the church calendar is about? I do not believe that it is.

Its Present Validity

Obviously most Reformed Churches have believed that the Christian year was worth maintaining, and as I see it rightly so. To begin with the Church cannot ignore the historical development. Institutions are not necessarily useful because they are old and historical development is not normative for what is good and proper.  But when certain institutions and customs have become well established and have benefitted the Church it is foolish to ignore them. Some Reformed Churches, for instance, insist on the celebrating of the Lord’s Supper no more than twice, at the most four times, per annum.  There is no biblical warrant for it but the custom has been established and obviously it has helped to create a very special atmosphere round the Communion celebration. It would be quite wrong to ignore that.

The Church Year (not withstanding its unbiblical emphasis on the repetition of the “drama of redemption”) has still benefitted the Church in different ways. For one thing it kept before the Christian mind the significance as well as the relevance of what God did once and for all in and through Jesus Christ. Even the most pessimistic view of the history of the Church during the Middle  Ages will have to admit that it was not all black. Also, in those centuries God’s Spirit kept Himself a people alive through the preaching of the gospel. There were preachers both within and without the established Church who presented Christ Jesus as God incarnate, born in Bethlehem, crucified for our sins, risen for our justification and now King in heaven. The Puritan Fathers could have never been so fond of Thomas Aquinas if everything had been so wrong in the Middle Ages. And so, we will have to admit thankfully that also the calendar of prescribed feasts, prayers and readings preserved many spiritual treasures of biblical origin. 

It was these elements of the Church Year that the Reformed Churches undertook to preserve; and in general we may say that they have been successful in this. Where the Reformed Church maintained not only the “holy” festivals but also the four weeks of Advent and the seven weeks of Lent together with the Sundays after Easter until Ascension Day and Pentecost the preaching of the church has been remarkably more Christ centred than otherwise would have been the case.  At least in this regard the minister in the Church of England with his Book of Common Prayer has been privileged above other Reformed ministers who gave in more  easily to the influences of Independentism and Pietism. Whereas often his heart may have tempted him to place the Christian (with his insignificant experiences, his ups and downs on the road to heaven) in the centre of his sermons, the Anglican preacher was bound by his prayerbook and more often than not this must have forced him to preach Christ instead of the Christian.

No doubt, the rigid prayerbook discipline has very obvious disadvantages as well. A Christian Church come of age should not need one. Yet, on the other hand an enlightened observance of the ecclesiastical year has much more than merely a social value. It also has a historical and a homiletical validity. In this I cannot agree with Deddens whose study has been too limited in its scope to justify his conclusions. I know that some will argue from the point that there is no specific biblical indication that we should have  a Church Year. This is true. But there is no biblical indication that we should have a sporadic celebration of the  Lord’s Supper either. To the contrary, there is every indication that the early Church celebrated their Holy Communion weekly. Calvin recognised this. Yet, many Reformed Churches follow the rule of an extremely limited number of Holy Supper celebrations. I do not deny them that liberty; in fact I have learned to see the spiritual value of that custom. I prefer it. But I take that position because I believe that God has given His Church both the authority and the liberty to arrange for such an annual cycle in the preaching of the gospel and in the celebration of the sacraments as it believes it to be most to the honour of Christ and to the welfare of His Church.

As long as I have been in the ministry of the gospel, I have deeply appreciated the wisdom of the Reformed Church in guiding me in my preaching from the first Sunday of Advent through to Trinity Sunday. And the last Sunday of the year in November I have often followed the Church’s postille and preached on  the “last things”.  I believe that the churches which I have served (as well as I myself) have benefitted from the fact that the choice of the material for the sermon was not left entirely to my own (not always very Spirit-filled) heart. I am sure of one thing; that the Church’s annual calendar has helped me to focus my preaching on Christ.

And as far as the principle is concerned: no one should try to live by half a principle and say that whatever is not commanded in Scripture is forbidden in the corporate worship of the Church. We better remember that we believe in the sufficiency of the Word of God and therefore we should rather say that the Word of God is clear both in what it commands and in what it forbids, in where it binds and where it creates liberty.

BILL DEENICK

God’s Final Gift Demands An Answer

Preamble: Jack Postma’s Christmas Meditation from 1977 is still relevant today – if not more so. Jack, powerfully, strips away the sentimentality often found in Christmas and links Christmas with the cross and our rebellion with the need for the incarnation of Christ. We trust our readers will be challenged and encouraged as we were. John 3:16-19

Jack Postma, Trowel & Sword, December 1977

Christmas! The celebration of that glorious night in Bethlehem when the endless depths of the Father’s love toward a lost world was revealed in the gift of His Son, who could say, “He who has seen me has seen the Father (John 14:9).  There in Bethlehem, God’s heart was revealed in final fulness!

For the “Word made flesh” was not another teacher sent from God, as many prophets were sent in the time of the Old Testament.  So Nicodemus had understood it. No, in Him, Nicodemus and we are confronted with God’s final word.

The God who in many and various ways spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by a Son (Heb. 1: 1,2), the heir of all things!

Christmas is the revelation of God’s saving purposes in all its final concentration. The revelation of God’s grace in His unique Son. So great was that love of God for sinners, that God gave all He had to give. Beside Christ, God can’ give no more.

For God so loved the world, His world, the world of His creation. That world of men and women; that world of mountains and seas; that world of schools, commerce, politics and families; that world with all its relationships (Col. 1:20), meant to serve Him, to show His glory. That world of rebel sinners, of people that dishonour God, of people that break one another in their blind rebellious frustration, that have done so ever since the Fall.

That world – the kosmos –  God loved it so much that He gave all He had. Amazing, incomprehensible love! For while He was complete without it, yet having made it, He refused to let it drown in godlessness and futility. He refused to let it perish under His wrath in this life and in the life to come.

Therefore the amazing gift of His Son, in whom God’s arms of mercy are stretched out to the widest possible extent to a perishing world. For the last time; in order to bring that world and its life back to Himself. No wonder angel choirs sang in the fields of Ephrathah; for who can remain silent in the presence  of this Gift!

Who came not to condemn but to save – God gave “that whosoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life.  For God sent the Son into the world not to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.”

According to the Jews, when God would come to the world, it would be in judgement on sinners. No doubt Nicodemus thought so too. But the Lord Jesus says “No” to that! The purpose of His coming was to save. To save the world by calling men and women to Himself, out of every tribe and nation; who, together with their renewed relationships would constitute the new world.

Had God’s only desire been for judgement –  His perfect right –  then there  would have been no need for the Incarnation. Then all that would have been needed was the manifestation of His final holy, righteous anger.  Then He would only have needed to send forth His flashing burning justice, totally deserved by us.

But thank God.  His thoughts toward us were different. Thank God that in His free, eternal and sovereign good pleasure, His thoughts were thoughts of peace and salvation, mercy and grace to a lost and rebellious world. To us!

But at what cost! That love was so endless, that intention to save so deep, that hatred of sin so intense, so that rather than give His creation over to eternal darkness and estrangement from Himself, to God’s eternal horror-filled absence, He gave His only Son over to the forsakenness of hell.

For God’s gift at Bethlehem finds its climax in the darkness of the cross. That Bethlehem­ gift is God’s handing over of His beloved Son into the hands of sinners. Those hands God will use to carry out His righteous sentence on the Son who has  come to bear the sin of the world, in order to save the world. Over Bethlehem there is cast the dark shadow of the cross.

But such holy burning love demands an answer. It does not ask for a sympathetic glance at the manger. It is not content with a few sentimental carols this Christmas time, or with a confession from the lips that leaves the life unchanged.

Such final love puts the world before the final choice. It drives the world, and all of us, into the final corner. For in this Son, in whom God gives everything, God also demands everything. His total love is content with nothing less than our total love.

In the shining of this Sun of Righteousness, all sin is clearly revealed for what it is – works of darkness (v.19-21) – works that cry out for God’s judgement. Only in the light of the costliness of God’s remedy do we see the final horror of our sin.

To refuse this gift, to refuse to bow in repentance and faith, that forsakes our darkness and clings only to Christ – to refuse that, surely it is the greatest insult. It is to pronounce our own judgement. “He who believes not is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.”

When that endless love is refused, then that same gift of Light – meant to show us our darkness and drive us to God for life – keeps shining, showing up our works for what they are. Then that Son can only scorch us. For beside Him God has nothing else to give. He is God’s final Word.

When will the world, when will we all wake up. That every Christmas carol sung, every Christmas service attended, will mean our condemnation, unless we capitulate before this love, by believing in Christ. For that is the answer God’s love requires.

And believing is bowing the rebellious knee. It is the confession that I have no love to give to God in answer to His love, for all I have of myself is works of darkness. But thank God it is also the recognition, that by faith in Christ, His righteousness and obedient love is mine.

Believing means no other Saviour in my life than Jesus Christ alone. His word of promise and demand determining and directing my life. Expecting all in life and death from Him alone. It means that I stop living for myself and by my own strength.

Oh, how impossible is such an answer, such faith, for sinful man!

Oh God, so overwhelm us anew this Christmas time with your gift too great for words, that we can do no other than to capitulate anew and fall in adoration before the Son of your love and give ourselves away to Him and to His service.

So that your word may be our richest possession: “You will not perish, you are no longer condemned, but you have eternal life.”

Hallelujah!

Jack Postma

We wish our readers a blessed and monumentally exciting Christmas in which, together, we are thrilled once again by the incarnation. Bert & Pieter

The Gospel Blimp And The Back To God Hour

K. Runia, Trowel and Sword. November 1962

Preamble: A mountain of books have been written on how to evangelise. One such story was called “The Gospel Blimp”, which is outlined here by Prof. Runia of RTC. He goes on to contrast it with the work of “The Back To God Hour’ which older readers will remember as a popular radio program of the time. This ran until 2010 and has now been relaunched under the name “Groundwork” through “ReFrame Media”. While it could be said that there is no right or wrong way to spread the Gospel, this story suggests that some ways are better than others.

The Gospel Blimp

A few weeks ago I read a very interesting booklet, called the Gospel Blimp. According to the title page a Blimp is a small type of airship for scouting, etc.

The gist of the story is as follows. A group of Christians in a small American town meet one evening in the garden of one of them. They are talking about the need of witnessing for Christ and the host, George, tells them about his neighbour who is a non-Christian and whom he cannot reach with the Gospel. Exactly at that moment a plane flies over and one of them suddenly says: we should try to evangelise our whole city by using a blimp with a text trailing behind it. The idea is accepted and a committee is appointed, and they start making plans. Soon money is coming in from all sides; a blimp is acquired and the work begins. They are very successful and the organisation is becoming bigger and bigger and bigger. Of course, there are some failures. When they use a loudspeaker system to proclaim the message as well as showing it, they get, one night, mixed up with the most popular T.V. show of the city, because they happen to transmit on the same frequency. The whole town is furious! Further, the ‘commander’ one of the original group who has become the chief executive, becomes estranged from his wife and later on is divorced. To increase the income they combine texts with business slogans. It is a tremendous boost. The organisation is still growing bigger and bigger. They are all convinced that it is God’s blessing. “God really honoured this new step of faith…  At long last we were in good with all, or almost all, the Protestant ministers in the city…  Same way with the city itself. Everyone was speaking well of us. ..”

Unfortunately the man in whose garden the idea was first suggested and whose unbelieving neighbour was the direct occasion, had withdrawn. George could not agree with the new development and the business-like approach of the ‘Commander’. It was a pity, but it could not be helped.

However, on the third anniversary the original committee members were all invited by George, to a celebration in the very same garden. To their great surprise George’s neighbour and his wife were also present. And “the neighbour was smoking”. I hasten to add that smoke doesn’t particularly bother me, but there are some that it does. And even though it was not so bad out in the yard as it would have been indoors, there were some who would certainly not appreciate the introduction of this worldly element to our Christian circle. As different people came in, you could tell they were surprised and a little put out to find the next door neighbours there. And smoking. It just sort of took the edge off the celebration.”

Later on during the evening George tells them that the neighbours also have become Christians. “Well you should have heard the group when George told us that. We were really excited. Every one wanted to ask questions at the same time. ‘Was it a verse on the blimp or a fire bomb (i.e. a parcel of tracts dropped by the blimp)?’ ‘Day or night? I mean was the verse in electric lights?’…” The reality, however, was quite different.

It was not through the blimp at all! On the contrary, the thing had annoyed them terribly. No, it was quite different. The neighbour’s wife had become seriously ill and was brought to the hospital. At that time George and his wife had helped the neighbour, and after the wife had come home from hospital, they had continued to give every possible assistance. This personal contact, which so clearly resulted from their love for the Lord Jesus, had broken the barrier and led these people to Jesus…

You may wonder what this story has to do with the Back to God Hour, That is not on a par with such a contraption as this blimp, is it? Is not a fine, deeply spiritual message brought every time? Yes, indeed. I an very happy with and grateful for our Back to God Hour broadcast, Without any pride we may say that it is of the best that is heard over the wireless in Australia and New Zealand.

And yet – there is a parallel! I mean this: we too can use the Back to God Hour as an excuse TO STOP ALL PERSONAL WITNESSING! It is so very easy to think that we are doing our full share, because we are doing so much for the Back to God Hour. Are we not bringing real sacrifices for it? Are we as Reformed people not fulfilling the great commandment of our Master: Go and preach the Gospel to the whole nation?

But if this is all that we do, then I am afraid that our beautiful organisation, just like that of the Gospel blimp, is altogether fruitless. George’s neighbour and his wife were not converted by a broadcast, but by the personal, direct witness of a Christian testimony in WORD AND DEED!

Shall we then give up the Back to God Hour? Of course, not! It is a splendid means of witnessing. It is a wonderful opportunity God has given to our Churches. But it will be EFFECTIVE ONLY when it is accompanied by our personal witness. WOULD YOU PLEASE, READ MATT, 25:31-46? That is what I mean.

K. RUNIA

The Reformation and Education

Preamble: The following is an article by Prof. George van Groningen in the October 1967 issue of T and S.  It reflects on the influence of education on the reformers and the way God used that in the development of the Reformation. He goes on to challenge the reader to consider the continuing importance of that in 1967. In that year the Christian school movement was still in its infancy, so it was a rallying cry for this concept to grow further. In well over 60 years this fledgling movement has blossomed. And yet, there can be no room for complacency. The world has changed dramatically in that time. His clarion call, “And let us all without exception do our utmost for Christ centred education in the day school.” should ring just as loudly today.

Bert and Pieter

G. Van Groningen, Trowel & Sword, October 1967

 In May 1967, a university president, speaking to a group of graduates from his institution said, “If you now depart from this university with the feeling that you have both feet firmly planted in life, then we have failed you.” The president made clear that if the graduates were filled with questions, doubted all that once had been held as sure facts, if they realized their search for truth was just begun, then their university training had been a success.

 Would you, dear reader, agree with this goal of an advanced, university education? Is this what education is to do for young people? Be careful how you answer this question, for a study of the influences of education on the Reformation and the Reformation on education reveals that education while it prepares for service also enables people to ask proper questions, to properly evaluate facts and to make important decisions. But it first of all firmly establishes men in the faith and service for God.

EDUCATION BEFORE THE REFORMATION

During the Middle Ages there was little formal, thorough education. Only few men were educated and these were the church leaders who were subjected to a specific regimented indoctrination of the church. The masses were kept “in the dark”. Truly the Middle Ages were dark ages in this respect.

Then in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries universities arose; this was due to various causes, e.g., growth of cities, rise of a middle class of people and new intellectual interests stimulated by the Crusades. These universities included more than theological courses; liberal arts, medicine and law became recognized courses required for the preparation of men who sought careers outside the church. But some of these studies were also taken by churchmen and thus churchmen began to get a wider, more critical and helpful training for their work. During this time some men began to study the Bible individually and began to stress some Biblical emphases, particularly those issues which concerned the Christian life. But the Church, as a whole, did not revive or stimulate a real Christian teaching ministry for the masses.

Coupled with the rise of the universities was the emergence of the Renaissance – a movement which produced awakened interests in Greek and Roman ideas, values, literary products and the languages employed. The main emphasis of the Renaissance was on man – his powers, nature, feelings and goals. In other words, it was very humanistic. This humanistic emphasis was stronger in southern Europe than in northern Europe where the Biblical languages were seriously studied and through this, the Bible came under more intense study also. This really was a main factor in the actual “birth of the Reformation”.

The leading reformers were products of their times. M. Luther, born in 1483, had a “humble rustic origin”. Under stern discipline in home and school, Luther received elementary education. At 18 years of age he entered the university of Erfurt where he studied the Latin classics, learned Greek and thoroughly mastered his own language. He also developed his musical abilities. He received the equivalent of an M.A. in 1505 and seemed headed for the life and work of a lawyer. But Luther, already inclined to theology during the time of his education, was suddenly converted in 1505. He became a monk, a Bible student, a theologian and a church reformer.

H. Zwingli, born 1484, had real humanistic interests and these were developed during his education in Wesen, Bern, Vienna and Basel. It was under his last professor that he really became interested in the Scriptures and became inclined to theological and church reformation.

John Calvin, born in 1509, studied under a number of very capable teachers. Philip Schaff writes, “Calvin received the best education -in the humanities, law, philosophy, and theology- which France at that time could give. He studied successively in the three leading universities of Orleans, Bourges and Paris”. (Vol.VIII,p.304). A brilliant career for Calvin as a humanist scholar, or a lawyer, as a Catholic churchman was open to him. But a great miraculous thing took place -Calvin was converted!  “God Himself produced the change”, he said. From then on educated Calvin became a total and loyal servant of God.

Have you not been struck by the fact that the three great men of the Reformation were educated men?  Indeed, they had been educated, trained, prepared as well as any of the scholars were in those days.  But all their education meant nothing for the Reformation until they were converted.  As converted educated men they became mighty heroes for God.

EDUCATION DURING THE REFORMATION

There is one great fact that one can never close his eyes to or avoid in any manner when studying the Reformation.  It is this:  education had a major role not only in the origin of the Reformation, but also in the development of the Reformation.

The educated trio, once converted, employed their trained talents for the study of the Scriptures, the teaching of the people and for writing the truth of God in letters, pamphlets and books.

Luther found personal peace with God through the thorough study of the Psalm and Romans.  As an educated man he was able to write the ninety-five theses. He translated the Bible in German so that the German people could read the Bible themselves. He wrote a Catechism for Bible classes.  Luther did all he could to educate the people­ not just in the Scriptures, but also in the humanities.  He insisted that education, i.e. thorough Christian education had to form the cultivated man, to round out his personality, train his body, develop musical, poetical, and graphic arts. Natural sciences had to be mastered also.  In keeping with this, Luther proclaimed that schools should be established everywhere.  But the great overriding goal of all education was to “enable each student to achieve a personal faith in Jesus as Lord and Saviour”.

Calvin stressed education very much as a reformer at work.  He worked as a teacher for three years in Strasbourg in a gymnasium which had as its aim “to form men who are pious, learned, and able to express themselves well.”  Calvin’s greatest educational monument is the school which he, with noble assistance from others, established in Geneva, Switzerland.  The courses studied were not just religious subjects, but a wide range of subjects into which “Scriptural religion was inculcated at all stages” (Westminster Dictionary of Chr.Ed.,p.75).  Calvin insisted that the humanities be taught -but always in the light of God’s Word.  Calvin also was able to upgrade the standard of the elementary and secondary schools in Geneva. In specific church educational work, Calvin wrote, and rewrote, a Catechism to be used for the instruction of children in the truth.  He preached in the course of the week; his commentaries we have today are the sermons he preached to instruct, to educate the people.

John Knox, a student at Calvin’s Genevan school, well educated and trained, set up a plan for Christian education, from parish school to university, in Scotland. The· Scottish legislature rejected the plan at first, but gradually the system was adopted. Education in the Netherlands was greatly influenced also by Calvin’s insights, work and methods.

CONCLUDING COMMENTS

Space forbids the tracing of educational influences in the spread of the Reformation. This we can state: where education, i.e., truly Christian education in home, church and school was taken seriously, employed to the fullest extent possible, there the principles of the Reformation have not been lost, rather they have been developed and strengthened.

Today we hear much of the need for reforming the churches, reforming the entire religious structure of life.  Few will say this is not necessary.  But, as the Reformation in the 16th century came to light by God through WELL EDUCATED and CONVERTED men, so today a reformation CAN TAKE PLACE.  More than ever there is a great need for EDUCATED men and women.  And no less necessary is the need for CONVERTED educated servants of God.  To produce converted educated servants, the absolute requirement is that we have a strong educational program which unites home, church and school in one harmonious united effort for God.

Let us then do our utmost to have a good system of home instruction. Let us all do our utmost to cooperate in the teaching ministry of the church.  And let us all without exception do our utmost for Christ centred education in the day school.

Christian education· was one of the mightiest and most effective means – if not the mightiest and most effective – for the development and spread of the Reformation four hundred and fifty years ago.  It still is that today.

G. VAN GRONINGEN.

THE MAKING OF A MINISTER

T.L. Wilkinson, Trowel and Sword, October 1968

Preamble: Last week or focus was directed towards the shortage of ministers in the churches which was already an issue back in 1976 and how Sessions looked for creative short term solutions to a long term problem. Ultimately, as has been said many times, the answer is to train more ministers. Unfortunately, ministers don’t come out of the woodwork. As a denomination we need to be far more proactive in recruiting suitable men able and willing to answer God’s call to serve in this capacity. Interestingly Prof. T. Wilkinson from RTC had submitted this article to T&S eight years earlier giving an outline of what to look for in potential candidates. It is incumbent on each and every one of us to constantly be on the lookout.

“Send us the materials and we’ll do the job.”

Riding along in a tram one day I saw a notice in a Richmond shop window which said, “we do the impossible straight away… miracles take a little longer”!! 

But we in the Reformed Theological College deeply regret that although we try to take to heart the admonition of Paul to “covet earnestly the best gifts” yet so far the gift of miracles hasn’t been granted us. The Faculty deeply deplores the fact that it can’t turn out ministers by the simple process of seizing each and every fellow who applies for training regardless of qualifications, putting him in the bag like a conjuror, and then (after four years) pulling him out, and Hey Presto! there you have a full-blown minister ready to take over your congregation. Indeed, miracles take a little longer!

So if you want us to turn out ministers, then we must ask you to send us the materials, for we don’t have the miraculous power of creating them out of different stuff. However we are not the only ones who make this basic request. Try taking a good building brick along to the jeweller’s and get him to make a set of diamonds out of it, and see what you get back. Maybe he can cut the brick, polish it and even engrave it, but no young lady will ever go into the raptures of delight that the glitter of diamonds is known to produce. You simply have to send him the right materials if you want the right results. Send us the right men and we’ll produce the right ministers too.

It stands to reason that there are many men who are of excellent ability in their own particular calling, but who would make poor ministers. The man who would be an outstanding success as a farmer, politician, lawyer or businessman, might well be a signal failure as a minister. But even in quite definite religious fields it is possible to be a real scholar in theological matters but hopeless as a minister. After all it would be a bit embarrassing for someone to say of a man, “as a minister he would make a good politician!”

How then can we recognise the right material? This is the question that every Session should be asking and trying to answer, for the Session must take a real interest in this matter of encouraging suitable young men to train for the ministry. It should not be left solely and entirely to the person concerned, but should be the province of the wise counsel of the leaders in the Church. It is quite easy in some cases where there is a young man of whom everybody says, “he ought to be a minister.” But in other cases the matter is not so crystal clear and obvious. So we will consider a few of the qualities to look for even though they are not exhaustive, which are found in the following areas:

1. Intellect. A would-be minister must have some ability to study and master difficult subjects, since the proper exposition of the Word of God demands much solid and unremitting labour, There is simply no place for ignorance and error in the high task of preaching and teaching the Word of God. But of course it is not difficult to measure a man’s intellectual abilities and this can fairly easily be ascertained by his examination results.

2. Service. It should be evident that a young man has some gifts, from the way he serves in the local Church, Unless he shows much promise here, he is unlikely to show fulfilment later on in the ministry. Let the Session ask such questions as: What fields is he now serving in? Does he show enthusiasm in them? Does he persist in anything he starts, or does he readily give up? Is he reliable in anything he undertakes, or does he let people down? In what spirit does he serve – in helpfulness and courtesy and genuine humility? Or is he ego-centric, arrogant and rude? What are his motives in serving – does he do things only for the glory he gets out of it, or does he do both small and great things unselfishly and for Christ’s sake?

3. Personal  relationships: Much attention is given these days to a man’s ability to get on with other people. It is of the highest importance in world politics as well as in important business transactions. But in the Church it is not unknown for congregations to be split and even destroyed by the failure in this realm of personal relations. Paul has some remarks on this subject that every Session should study carefully (1 Tim. 3.1-8 etc). A minister who is not only faithful but well-received by his people, can be of immense blessing to the Church.

4. Influence. Since no person in the congregation has the chance to exert such an influence as a minister, it is most desirable that any ministerial candidate should show evidence of his power to influence others for good. Let the Session inquire: Does he have an influence for good, or does it tend to be unhelpful or even detrimental? Has he been useful in leading others to Christ? Has he been instrumental in building up other young people? What kind of report does he have from others in the congregation? What is his reputation among outsiders those at his school, place of work, or in society in general?

When these areas are carefully explored, a Session should be in a position to give a fairly competent Judgment on the likelihood of young man becoming a good minister. If the man is not the right material, the Session should be quite open and tell him honestly what it thinks. If he is the right material he should be encouraged and every effort made to assist him to prepare himself for the arduous but blessed work of the ministry,

“Send us the materials and we’ll do the job”.

T.L. WILKINSON.

Australian Gleanings/Letter From New Zealand On Vacant Churches

Preamble: This week we look at two items from December 1976: Australian Gleanings and its New Zealand equivalent under the heading “A Letter From New Zealand”. Although they mainly deal with general news items, it is of particular interest that they both mention a problem that is still very much with us today: Ministerial vacancies. Of particular interest was a “quite unprecedented step” adopted by the Hamilton church. One which vacant churches today could at least give serious consideration. It may not be suitable, or even possible in every situation, but is worthy of discussion within Sessions, Church Councils and by congregations of vacant churches. It would also be interesting to hear from anyone who was a member of Hamilton at the time, how it all worked out from their perspective.

Australian Gleanings, December 1976

Things do not look bright when we consider the number of ministers available to a growing number of vacant churches in our land. It was not only vacancies that made things difficult lately, as there were a number of serious illnesses too which hampered the work in some of our churches over the past few months. New South Wales is faced with an unusually large number of vacancies with the churches of Newcastle, Gosford, Wollongong all vacant, Sutherland about to become vacant, and the churches of Dee Why and St. Mary’s having to go without their ministers for some time due to illness. There was at least one more encouraging fact to rejoice in for New South Wales as the Rev. P.J. Berghouse has arrived from Dunedin, N.Z., to take up work as the second man for Blacktown.

Tasmania is also faced with a number of vacancies in particular on the Northcoast, although the South has its problems at Kingston which has still not succeeded in getting a second minister and the days of the Hobart church having their minister are numbered also. Next in line follows South Australia where the Adelaide minister received advice from his doctor that retiring quickly would be the only sensible thing for him to do, due to ill-health.

It is not hard to imagine how grateful the people in the West were upon the arrival of their new Home Missionary, the Rev. N. Teekens, to take up evangelism work at Bunbury and the counsellorship of Brunswick Junction. A Classis Contracta did not spend much time on letting him in with open arms!

In the meantime we pray that the ministers who suffer from ill-health may recover soon. We understand that one of them, the Rev. Keith McPhail, may have to travel overseas for surgery. We thank God for ways and means of healing and pray that medical assistance in whatever form may be used by God in answer to the prayers of His people.

We read in the Perth News that the Sunday school-materials of the Christian Reformed Church has been introduced again to replace the unsatisfactory MPA lessons. It would be a healthy thing if more churches would look into this matter and try to supply the Sunday school-teachers and pupils with the best materials available.

It was good to learn that our brother Rev. A.I. De Graaf returned from overseas. He has been a busy man while away, but he will be on duty overseas again before long by the looks of things. May the Lord God bless him as the representative of our churches on the Moderamen of the Reformed Ecumenical Synod for the inter-synodical period, in particular while the R.E.S. seeks to keep up fruitful contacts among the churches involved in the struggle in Southern Africa.

The churches in Classis Victoria will conduct a seminar early next year for the benefit of their Home Mission Committees and other church members keen to receive instruction in the area of evangelism. Rev. Gerald Hanscamp, director of the Australasia Home Bible League, and Mr. Harry Burggraaf, by that time, the Lord willing, full time worker with the Scripture Union in Victoria, made themselves available for leading the course which will cover a fortnight’s period, two or three midweek meetings per week in each participating church. The time for the seminar will be before all the engines start running again for the regular church work at the local level. The churches will receive a request not to commence with their regular functions for the year 1977 until after the seminar has been completed.

The Dandenong and Doveton Home Mission Committees are faced with the difficulty that more people are needed to staff the Sunday school and the club work among the unchurched children at Narre Warren and Rowville. It is most encouraging to have so many children coming to the Sunday schools, but once God starts blessing the church with more people needing instruction the church must take a hard look at itself and see whether it is ready for the blessings prayed for and obtained.

In November the year’s activities tend to come to a close for a while. Yet, we should not forget the churches that are engaged in holiday-activities such as Beach Missions. May the Lord bless all who are preparing for this work. And meanwhile let those who stop for some time think about and look for fresh opportunities and new means of outreach for 1977,

WILLIAM F. VAN BRUSSEL

Letter From New Zealand, December 1976

The Christchurch session has been spending a fair bit of time on the question: “Where are we heading” and as that church represents about one-fifth of our New Zealand denomination, the rest of us must be anxiously waiting for the cutcome. The session asked themselves these questions: “How effective are we as a church; how effective are we as individual Christians; and is any purpose served by having more preaching places? But as no clear answer was evident the Christchurch session decided to have another look at things again early next year, and then particularly at the last question. However, in the following church-bulletin I read that session decided to install judder bars on the church drive to discourage some of the members from driving too fast and causing near accidents. It seems to me now that, while the Christchurch session still struggles for an answer to their “where are we heading?” some of the members speed away already and the question becomes relevant: “Whither goest thou?”

While Christchurch contemplates expansion, further down South, the Dunedin church has become vacant as their pastor since 1969, Peter J. Berghouse, accepted the call from the Blacktown congregation in N.S.W., Australia, to be their second minister, With only one minister in the whole of the South-Island (the Rev. Bill Wiersma) this must be of deep concern to us all. Please, remember them in your prayers. But Dunedin was not alone in becoming vacant. Hamilton suffered the same hardship when Rev. Ken J. Campbell accepted the call from Bucklands Beach. In a way, it is a stopgap method where the cork of one bottle of the same row is taken off and placed on another bottle but that seems to be inevitable in our democratic Reformed system of calling. Still, there is some good news too. After a fairly short vacancy, Hamilton has been able to secure the Rev. Manfred Schwarz from Australia and we all rejoice in his accepting the call and coming over to work in this part of God’s vineyard. And so the bottles on our ‘row’ are being corked up again.

During its vacancy, the Hamilton church took a quite unprecedented step, by appointing one of their able elders Mr. W. Poot, as full-time elder’. This meant that Mr. Poot gave up his job temporarily and is financially supported by the church. For the congregation it means to have a full time man in the field of service, making sure that the work of the church be continued as well as possible. If no minister is available for preaching, this full-time elder will lead the services, teach the catechism classes and do all the general pastoral duties including visiting.

Elder Poot’s reaction to this new experience as a full-time worker in God’s Kingdom is worth noting: “It has been quite a change from cutting grass, and pruning trees, to take care of the pastoral duties of a congregation. And as I feel that it is a very responsible task I need your prayers and support. To select a sermon for reading in the worship-services is a major task. Not that I haven’t got enough sermons to choose from. But to find the message of which one believes that that is the one God would have you to read is sometimes very difficult.

Preparation for the catechism-classes takes a fair bit of time, and envy (in the good sense) any minister who has got all the information and answers at his fingertips. I realise already that it is not only the youth who are going to benefit from these studies. It helps me too to ‘swot up’ what should have known all along”.

This brings me to the Wellington Presbytery where it was decided to ask the Hastings session to prepare a study-report on “Preaching by Elders”. It is a pity that often worthwhile reports remain in the files and confines of the church-courts instead of being shared by all through publication in the church-paper. This Presbytery also published a report on “Whom our ministers may marry”. Good reading and worthy to be published.

The Reformed Family of Churches (or is it Family of Reformed Churches) has had its Ecumenical Synod recently in South-Africa and the Mangere pastor, the Rev. Arthur W. Palmer, as our N.Z. Delegate, ably represented our churches there. The Auckland-churches have already enjoyed a number of meetings in which the Rev. Palmer related his experiences at the Synod. He also visited Israel, the Netherlands and England. His preaching now has an outlandish flavour. While he was absent from New Zealand, the congregation added a large study-room to the church, not so much to house the minister but to find a storage-place for his numerous books. All four walls are covered from bottom to top with shelves and shelves of books and some shelves carry two rows of them, one behind the other. And he still knows where to find what!

It has been said that, no matter what his rank or position may be, the lover of books is the richest and happiest of the children of men. Erasmus once said: “When I get a little money, I buy books; and if any is left, I buy food and clothes”.

After the Mangere pastor had shifted all his books from his house to the study at the church, his wife was overheard to say: “The Manse seems to be so empty now that the books are gone”.

DICK G. VANDERPYL

The Crisis and Challenge of a New Era

DIRK VAN GARDEREN, T&S, December 1976

Preamble: In this essay Dirk looks at various aspects of church growth from the early days of the Reformed Churches and the need to reassess methods of evangelism 25 years later as the demographic of the church has changed. It is now almost another 50 years since his article appeared in T&S. Has anything really changed or are the circumstances as described by Dirk in 1976 regarding evangelism and church growth still the same today? Are we a vibrant, growing denomination or have we fallen asleep at the wheel? It always strikes me as a sad reflection on the state of the church and the society we live in that there are so many empty church buildings which have been converted to housing or business premises and no longer used as places of worship. As the population has grown, churches have shrunk and closed. Dirks challenge to the church 50 years ago are just a relevant today. Can we move forward by learning from the lessons of the past?

The Crisis and Challenge of a New Era

The Reformed Churches of Australia and New Zealand are entering into a new era which urgently demands recognition and assessment.

The recognition and assessment of this new era is urgent because, whether we see it or not, we stand at a cross road which offers us two choices. The one road is the one shared by various migrant orientated churches that our country has seen and where we witness a slow, agonising stagnation, a gradual decline and copping out in spiritual life, and finally a membership that bases its right to existence solely on the once glorious past of the fathers and grandfathers of a bygone era. This road is common and broad! I well remember the visit of an elder of an Hungarian Reformed church here in Adelaide. He spoke of a group which, some thirty years ago, had been a vital, living witness. Now however, it consisted only of few ancients vainly trying to reintroduce the Hungarian ecclesiastical language to a group of youngsters who never came.

The other road is one of vitality, relevance and a spiritual impact that by grace and for grace binds, involves and grows.

Which road would our denomination wish to walk? We all know which one it should be. Dare we explore it, and are we able to recognise and plan for it?

A NEW ERA HAS ARRIVED

During the past half decade or so the Reformed Churches have been undergoing far-reaching changes. In isolation they seemed of little import, but combined they have altered the structure and impact of the church.

What are these changes?

1. We are no longer primarily a migrant orientated and assimilating community. For better or for worse, the main source from which we once drew our new members, namely the churches in the Netherlands, has dried to an insignificant trickle. The result is that whereas we were formerly very actively engaged in the task of migrant reception and assimilation in a foreign land, we are now idle in this. The task has largely been completed. Witness the defunct “sponsoring committees” which once played an important part in our church life.

2. We have, by and large, completed the work of building churches and manses. Working bees, building committees, the sacrifice of countless hours which once kept us busy in a most demanding way provided and achieved a real goal. The young people have “inherited” the fruit of these labours and must therefore look elsewhere in church life for meaningful work and sacrifice.

3. We are witnessing the rise of a new Australian born or bred generation to adulthood. Their “newness” is seen in a different approach to and relationship with the church. They do not need the church community in the same sense as their parents did. The ethnic, cultural and language bond which served to cement our fellowship no longer plays such an important role for these younger people. At the same time, this new generation wants to flex its spiritual muscles in new directions. But where and how? The truth of the matter would seem to be that this very generation upon which the founders of the denomination staked their future hope are currently regarded as apathetic and seen to drift away from the church.

4. Statistically we could look at the figures displayed in our current yearbook. Here we find that church growth hardly keeps up with natural growth. Why, for every two people baptised, only one person makes a profession of faith and the latter include those who join the church by means of a evangelism. All this holds true in spite of the Cadets, Calvinettes, Sunday School and Catechism classes for our own children. It is true in spite of our new generation not having any language hangups or a migrant mentality. It is true in spite of the fact that we are busily engaged in evangelism work such as Vacation Bible Schools, Literature distribution campaigns, Back to God Hour and even door to door visitation.

Much more could be said, but let us see these points as being brightly illuminated sign posts standing at the crossroads.

CHALLENGE OF A NEW ERA 

The situation described above forces us to acknowledge the critical nature of the new era. What is the challenge? What are the solutions which need be applied? Is there a definite and practical course to follow for the future?

I believe that, in dependence on the sovereign grace of God and to His glory, there is. It is a course of action that takes into account two mutually dependent, yet distinct factors. Consider them:

First, the struggle for identity. Here the course to follow aims at coming to terms with our particular identity as a Bible believing and based Christian Church. This course must be defined even more sharply in terms of our uniquely REFORMED character within the spectrum of so-called “protestant” Christianity,

Secondly, we need to come to terms with and find a real and meaningful method of evangelistic outreach and Church growth. Its the METHOD that needs to be discovered and implemented, a method that takes into account both our own identity as REFORMED churches and the uniquely Australian character of our nation.

Consider these factors separately but do not overlook the fact that both are mutually dependent and, although theoretically discussed in isolation one stands or falls in connection with the other.

1. REFORMED IDENTITY MUST BE REDISCOVERED 

Our release from the migrant oriented tasks as described above has resulted in making the members of our churches much more sensitive to and conscious of others. The subtle pressures of the Evangelicals and more especially the Charismatics have led to some remarkable developments in our midst.

a) There has been an increasing stress on holiness and personal piety. Within the context of a true Biblically based faith there is nothing wrong with this. However a problem arises when holiness and piety are regarded and approached as being in direct contrast with the lifestyle of the hardheaded arrogant and cigar-smoking Dutch Calvinist with his frosty doctrine of double predestination. Calvinism and holiness/piety have come to be seen as water and fire, and the one is sure to douse the other. What, it is felt, has dogmatic Calvinism in common with real Christian experience, piety and a striving for holiness and tenderness?

Can you see what happens? The holiness and personal piety so strongly characteristic of the Evangelicals and the Charismatics in practice thrusts Reformed theology into the background and even rejects it! Given this dilemma, our identity as a REFORMED church becomes hazy and is thrust into the background. A crisis of identity results.

The task of the pulpit, the catechism class and Bible study circles becomes most pronounced and specific.

b) Another pressure brought to bear upon our church community is one for SIMPLICITY. This is the simplicity that calls for “no creed but Christ”. Within this context we hear calls which inform us that all one needs to know is the Gospel, that Christ died for you and that in return He demands a life of obedience and service. Babes and infants, the unsophisticated little old lady and her faith are contrasted to the heavily dogmatic, oft theoretical doctrinal emphasis of the Reformed faith. How prevalent the attitude “as long as you know Jesus as your Saviour you can forget about total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, etc.” Three syllable words are anathema. Sermons fall victim to these increasing pressures and ears automatically close off.

No, this is not a figment of fantasy. The result again means that our Reformed identity falls by the wayside and we are at loss to understand why the Reformed Churches exist as a separate denomination.

See the task that confronts us?

c) The third type of pressure brought to bear is one often heard on TV or read of in the papers. People try to create a Church, critics try to create a sense of shame regarding the history of the church and its lack of action. Crusades against the Moslems, religious wars, persecution by the Church of heretics, etc. are brought in. Ireland, Lebanon and the Spanish inquisition. The church has failed to love its neighbour and ought therefore to get away from its bickering about doctrinal differences and concentrate on practicing love. “It is not so much what you believe, it is all a matter of what you do sincerely!” By their works you shall know them.

Now, even if we see through this we may nevertheless look with askance at the performance of the Church in terms of spiritual impact on the community. So little of it. The result is that we blame the rock-hard Calvinism with its accompanying slogan “in isolation our strength”, Again, in creating a dilemma, no matter how false, the Reformed faith is thrust into the background and a worsening crisis of identity results.

In suggesting that we are faced with a crisis of identity it becomes clear that the situation must be tackled in terms of a revival of REFORMED FAITH and PRACTICE! Rather than allow for the conscious or unconscious contrasting of Reformed theology with holiness, piety, simplicity and impact of faith, we must instead seek to rediscover their relationship. We need to look for and rediscover a particular theological identity which understands and loves the Reformed faith for what it really is.

2. THE DISCOVERY AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A METHOD OF CHURCH GROWTH

Nobody disbelieves the need for an evangelistic programme as part of church life. Church growth is an essential ingredient for the future of the Church. In actual fact, as Reformed Churches we have tried diligently to implement a wide variety of methods. What about results? Well, they are fully dependent upon the sovereign, irresistible grace of God, aren’t they?

But can we leave it at that?

Consider the following:

a) There has been a tendency to separate evangelistic outreach from church growth. It may well be a legacy of the Billy Graham crusades that we often hear it said that all that needs be done is simply (1) call a person to Christ and then direct this person back to his church of origin. But is this necessarily a proper procedure? Could it be that there are other reasons for adopting this approach? It is not uncommon to hear of a sense of reluctance to inviting people to join our church. The idea that Reformed preaching is too difficult or that a new convert would fail to feel at home is far from rare. Added to this is a lack of conviction concerning the Reformed faith (including the five points of Calvinism) which fails to make us convincing ambassadors for our denomination. Call to Christ but not to the Reformed Church! What basis have we for this separation of evangelistic outreach from church growth?

b) There also seems to be something missing or even wrong in terms of our method of church growth.

There have been the programmes for evangelism by means of Vacation Bible Schools, stands at shows, Sunday school, literature distribution. One man sows and another reaps as God gives the growth? But why should our church imagine itself to be sowing only and leaving reaping to others? Is that Scriptural?

There are currently a host of books written on methods and principles of church growth and the results mentioned make interesting reading. Again they beg the question, why does outreach, by the grace of God, work in some areas and churches and not in others? Is it a matter of God’s grace bearing fruits in some churches and not in others, or is it a matter of method as well? Have we a method suitable to our own particular character as a Reformed Church?

In the above considerations a number of questions are raised and they deserve an answer. There is a need to tackle and discover a method of church growth. A matter of survival which, in dependence on God’s grace must be tackled prayerfully, urgently and earnestly NOW! How? Study and practice! May I suggest the following:

1. That as a denomination we pool our insights on a methodology of Church growth. Let the subject become a matter of urgent study and perhaps even become a regular feature in the pages of “Trowel and Sword”.

2. That various groups of people, especially the younger generation, organise themselves to study the question of method and to implement it, to publicise their findings and circulate their trials and triumphs.

A booklist that T & S readers may find worthwhile consulting would include the books of: Paul E. Little: How To Give Away Your Faith; Know WHAT You Believe; and Know WHY You Believe; The earlier books of Roland Allan: Missionary Principles; Paul’s Missionary Methods and Spontaneous Expansion of the Church; D. James Kennedy: Evangelism Explosion, and This Is the Life: and W. Arn & McGavran: How to Grow a Church.

DIRK J. VAN GARDEREN

Shall We Adopt The New Or Maintain The Old?

Preamble: When Abram answered God’s call to pack up his family and his belongings and move to another land, he did so without hesitation. But at the back of his mind he no doubt asked himself the same questions that many immigrants asked themselves when they landed on the shores of Australia or New Zealand some seventy years ago, and continue to ask on arrival today. “Now What?” Do we live as strangers in a foreign country, or do we follow the adage, “When in Rome, do as the Romans do”? This in essence, is the question asked by a reader back in 1957. As you read this letter, think about what your response would have been to this reader. Maybe you have been in the same situation. What was your solution to this question? With hindsight, did you make the right decision? What do you advise newcomers to your church who come from a different background or culture?

If you have some words of wisdom to share with our readers, please write to us and share your thoughts. Also, please indicate whether you are happy for us to publish your story. Names will not be published unless you expressly give permission for your name to be included.

From Our Readers: SHALL WE ADOPT THE NEW OR MAINTAIN THE OLD? Trowel and Sword. February 1957

A wise man said: “The life of an immigrant is to compromise between adopting the new and maintaining the old”.

At one side, the circumstances we live in, press us to do away with many customs we were used to. At the other side, it is necessary to keep up the spiritual inheritance of our fathers, to stick to those ideas which are the backbone of our life.

When our first Dutch immigrants came here some six years ago, they were told to forget about all things behind, and to adopt the so called “Australian way of life”. Later on, this idea was replaced, also by our Australian friends, by: better not to put away TOO MUCH, but to assimilate into the Australian world carrying with us those good old principles, and to enrich the country we are now living in.

To compromise now, is to put away so much of our old customs etc. as we can dispose of without causing damage to our lives, and to keep up and bring into this new country of ours those old and true ideas which are really part of our lives, and of which we cannot dispose without much harm for ourself and our posterity.

We, immigrants, receive in this our new country many good things. We have a nearly unlimited freedom, and the possibility to build a new future for ourselves and for our children. However, as immigrants, we give away our labour, our loyalty, our intellect. And also, we must give to our Australian neighbourhood part of our spiritual inheritance, which we will never leave or forgot.

Even if our new friends are not too anxious to receive this inheritance, it is our Christian duty to show them the beauty and the riches of these old ideas, as to make them desirous to inherit with us.

But, what is the spiritual inheritance we brought with us when we came to our new country? Spiritual things are very difficult to express in words. But, we can see the most clear lines of it. Let us see ourselves through the eyes of the average Australian. They hold us for being industrious and hardworking, reliable, religious, regular churchgoers, as leading a sterling life. Against that, we have many vices ( talkativeness, envy, to mention a few), but that is often mainly confined to our own circle, and Australians do not see that so much.

Spiritual inheritance is of course connected with our own history and the history of our country. And now we migrants, must look for a compromise between old and new. We may never leave our inheritance, but must also take part, as far as possible, in the life of the Australian world around us.

The lines of the stamp of the Reformation should not fade. On the contrary, they must show perfectly, outside as well as inside our circle.

So help us God.

W.P., Orange NSW .

The subject touched here by br. P. deserves our attention indeed. However, I do not appreciate a word like compromising. Is it too “Australian minded” for us?

I prefer to speak about Integration which means so much as preserving your character and personality in a new world.

Provided, personality and character really exist!

Editor.

If you enjoyed this article, please “like” the article, forward the link to all and sundry and if you haven’t already done so, please subscribe to “tsrevisited.com” to receive all future articles which are sent weekly. Pieter and I would also be pleased to receive any comments or discussion points you care to raise about this or any other article previously posted.

The Value Of Church History

Rev A. Barkley, BA, “Trowel and Sword,” October 1954.

Preamble

Alexander Barkley and his wife Elsie came to Australia in 1947 to serve the Reformed Presbyterian Church in Geelong as its minister. He developed a close working relationship with the Dutch migrants coming to this part of the country in the early 50’s and shared their vision of establishing a college for the training of ministers in Australia. He was the first lecturer appointed to the fledgling Reformed Theological College and was given the task of teaching Hebrew, Old Testament Exegesis, Church History and Pastoral Theology, as well as Apologetics which was to be shared with a second lecturer. From 1957 he was appointed Principle and remained in that position until his retirement in 1978. But Church History was his greatest love. For three years I sat in his lectures, spellbound, as he made history come alive. Who better to write an article extolling the value of Church History?

The Value of Church History

Before delving into the past to examine afresh some of the great events in the history of the Christian Church, it might be profitable to preface such a study with a consideration of the question, What is the value of such history? Some might be inclined to form a hasty conclusion that it has practically no value. They argue that we are living in the present and have to face the future, so why be concerned about the past?  They are quite content to let “the dead past bury its dead” and live in ignorance of those happenings that have left such a mark upon generations of human beings. Needless to say we do not agree with any such view of history.

Others may not be so contemptuous of the record of past events, but they are content to abide in ignorance of them. They might know a few important dates, but otherwise they are void of any detailed knowledge. That unfortunately applies to the majority of professing Christians. They are not prepared to read the history of the Christian Church, nor become acquainted with the gigantic struggle for the preservation of the truth. They regard it as a rather dry morsel to be digested by a few who have a special delight in being old fashioned. For them life in this modern age is so much different, that the study of the past is regarded as a wast of time.

Before attempting to assess the value of a study of history, it is essential to define what we mean by history. If we regard it as the mere record of events, whether national, international or ecclesiastical it can be very uninteresting and dull.  Such is not the view of history that should prevail in Reformed circles. The true Christian must regard history as the record of the unfolding of the plan that God, in His wisdom, has formulated for the world. In the Scriptures we can see how God raised up the ancient empires and cast them down according to His will in the fulfilment of His purpose. What is true in that age is no less true today. When we see in history the working out of the plan of our Sovereign and Covenant God, then history becomes a study that moves the soul. As  Calvinists “We believe that the same good God, after He had created all things, did not forsake them nor give them up to fortune or chance, but that He rules and governs them according to His holy will, so that nothing happens in this world without His appointment.” (Belgic Confession, Art. xiii.). Dr. W. Hendriksen, in his excellent commentary on the book of Revelation shows how the true philosophy of history is theocentric. “The real mind,” he writes, “the real will which – while fully maintaining the responsibility of the individual instruments – controls this universe is the mind, the will of the Almighty God. Nothing is excluded from His dominion.” This is the view of history that we invite readers to accept.

To the person who believes in the Sovereignty of God, history is of inestimable value. For one thing it provides for him a more complete vision of the Majesty of God. The story of the rise and fall of empires reveals that human rulers, with all their pageantry and power cannot determine the destiny of nations. Secular historians may assign certain reasons for things that happen, but over all such there is the power of God. Some of these writers speak about “fate” or “chance” when something inexplicable happens, but to the Lord’s people it is another evidence of the wondrous works of God. They can sing with the Psalmist “The works of the Lord are great, sought out of all them that have pleasure therein.” It is therefore a healthy exercise for the soul to contemplate God in this fashion, rather than look upon events from a mere humanist viewpoint.

In contrast to this impression the record of events presses upon the reader the fact of sin and the depravity of the human heart. Dr. James Daane, writing in the Calvin forum, asserts that any true philosophy of history must begin with the Fall of man. How any person could read about the deeds that have been committed and then talk about all men being children of God and capable of saving themselves is an insoluble problem. It is remarkable that some of the most infamous of human deeds have found a prominent place in history while some of the more noble activities have scarcely been mentioned. We may glory in our victories in war and struggle with the problems that inevitably follow, but the real cause is to be found in the depravity of the human heart. The need for the message of the Gospel is all the more urgent in the light of history.

The value of Church history is also enhanced by the recognition of the fact, that God is ordering events in the interest of the Church. That principle is clearly demonstrated in scripture. In the midst of the conflicts between great empires we see the care God exercises over the little remnant of His chosen Israel. Our Lord pointed out that “for the elect’s sake’ certain days would be shortened, indicating the restraining power of God in events later recorded in history. Those who study Dr. Hendriksen’s book “More Than Conquerors” will derive no small measure of comfort from the fact that, in the book of Revelation we can see how God controls affairs in the interest of His Church. From the human level the Church is despised in the world, but not so in God’s sight. Whatever may happen in the conflicts between the nations, the Lord’s people can rest assured that final victory will not reside in the forces of evil.

Someone has said that a knowledge of the past is necessary to understand the present. The history of the Church throws a welcome light upon the problems that confront us today. Error has not changed with the passing of the centuries. The name may change but the nature of the heresy is very similar to its historical counterpart. God has been pleased to raise up leaders in the midst of His people to contend earnestly for the faith revealed in the Word of God. In the early centuries there was the conflict between Calvinism and Arminian teaching (which) led to the important Synod of Dort in 1618, which has given to the Reformed Churches the valuable articles known as the Canons of Dort. The doctrines of both Arius and Arminius are widespread in Protestant circles at the present time. The experience of the Church in the past should be a warning to us in these days when so many plead for tolerance. Our forefathers did not tolerate false teaching in their midst and their actions should be a challenge to us. Many of the ancient heresies nestle in the bosom of Modernism that has wormed its way into so many churches. Instead of the doctrines set forth in the historic confessions there is a substitute in the form of a social gospel, with its emphasis on human effort. There is still the old enemy of Romanism endeavouring to secure control and claiming to be the one true church. Multitudes are also marching under the banner of atheistic communism with its emphasis on the material. Our forefathers used the Sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God, as the chief weapon, and like them we must learn to use the same.

The knowledge of God’s faithfulness in the past should be a constant source of encouragement to every loyal servant of Christ. We are in splendid company, and as we read about the heroic deeds of those who were prepared to face death, rather than prove disloyal to the Lord, the words of Hebrews 12:1 assume a new significance. “Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us, looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith.”

Postscript

Prof. Barkley beautifully sums up one of the main reasons we started T&S Revisited. History in general is seldom taught in schools anymore leaving the vast majority ignorant of the past. As a result, what we often see now is a rewriting of history by activists and others to support a particular narrative that they are pushing. As Prof. Barkley points out, Christian Churches are not immune from this phenomenon and our best defence is to be well informed, particularly on the contents of scripture.

If you are of like mind, please “like” the article, forward the link to all and sundry and if you haven’t already done so, please subscribe to “tsrevisited.com” to receive all future articles which are sent weekly. Pieter and I would also be pleased to receive any comments or discussion points you care to raise about this or any other article previously posted.

Are We Still Bound To The Ten Commandments?

Rev. Dr. Klass Runia Th. D., Trowel and Sword, November 1958 – Jan/Feb 1959 

Preamble: Dr. Runia arrived in Australia in 1956 to take up the position of Systematic Theology at RTC. According to “A Church En Route” he is remembered for outstanding scholarship, which shines through in the article below despite the fact English was not his native language. Even so, he deals comprehensively with the question of how we should view the Ten Commandments, and the insights put forward in this article are just as relevant today as they were sixty-five years ago. In his own words, “This paragraph has become longer than I wanted and expected. But the problem is too important and too intricate to be dealt with in a few sentences.” We trust that you will agree.

The Question

A few weeks ago I received a letter from one of our readers asking me to write in “Trowel and Sword” about this question. The reason was that he had had a talk with some friends belonging to another Church. According to these friends we as Christians of the New Testament dispensation have nothing to do with the law. We belong to Christ and are bound to Him only. We do not live under the law, but under grace. The law has been our tutor (tuchtmeester) unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith is come, we are no longer under a tutor (Galatians 3:25,25). They also appealed to Romans 7:1-6. Our reader had pointed out that we have to read the law as redeemed children of God and that the law will guide us as such, but the friends had said: We have received the Holy Spirit and He will guide us into all the truth. If we live close to the Lord Jesus and have communion with Him by reading the Bible and by prayer, we automatically will not kill, steal, etc., but we will seek to love God and our neighbour.

It cannot be denied, that we face an important question here. In our Reformed confessions the significance of the law for our days is fully recognised. It plays an important part especially in the Heidelberg Catechism. Both in the Lord’s Day’s 2 and 34ff. the Catechism deals with the law, the one time as a mirror to detect our sinfulness, the other time to be the guide of our Christian life. Is our Catechism wrong in doing this?  Has the O.T. law had its day? Are we as Reformed Christians trapped in a legalistic system, that is contrary to the spirit of the N.T.? Is there a lack of trust in the Holy Spirit with us?

Especially in the English speaking world many a Christian shares the views of the friends of our reader. And it is a good thing for us that our old, trusted positions are challenged! Too many things have been accepted, in a traditional way, without being our conscious possession. We are not allowed to say beforehand: the others are wrong. The only thing we can and must do is: to turn to the Bible again and to listen to the message of God in the Bible. What does the Bible say here?

The Attitude of the Lord Jesus

The key text for understanding the attitude of the Lord Jesus towards the O.T.  law is undoubtedly Matthew 5:17. “Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I came not to destroy but to fulfil.” Actually this is a twofold statement. First Jesus says it negatively: “not to destroy”. So His attitude to the law and the prophets, that is: the Old Testament, is not at all disapproving. He is not a destroyer. No. He is a builder. I came to fulfil. That is the positive part of the statement. The great question now is: what does Jesus mean by: “to fulfil”? Does He mean that He Himself will fulfil, will keep the law, so that we are free from the law? No doubt it means that He came to keep the law. And that He did this for us. But I do not think that we are allowed to say, that this keeping of the law by the Lord Jesus means that now we have nothing to do with the law.

We have only to look at the context: In all the following verses of this long chapter Jesus does nothing else than telling us what the law actually means. By many examples He shows that the law of God covers man’s whole life. Not only his deeds and words, but also his thoughts. This is therefore the first meaning of “to fulfil”, that Jesus comes to tell us the deepest meaning of the divine law. It is true, in His explanation of the law we hear many critical sounds, but… this does not mean any criticism of the law itself, but only against the devaluation of the law in the rabbinical system.

He Himself fully acknowledges the law as divine and as binding. He gives us extensive exegesis and says: this is what you should do. In one word: He fully maintains the claim of the divine law.

When therefore a Pharisaic lawyer comes to Him and asks Him: “Master which is the greatest commandment in the law”, Jesus does not give a brand new commandment but He turns to the Mosaic law and takes from it two statements, pronouncing them as THE contents of the law: “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind”, and: “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself” (Matt. 22:34ff). The former of these commandments is taken from Deut. 6:5, the latter from Lev. 19:18. We can also point to other texts: Matt. 23:23, where He charges the Pharisees with “having left undone the weightier matters of the law” Matt. 5:20.

However, does this mean that Jesus accepts everything without more? Are all the aspects of the O.T. law accepted as equally binding? And then our answer must be: No, there is already a shift noticeable. The reason of this shift is: Jesus own coming. Read Matt. 6:16-18 (about fasting) and 9:14-17 (also about fasting, followed by the profound saying that new wine should not be put into old wine-skins). Through Jesus’ coming a completely new situation has come into existence.

He is the Messiah and in his coming the Messianic Kingdom has come in principle. Therefore all that was ceremonial in the O.T. law, all that pointed to Him, has to be discarded. How can the sons of the bride chamber mourn, as long as the bridegroom is with them? Matt. 9:15. How can a piece of undressed cloth be put on a new garment? How can new wine be put into old wineskins? (verses 16,17). 

But all this is not a revolutionary putting aside of the divine law! The law is only placed into a new relation to the new Messianic situation. In this relation some of the aspects of the law get a different meaning, are even abrogated, but there is no indication whatsoever, that the law as such, THE LAW AS THE DIVINE RULE OF LIFE, is put aside. On the contrary: He himself dies on the cross to fulfil the law and to bear its curse. In this way He makes true His own words, spoken to John the Baptist: “It becometh us to fulfil all righteousness” (Matt. 3:15). “All righteousness”, that means all that is demanded by God. He himself fulfils it. And He is doing it for all those who believe in Him, that they too may enter into the kingdom of God, that they all may become His children, who wholeheartedly want to live according to His demands.

(Continued in Jan/Feb 1959)

The Attitude of Paul

All the afore-mentioned statements of Jesus were spoken by Him before His death on the Cross. Somebody might say: All these words hold true only for the period before His death on the cross. His death was THE great turning point. Through His death everything has been changed, so that we now have nothing to do with the law.

Is that so? We cannot do better than turn to the apostle Paul, who more than all the other apostles has occupied himself with the problem of the law. In the first place he knew the struggle with the law out of his own experiences. Had he not been a Pharisee himself? Better than anybody he knew the danger that was threatening the Jew in this regard, namely to use the law as a means of self-made salvation. On this aspect he is writing in his epistle to the Romans.

Further there was the constant struggle with the Judaists (sic) who tried to destroy his preaching of the gospel of grace, by imposing the whole Old Testamentic (sic) law, especially the demand of circumcision, on the newly converted Gentiles. Against these Judaists (sic) he writes in his epistle to the Galatians.

What is his attitude?

It is not an easy thing to say that in a few words. Every simplification does injustice to his profound and comprehensive views. Though the problem of the law indeed is THE great problem of his life, yet he is not a single-rack man and never becomes one sided. There are several lines in his thoughts on the law.

1. He utterly rejects every possibility for man to obtain salvation through the law, Rom. 2:20 “By the works of the law shall no flesh be justified in His (God’s) sight”. There is but one way of salvation: the righteousness through faith in Jesus Christ, which now has been manifested apart from the law, though it was witnessed already by the law and the prophets (verses 21,22). His conclusion is very clear and leaves no room for any misunderstanding: “We reckon therefore that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law” (28). Also Abraham, the great ancestor of all the Jews, did not receive the promise through the law, but through the righteousness of faith (4:13). Cf. also Gal’ 3:11. So the whole system, set up by the Jews to use the law as a ladder to heaven, is fully discarded.

2. Is then the law of no importance at all? On the contrary. It indeed is the way of life for everybody who will fulfil it (Gal. 3:12). Yes we all actually should do it. But we cannot do it. So we all are liable to eternal punishment, having deserved the curse of the law. But Christ has come to fulfil the law in our place and to redeem us from the curse, having become a curse for us (Gal 3:13). Therefore the law is not any longer our master. “But now we have been discharged from the law, having died to that wherein we were held: so that we serve in newness of the spirit, and not in oldness of the letter” (Rom. 7:6).

Here the question comes to us: what does Paul mean by the word law? The answer must be: the THORA, (sic) that is the whole Mosaic law, the whole complex of laws as they have been given at Mount Sinai, with their moral, ceremonial and political aspects. In other words, Paul is not speaking of the Ten Commandments, or of the law of God in a general way, but of the law in its very specific form, as it has been given to Israel after the exodus. (Cf. Gal. 3:17, Rom. 5:20). 

Why did God give this law to His people? Paul himself answers this question, and that in a twofold way. (a) This law was given to Israel to make it aware of its sins. It was given that sin might be recognised as sin (cf. Rom. 7:8-11). (b) The law was a tutor (tuchtmeester, paedagoog) (sic) unto Christ. It was intended to awake the desire for Christ in the people by its innumerable commandments and its minute provisions. In this regard it was really a hard master.

This last function, however, it has lost, when Christ Himself came. As to this Christ indeed is the end of the law (Rom. 10:4). The Greek word used here by Paul has the same double meaning as the English word end, namely last part and goal. As a tutor the law has no say over us any more (Gal. 3:25). We are no longer under the law (Gal. 5:18).

3. On the ground of this we are not surprised that exactly Paul is the great advocate of Christian Liberty. Constantly he says to the Romans and the Galatians: ye are free. Ye are no longer servants, but ye are free children. Read Gal. 4:4,5,31, where he stresses that Christ who was born under the law, redeemed us, which (sic) were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. And then he writes those famous words: “With freedom did Christ set us free; stand fast therefore, and be not entangled again in a yoke of bondage” (cf. Rom. 8:2). Yes, Paul does not permit this freedom to be infringed by anything. Fierce therefore is his opposition to the doctrines of the Judaists, who want all the converted Gentiles to be circumcised. Warningly he says that everyone who has himself circumcised is a debtor to do the whole law (namely of Moses). (5:2ff). “But if ye are led by the Spirit, ye are not under the law (verse 18).

4. Does this letter mean, that Paul in appealing to the Spirit rejects the law in every respect, that he even does not know of the law as a divine rule of life? Is there no good in the law at all? – Whosoever draws this conclusion, has not yet seen the full picture. Such a one is simplifying Paul’s doctrine.

Exactly in Romans 7, where he speaking of the freedom of the law, he is stressing time and again, that the law itself is “holy and righteous, and good” (12). Read also verse 7 and verse 13 (“that which is good”). And in verse 14 he says: “The law is spiritual”. 

Now you may say of course: but we do not deny that the law is good. Was it not given by God Himself? We only assert, that it has no binding power now.

But listen then again to Paul. He has still more to say. Read Rom.8 and Gal.5. They are the chapters in which Paul constantly speaks of the freedom we have won through Christ, and of the guidance we receive from the Spirit. And what do we find there? Exactly there Paul is referring to the law! 

Rom.8:2, “The law of the Spirit of life in Christ made me free from the law of sin and of death”. 8:4, In Christ God condemned sin in the flesh, that the ordinance of the law might be fulfilled in us who walk not after the flesh, but in the Spirit”. 8:7, “The mind of the flesh is not subject to the law of God, followed by the contrasting  verse 9 “but ye are not of the flesh, but in the Spirit”.

Of great importance is particularly Gal. 5:13ff. First in verse 13 Paul reasserts emphatically: “For ye, brethren, were called for freedom”. That is the starting point and Paul does not want to minimise it in any way. But then he goes on and says: “only use not your freedom for an occasion to the flesh, but through love be servants one to another”. Why is that necessary? And then the remarkable answer is: “For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself”.

To point out the Christian way of life, Paul too falls back on the Mosaic law! Paul can do this, because he first has freed the law from the legalistic system, which was made of it by the Jews. Paul knows Jesus Christ. He knows: Jesus Christ has fulfilled the whole law. Now all the shadows can disappear. But also: now the law in its original meaning has been restored, namely to be a rule of life, of the new life of thankfulness. And so in the same chapter where he says: “If ye are led by the Spirit, ye are not under the law” (Gal.5:18). He also, after having mentioned the fruit of the Spirit (22), can write: “Against such there is no law”, or better translated: “against such the law is not” (23). And likewise in the following chapter he speaks of the “law of Christ” (6:2).

Read further also Rom. 13:8-10, where Paul several of the Ten Commandments mentions (sic), and that in such a way, that they are seen as still binding. Yes his conclusion is this very positive statement: “Love therefore is the fulfilment of the law”.

Our final conclusion therefore must be: “The New Testament accepts the law in a positive sense, but…. within the framework of Christs’s work! He who has been redeemed by Christ, may now serve his God in newness of heart and according to His divine will, revealed in His law. He may live, as the Isrealites should have lived according to the law. For are not exactly the Ten Commandments prefaced by the divine proclamation of redemption: I am Jehovah thy God who brought thee out of the land of Egypt? 

The rejection of the law by appealing to the Spirit is a very dangerous way. There is the permanent danger that (our) own conceptions are conceived of as revelations of the Spirit. But how do we know what the Spirit is saying to us? Does He speak directly? Or does He speak through the revealed Word? Why does the friend of our reader, who asked the question of this article, know that he should not steal, kill, etc.? Is it not, because the Spirit has spoken to him too through the Old Testament law? The Spirit will guide us into all the truth. Indeed. We never may doubt of this promise. But also: He shall not speak from Himself, but He shall take it of Christ. And where do we find Christ? In that Word, that is a lamp unto the feet and a light unto the path. That is the Word  of both Old and New Testament, of both Law and Gospel.

This paragraph has become longer than I wanted and expected. But the problem is too important and too intricate to be dealt with in a few sentences. I would ask you all to read it with your Bible in your hand. For the Bible itself must have the last word.

K. Runia