Opportunity knocks. Are You Answering The Door?

Pastor David Groenenboom. Trowel & Sword. April 2002

Preamble: The 1989 movie “Dead Poets Society” starring the late Robin Williams highlighted the catch cry “Carpe Diem – Seize the day”. This in a nutshell is the message that David brings to us in this pointed article. We are often not good at taking opportunities as they present themselves; or to put it more accurately, that God places in front of us. Those of you who have read “Trowel & Sword Special Edition,” may remember the quote from the movie “Evan Almighty” which also speaks of taking opportunities. Remember, “Opportunity knocks only once” is a common proverb advising that you must take advantage of a special chance immediately, as it may never return. It emphasizes being prepared and proactive, as hesitating or waiting can lead to missing out on significant moments, (or opportunities).

Opportunity knocks. Are You Answering The Door?

This year I turn 44. I started work in 1975, and I entered the ministry in 1986: that’s 16 years as a serving pastor. Or 5844 days! What could someone accomplish if they had all those days at their disposal. What did I accomplish? Er, …next question, please!

The moment we start to think about time, we should also think of opportunity. Assuming you read this on April 1, there are 275 opportunities left this year to accomplish things that will make you and others better leaders, or make you more effective Christians. Get serious! After all, Jesus was. Read Matt 25:14-30, and replace the word “talent” with “opportunity”. A sobering exercise!

We Christians have some things to learn here. While we move slowly forward, and sometimes backward, opportunities pass us by and we hardly see them. Is it because we just don’t think in terms of effective churches and equally effective witness? Interestingly, the Bible only speaks of opportunities being “seized” – by the evil one (Rom. 7:8,11). Because of this, Christians are called to make the most of every opportunity, and to be wise in how we act (Eph. 5:16; Col. 4:5). But think about it, when was the last time your church really seized an opportunity?

Every time you pay a visit to people in your pastoral care, you are presented with an opportunity to encourage them toward maturity in Christ. Do they need a word of congratulation for a job well done? Do they need someone to challenge them with an ill-thought life direction? Do they need a listening ear as they struggle with the bucket-load of pain life has dumped on them? Opportunities revolve around needs.

That’s why opportunities come thick and fast – some are discerned, others are created. We discern opportunities when we take the community pulse, and speak to the issues people are wrestling with. We discern opportunities when we notice a few teens who show leadership potential, and we sponsor them for Target 21 or Club 5 programs. Maybe they won’t be the best leaders just yet, but we get excited about how they could develop if they (and we) make the most of their opportunity.

It’s like bird-watching! Most people walk through a park oblivious to the variety of bird-life around them. They hardly hear the sounds of the mudlark, or the lorikeet. And how do you tell a magpie from a butcher-bird? They’re just all budgies of different sizes, aren’t they? But for the trained eye it’s very different. But only because the eye has been trained to spot the difference.

Leaders need to train their eyes, ears and hearts to discern the opportunities around them. They need to take the pulse of their church and community. They need to have some idea of what will provide the best context for preaching the Gospel and growing the church. Opportunities will be discerned.

Opportunities may also be created, and then, in not the most ideal circumstances. Sometimes we encounter hard and sharp situations in the body of Christ. A family falls apart. A teen dies tragically. The pastor accepts a call, and we wonder how another will ever be found. This is where a leader will seek to create an opportunity to affirm an important truth. The broken family provides an opportunity for warm care, prayerful support, and words of hope. A tragic death provides an opportunity to affirm that life cannot be taken for granted, to prophetically challenge irresponsible behaviour, to point people to the security of Jesus’ promise of life.

How we respond to the events around us will determine whether we use our opportunities wisely. Robert Maxwell reminds us that Saul and David both faced similar life contexts. They were surrounded by godly men, both faced great challenges, both had the choice to change and grow, both were called to follow in faith. Only one did. Each life may have taken a different course had they responded differently to the opportunities God gave them.

How you respond to your opportunities will affect the work God does in the people around you and the place he has put you.

Discuss

1. How could your church engage your community with the Gospel now? What are the big issues your community is dealing with, and how might you address them?
2. What would need to happen for you to be faithful with these opportunities (e.g. Matt 25:21. Eph 5:16)?
3. Which present challenges that you face could be turned into opportunities for growth?
4. How could you change your meetings so that you would be more effective at discerning and creating opportunities to be more effective as God’s people?

David Groenenboom

We look forward to receiving feedback about any of our posts. We also encourage you to share our posts with family, friends and acquaintances; in fact anyone you think may appreciate and/or benefit from the knowledge and wisdom handed down to us from the past.   To view previous posts visit our website at www.tsrevisited.com

Recent Comment – In The U.S. – When President Kennedy Was Assassinated
A great report from one of our respected leaders of the past showing leaders of families and communities how to respond to calamities in out lives. Our countries were still Christian countries then. What would the responses look like in our days and later?
Keith

Leave a comment

In The U.S. – When President Kennedy Was Assassinated

Rev. G. Van Groningen. Trowel & Sword. Jan/Feb 1964

Preamble: Occasionally an event occurs so momentous that most people remember where they were and what they were doing when they first heard the news. The assassination of President John F. Kennedy was such an event. Aside from the obvious ramifications of the event itself, Pieter made the following observations regarding this article:
“I found this article fascinating for 2 main reasons:
1. The way the VG family responded to the tragedy under the leadership of dad but with the willing response of the children. How do we as families deal with the amazing chaos of this world in a Christlike manner and what does this say to our children – positively and negatively?”
2. The other response which I thought was fascinating was the description of what was happening in the culture/society around them – including the media. Compare that with today and the hysteria and orchestrated blame and fury that accompanies events both serious and trivial.”

Friday, November 22, 1963.

Grandmother had come at 2.15 to baby sit. Mrs. Van Groningen had a speaking engagement with a senior ladies Bible study group at 2.30. I had an appointment with Mr. Schultze, publicity chairman for the Board of Foreign Missions. We were to review a slide-tape programme we had prepared some 3 1/2 years previously. I had dropped Mrs. Van Groningen off at her appointed place; I walked into the Mission Board headquarters and glanced at the clock: 2.53 “well on time”.
“Hello Bill”.
“Have you heard that President Kennedy died?’
“What????”
“Haven’t you heard that he was shot a little while ago?”
“Shot?? Where? by whom? why?”
“We just heard it over the radio a few minutes ago, as he was riding through Dallas a sniper shot him and Conally, Texas’ governor, is badly wounded.”
“Really????” A shake of the head solemnly nodded a strong affirmative.
“The president is assassinated”.

A shiver iced up and down my spine. A strange numb sensation swept through my chest, vibrating strangely in the area of my heart. All the office personnel were gathered around a little office radio. There was just no doubt about it! President Kennedy was dead – felled by a bullet fired by someone on American soil. How was it possible!!! We went about our work – reviewing the programme prepared some years before, but our minds were in Texas. Our hearts were in Washington, in the White House, with the nation, with the fatherless children and the young widow.

At 4.30 I picked up Mrs. Van Groningen. Her meeting had been a sort of a failure. How could ladies keep their minds on Australian details of church work, the mother’s part, when tragedy, read of in history books, was suddenly blared over the nation as “news of today!”
As the broadcasting corporations and local stations quickly cancelled all commercial announcements and stood ready to report the latest news, the announcers began to give notice of cancelled meetings. How could a nation play and watch football and basketball games while it stood stunned, shaking its head in unbelief at the tragedy just happened? How could High School dramatists try to amuse audiences when people were grieving and weeping? How could choirs sing joyously when moans and groans of sorrow burst forth from a nation?

New meetings were suddenly scheduled. “At 8 p.m. there will be a special prayer meeting in the Godwin Heights Christian Reformed Church”. Yes, indeed, it was time to pray, to confess our tragic national, communal and personal sins. It was time to cast ourselves individually and communally before the throne of grace and plead for mercy, forgiveness and the fullness of the Spirit.
We remained glued to our radios and T.V. sets. It was a fact! Kennedy was dead!
The blues singers were too blue to sing. The jazz boys were too confused to strum their strings. The dancers were too much in a whirl to go through their motions. It was relieving to have our radios refrain from pushing unwelcome songs, ditties and tunes into our rooms. We had a silent supper. Then we read from God’s Word. And then we prayed. Each one of us prayed, 3 year old David prayed also. He prayed for his fellow 3 year old American who suddenly had become fatherless. Six rear old Beverly prayed for her 6 year old unknown friend Caroline who had lost her father. One of the boys prayed for Mrs. Tippit. Another for the killer. Still another for the widow of the president, and then we all prayed for our nation.

Friday evening, 8 p.m. the Van Groningen family was scheduled to give an Australian programme in the Brookside Chr. Ref. church, some 3 miles south of Grand Rapids. Would this meeting be cancelled also?
At 7.30 the telephone rang. Mr. Davis, chairman of the programme for the evening, was calling to say that the meeting would not be postponed unless I insisted. Mr. Davis was relieved to hear that we preferred to go on with the programme. We agreed we would have a special prayer meeting the first half hour of the meeting.
That night the skies wept also. Torrents of rain swept down house roofs, drains and ditches. But, after we had prayed, we were able to concentrate on presenting the work of the Church of the Lord in Australia.

November 23.

Saturday was a strange day! Radios had no music other than national anthems and hymns. The only stories heard came from Dallas, Washington or from the various capitols of the world.

November 24.

Sunday the nation was quiet. Many people worshipped the Lord in their churches. Those who did not worship thus were subdued.
The radios announced that all schools were to be closed on Monday. All banks and department stores also from 12-2 o’clock. Many firms would close for half a day. All in tribute to President Kennedy – the fallen leader who was to be buried the next day.
The church services were conducted with a conscious need to confess sin and to plead for grace. Many ministers had made a new sermon after Friday 3 p.m. These men felt the need to preach judgment and mercy in a specific context that day.
Early afternoon: “Bulletin’ Bulletin!!” “What now?” Another tragedy!
The apprehended man, to be charged with assassination, lay dead in the very hospital where the president had died! How was it possible?!! In a few hours the T.V. films re-ran in slow motion the scene of Oswald’s murder. The nation looked on in horror and writhed! Was this the free United States? Yes, it was possible to be shot down in cold blood in the midst of law officers. Who – who is secure in this life? Is there no protection or safety among men anymore at all?

November 25 – mourning Monday.

A strangely quiet morning it was. From early morning folk sat before their T.V. sets or before their radios. The freeways were all but deserted. The streets were strangely quiet. No children went off to school that morning. People sat watching the happenings in Washington.
And when the funeral procession began from the Rotunda to the White House and on to the cathedral, people wept unashamedly. All admired the brave young widow marching in the procession. She seemed indeed to possess the grace and strength of the Lord. Could a Roman Catholic also experience the real comfort of the Lord in the hours of grief and women, and tragedy?? Tight lips, lumps in throats, glistening mists in eyes – so men and women, teenagers and children sat in in front of their T.V. sets and radios.
Yes, the President was dead!; buried!; gone!
At one o’clock I took my 4 oldest sons along to a special prayer service in one of the Chr. Ref. churches. The church was packed. The Scriptures were read. There we prayed. The Word of God was also proclaimed. “All flesh is as grass!  The Word of God abides.”

How grateful we were, and still are, for a Sovereign Lord and Master enthroned on High, who holding all nations in His hand will never be dethroned, felled by a bullet, overthrown by a coup.

G. van Groningen

We look forward to receiving feedback about any of our posts. We also encourage you to share our posts with family, friends and acquaintances; in fact anyone you think may appreciate and/or benefit from the knowledge and wisdom handed down to us from the past.   To view previous posts visit our website at www.tsrevisited.com

Leave a comment

Christ Singing In The Psalms

Tim Vanderstoep. Trowel & Sword. December 2010

Preamble: This week’s article, “Christ Singing In The Psalms” is the result of a request by Rita de Waard. As mentioned each week we are grateful for any feedback we receive from our weekly posts, including requests for past T&S articles which may have had an impact on your life. Apart from anything else, they encourage us to continue bringing these articles to you with the hope and prayer that they will make a difference and help to bring you closer to our Lord as indeed they have done for us as we bring them to you.
We recently sent a request to all ministers for contributions towards a second “Special Easter Edition of Trowel and Sword” but as yet have received no responses. We would also be happy to receive contributions from you, our subscribers as well, keeping in mind that T&S was always intended as a magazine for the whole family. Articles should be your own work, not articles from a third person. If you do wish to contribute something, send them to our email address at: tsrevisited@gmail.com

Christ Singing In The Psalms

Finding Christ In The Psalms

When we as believers open our Bibles, we expect to meet Christ. In other words, we believe that the Bible is all about Christ. Jesus himself taught this, and rebuked the Pharisees for studying the Scriptures, but ignoring him Jn. 5: 39-40).

One book of the Bible that reveals much about Christ is the Psalms. This much-loved book is often quoted and applied to Christ in the New Testament, and has given voice to the joys and sorrows of believers in every age.

However, it is not always easy to find Christ in the Psalms. We are aware of a dozen or more so-called “Messianic Psalms”, because they are directly applied to Christ in the New Testament, such as Psalms 16, 22, 72, and 110. But if we believe that the Old Testament Scriptures point to Christ, shouldn’t all the psalms be “Messianic”? And if so, how do we rightly (not arbitrarily) interpret them in order to see Jesus?

In this article I would like to suggest that when David in the Psalms speaks in his position as the King of Israel, we should actually hear Christ speaking.

The Davidic King is a Picture of Christ

We can make this connection because in the Old Testament, the Davidic King is a picture or “type” of Jesus. Just as the Passover Lamb points forward to Jesus the Lamb of God, the Davidic King of Israel points forward to Jesus our King.

Beginning with David, the role of the Davidic King was to lead Israel in God’s ways by defeating Israel’s enemies and governing the people righteously. Both David and his successors failed to live up to this calling, but God promised that he would raise up a descendant of David who would reign righteously forever (2 Sam 7). Old Testament believers from then on awaited the arrival of the ‘Son of David’ who would defeat Israel’s enemies and usher in an era of peace and joy. He arrived in the person of Jesus (Lk 1:32-33).

An awareness of Davidic King typology should guide our interpretation of the stories about David. For instance, in the story of David and Goliath, we should see that David is a picture of Jesus: the victorious saviour of God’s people.

The Davidic King in the Psalms

We should also look for the Davidic King in the Psalms. In fact, we find the King nearly everywhere in the Psalms, and as a rule, should see Christ in these references. These references can be divided into three groups:

1. Words spoken about the King in the third person (“lest he be angry” Ps 2:12)
2. Words spoken to the King in the second person (“you are my Son” Ps 2:7b)
3. Words spoken by the King in the first person (“He said to me” Ps 2:7a)

Note here that the same Psalm may contain references from more than one category.

Following the New Testament

When reading the Psalms, it is right to see Christ in the Davidic King, because the New Testament does. For example:

1. Third Person – “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord” is spoken about the Davidic King in Ps. 118:26, and applied to the triumphal entry of Christ in John 12.
2. Second Person – “Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever” (Ps 45:6) is said to the Davidic King on the occasion of his wedding, and applied to Jesus in Hebrews 1.
3. First Person – “You will not abandon me to the grave, nor will you let your Holy One see decay” (Ps 16:10) is said by King David and is applied to the resurrected Christ in Peter’s Pentecost sermon.

Thus, when the New Testament writers interpret the Psalms, they assume that references to the Davidic King are ultimately speaking about Christ. This typology is used across the New Testament, giving us a method of interpretation, rather than unaccountable insights. As we seek to find Christ in the Psalms, we too should carefully trace the Davidic King typology at work.

The Problem of the First Person Davidic King Psalms

Of the three sorts of references to the Davidic King, and thus to Christ, I have a hunch that the ‘first person psalms’ are the most overlooked in the way we interpret Scripture. If this is the case, this is not good because the category is a large one involving over 50 psalms which can teach us much about Jesus.

Which psalms are in this category? Not every psalm written by David is a “King” psalm. In some psalms like Ps. 32 and Ps. 51 we find David speaking simply as a child of God. He speaks to God of his sins, his joy in God, and his desire for a closer walk with God. These psalms are usually easy for us to understand and sing as believers, because we go through the same things.

However, in other psalms, we find David speaking “with his crown on” as the King of Israel. These psalms have a common theme: “enemies”.  For instance, in Ps 18 and Ps 22 we find David speaking of his struggles with his enemies, and his God-given victory.

These psalms are not always easy for New Testament believers to apply. For example, what do we mean when we read or sing from Psalm 18, “I pursued my enemies and overtook them … I crushed them so that they could not rise”? (v.37-38) Or what would we mean if we said, “You have made me the head of nations … As soon as they hear me, they obey me”? (v.43-44) Or who of us can really say, “I have been blameless before him and have kept myself from sin”? (v.23)

A Possible Solution

These passages do not fit us neatly because they are not first of all about us. Instead, they refer partly to David as King of Israel, ultimately to Christ as King of Kings, and then, by extension, to us – the people of the King.

First, in a limited way, these psalms describe David’s experience as King of Israel. As he speaks as the King, he is aware of his enemies, his dependence on God, God’s power to save, and his own critical place in securing the well-being of Israel.

Ultimately, however, these psalms are even more true of Christ.

  • King David’s enemies were many, but Christ fought all the powers of darkness and could say more truly, “Those who hate me without reason outnumber the hairs of my head.” (Ps 69:4)
  • King David suffered at the hands of his enemies, but Christ could actually say, “They have pierced my hands and my feet.” (Ps 22:16)
  • King David strove to be righteous, but Christ can truly say, “I have been blameless before [God] and have kept myself from sin.” (Ps 18:23) .
  • King David was confident that God would save him from death, but Christ, who would rise, could truly say, “You will not abandon me to the grave, nor will you let your Holy One see decay. (Ps 16; Acts 2).
  • King David enlarged the borders of Israel, but Christ received “all authority in heaven and on earth,” (Matt 28:18) and can truly say, “You have made me the head of nations.” (Ps 18:43)
  • King David loved the people of God, but Christ gave himself up for his bride and can more truly say,”they are the glorious ones in whom is all my delight.” (Ps 16:3).
  • King David led Israel in worship, but Christ is gathering worshipping “disciples of all nations” and can more truly say, “I will praise you among the Gentiles.” (Ps 18:49; Rom 15:9)

Application

Finally, we can apply these psalms to ourselves as the people of King Jesus. When David sang as the King of Israel, he did not sing alone. Rather, an entire nation sang with him, because he was their King and their life and well-being were bound up with his. When the King was at war, so were his people; when he triumphed, his people rejoiced.

We see this bond clearly in Ps 22, where the King calls on the people to praise God for saving him. He says, “You who fear the Lord, praise him! … For he has not despised or disdained the suffering of the afflicted one” (v.22-24). Likewise, in Ps 35:27, the King says, “May those who delight in my vindication shout for joy and gladness.’ Victory for the King meant life and joy for his people. (Ps 144: 9-15)

Just as Israel sang with their King, we as New Testament believers can sing with our King. His enemies are our enemies: Satan, sin, and death. His Father is our Father and we trust him to save us.

In fact, because we are united to Christ, we share his life even more closely than Israel shared King David’s. In Christ, we have been made righteous and on this basis can truly say, “I have kept the ways of the Lord.” (Ps 18:21). In Christ, we are more than conquerors and will one day be able to say with him, “I crushed [my enemies] so that they could not rise.” (Ps 18:38; Rom 16:20).  In Christ we look forward to resurrection and can say with him, “you will not abandon me to the grave.” (Ps 16:10). In Christ we have become kings and will reign with “the head of nations.” (Ps 18:43; 2 Tim 2:12).

And so we have in the first person Davidic King psalms, a body of songs which give voice to the joys and sorrows of the life we share with our King. In them we hear Christ singing: let’s sing them with him.

Further Study

Christ speaking: Psalm 3, 4, 5*, 6, 7, 9, 11, 13, 16*, 17, 18, 22*, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30, 31*

34*, 35*, 36*, 38?*, 40*, 41*, 42-43, 52, 54, 55, 56, 57, 59, 61, 62, 63, 64, 66, 69*, 70, 71, 86, 88?, 92, 94?*, 101, 102*, 108, 109*, 116*, 119: 20-24?, 120, 138, 139:19 ff, 140*, 141, 142, 143, 144.
(* quoted in NT)

Tim Vanderstoep

We look forward to receiving feedback about any of our posts. We also encourage you to share our posts with family, friends and acquaintances; in fact anyone you think may appreciate and/or benefit from the knowledge and wisdom handed down to us from the past.   To view previous posts visit our website at www.tsrevisited.com

Leave a comment

The Problem Of War (2)

Herman Bavink (Translated by Rev. Steven Voorwinde)
Trowel & Sword. Nov. 1975

(Continued From Last Week’s Post)

These utterances of Christ clearly imply that there are spiritual possessions which are of much greater value than prosperity and peace. The commands of the moral law are not all on the same level, but occupy a different rank. God comes before man. Love for Him is the great and foremost commandment (Matt. 22:38). We must obey Him rather than men (Acts 5:29). His kingdom and his righteousness must therefore be sought above all things (Matt. 6:33). For the kingdom of heaven is a treasure and a pearl of great price (Matt. 13:44.46). Thus a man is worth more than the whole world (Matt. 16: 26), the soul more than the body, life more than food, the body more than clothing (Matt. 6:25). These spiritual and material goods are not necessarily mutually exclusive. They can be possessed and enjoyed together. Yet in this present world they may clash and collide with one another again and again. Hence we are placed in a position where we must choose one or the other. The teaching of Christ and the apostles, then, instructs us that we should without hesitation abandon the lesser in order to partake of and preserve the greater. For the sake of Christ and the Gospel the right eye must be torn out and the right hand cut off (Matt. 5:29,30). Father and mother, son and daughter must be left, life lost and the cross taken up (Matt. 10:37-39; 16:24-26; etc.). Christian morality includes absolute self-denial. Life, prosperity and peace are not the highest possessions. There are cases where what is dearest must be forsaken, abandoned and opposed. The martyrs have left us an example of this. Even Christ did not please himself, but for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame (Rom. 15:3; Heb. 12:2).

The same idea may yet be elucidated from another perspective. Our response to the moral law is love, which is the fulfilment of the law and the perfect bond of unity (Rom. 13:10; Col. 3:14). By this definition Christian love is essentially distinguished on the one hand from Buddhist pity (sic) and on the other from so-called free love. According to Buddhism the cause of all misery lies in being. All creation, especially creation that is alive, is thus lamentable and the object of pity. We must exercise that pity mainly for our own sake in order to achieve our deliverance and to kill within ourselves the desire for life. Schopenhauer unjustly identified this pity with Christian love – unjustly because the latter is richer and stands on a higher plane. The mercy of Christianity goes much deeper than pity; it is not the single, dominant virtue, but the disposition and expression of love in a particular direction with a view to the need and misery in the world. Love goes back much further, love extends much further. To begin with, it has God and all His virtues as its object. Moreover, it also directs itself to all His works and creatures, not because they are lamentable, but because it is in God that they love and move and have their being. Likewise, Christian love is basically different from the free love whose praises are nowadays so frequently sung. This free love is really nothing but lack of discipline and the emancipation of sentiment and passion. Christian love is rather the fulfilling of the law, is decreed by God’s will and is man’s duty which binds him by conscience. This love is neither arbitrary nor a matter of personal choice. It does not lie within us to determine whom or what we should love. We must love God as He reveals Himself and not as we imagine Him to be. We must love the neighbour whom God places next to us, and not the one we choose. We must love the man, woman, parents and children God gives us and not another man or woman. We must love all that is true, righteous and pure. We must hate sin and avoid it, no matter how beautifully it may present itself.

There is therefore a true, but also a false, unreal and counterfeit love. Likewise there is a good peace for which we must strive and seek to maintain with all men, but there is also a false, sinful peace which should be broken. If with lies and injustice – by way of concession and for the sake of peace – we make a treaty or quietly permit what is wrong, then we are being spineless and denying truth and virtue. Over against such false peace (cf. Jer. 6:14) Jesus placed the claim that he had come to cast fire upon the earth (Lk. 12:49). There are powers in this world with which we can never live on peaceful terms. There are truths and rights, spiritual possessions and invisible treasures for which we must be willing to sacrifice everything – peace, quiet, respectability and reputation, yea even love for our family and our own life. Conditions in this incomprehensible world may be so serious and complicated that love itself may compel us to break peace and engage in battle. Prophets such as Jeremiah would much rather have remained silent and spent their days in peace and tranquillity, but they could not, nor were they allowed to. They spoke because they believed and they struggled against their nation because they loved it. By his great love for God and man, Jesus himself was moved to resist all evil forces even unto death.

This morality, of course, primarily refers to individual persons, but it also has significance for world powers. A nation is certainly not a mass of souls brought together by men within an arbitrary piece of land but a living organism which has its roots far back in the past and which is animated with a living patriotism in its every bone. Some people take pleasure in splitting the threads of this love into factors such as climate, soil, history, custom, etc., and then displaying it in its foolishness. But so superficial an undertaking is self-condemning and is completely powerless in the face of the reality of this love. Love – even for one’s country – always has a mysterious character. It comes up out of the depths and is fed by hidden springs. For a time it may slumber and sleep, but then it re-awakes with such irresistible power that even the coolest cosmopolitan is carried along with it. It then shows itself to be so enthusiastic, lofty and disinterested that it renders one prepared for and capable of making the most demanding sacrifices.

This points to the fact that when the Most High separated the sons of man, He gave the nations their inheritance and set the boundaries of the peoples (Deut. 32:8). He “determined their appointed times, and the boundaries of their habitation” (Acts 17:26), and gave each of them a place and a task in the history of humanity. In this respect it makes no essential difference whether a nation be great or small. Lloyd George and James Bryce have rightly reminded us that relatively small nations have contributed to the increase of the most noble cultural traits as much as – if not more than – the larger nations. Therefore it is no arbitrary matter, but rather one’s calling and duty to defend these characteristics, sword in hand if need be. It is true that in the Sermon on the Mount, namely in Mat. 5:38-42, Jesus calls his disciples to a spirit of forgiveness which, we would do well to recall, stands in direct contrast to the demand of retribution, and is not susceptible to any quantitative computation (cf. Mat. 18:22). It is equally certain that Jesus is here speaking to those who understand, and not formulating a law that has to be observed to the letter; he is merely stating a spiritual principle which demands a different application in accord with the differing circumstances of life. Jesus himself acted in this way (Jn. 18:22,23), and Paul who preached the same spirit of forgiveness (Rom. 12:17-21); 1 Thess. 5:15; cf. 1 Pet. 3:9), appeals to his rights as a Roman citizen (Acts 22:25). Personal insults can and must be forgiven, but when truth or justice is assaulted in one’s person, then, according to Christian principles, which place the Kingdom of God and His righteousness above all else, it is one’s duty to defend and give evidence. This obligation is contained even within the Christian virtue of self-denial. For when the latter demands that for the sake of Christ and the Gospel we should forsake everything, at the same time it presupposes that all the things which we must abandon have value in and of themselves, even though it be a subordinate one. For whatever is worth nothing and does not cost us anything requires no self-denial when we have to forego it. For example, life is a possession that may and must be defended if it is not in conflict with higher concerns. In case of need every man has the right and the duty to defend his life, weapons in hand. An intruder into any house may be withstood with violence. Similarly the authorities which are called to maintain justice do not bear the sword, even the sword of war, in vain. If necessary, in the case of an emergency, they must use the sword both at home and abroad. Truth and justice are worth more for a man, for a nation and for humanity as a whole than are life, peace, prosperity and tranquillity.

It is thus noteworthy that the Christian church in all its divisions has never condemned the warrior and war. The church herself of course, may never go beyond preaching the Gospel of peace and fighting with spiritual weapons. A “holy war” for the propagation of truth has been forbidden her by what Christ said to Peter. Yet she has never disputed the authorities’ right to wage war in case of need. Pacifists have resented her for this, but they would probably have reproached the church more strongly had she taken the liberty to mingle in state affairs and without further ado, denied war its raison d’ etre in this dispensation. The church may and must not do so. It is her calling, according to the word of Christ, to render to God the things that are God’s and also to render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s.

Christian ethics therefore allows no other conclusion that there can be good and just wars. Perhaps they are very few in number, and even much fewer than we think.

In every war, even the most just, many things take place which both Christianity and humanity very strongly condemn. Yet neither the Scriptures nor history give sufficient grounds to censure every war unconditionally. A war can be good and just provided that it comply with the demands of higher principles, serve the maintenance of justice and only then be undertaken in the case of most dire necessity. Its justification then does not lie in the right of might nor in the virtues of patriotism, heroism, patience, steadfastness, unity, readiness to make sacrifices, etc., which it may engender; even less in the consequences liable to be brought about by victory such as a broadening perspective, an expansion of culture or even of Christianity; and least of all in the philosophical conviction that all that exists is reasonable and that war constitutes an indispensable and precious moment in the evolution of the human race. If war is to be defended it must itself pass the strict test of justice. Even then it resembles the disasters and adversities of life in that it remains an evil (malum physicum) which may in God’s holy hands nevertheless be used for the edification of the human race. The end and purpose thus remains peace, the eternal peace of the Kingdom of God.

We look forward to receiving feedback about any of our posts. We also encourage you to share our posts with family, friends and acquaintances; in fact anyone you think may appreciate and/or benefit from the knowledge and wisdom handed down to us from the past.   To view previous posts visit our website at www.tsrevisited.com

Leave a comment

The Problem Of War

Herman Bavinck (Translated from Dutch by Rev. Steven Voorwinde)
Trowel & Sword. Oct 1975

Preamble: It has often been said that there are only two certainties in life – death and taxes. There is a third certainty that few would argue against – WAR.
God’s intervention at Babel to create division among the people of that time by confusing their language, created an environment where people were no longer united, capable of achieving anything their hearts desired (Gen. 11:6). Instead it led to the formation of separate groups, states and eventually nations constantly at war with each other; a state of affairs that has continued to this day. The question is: How do we as Christians respond to this constant warring between nations. This then is the question that Herman Bavinck sets out to answer. The article begins with a word of explanation by Rev. Voorwinde and is divided into two parts, beginning this week and concluding next week.

The Problem Of War

This article was first written by Herman Bavinck, Professor of Systematic Theology at the Free University of Amsterdam, in November 1914. Much of the material deals with political problems peculiar to the time of writing and has therefore been omitted here. However, Bavinck’s survey of the Bible’s attitude to the problem of war still merits the consideration of Christians today. After briefly mentioning the Pacifist argument that Christianity and war are directly opposed to one another, he reminds his readers of accusations levelled against church and clergy for their inability to prevent the war. Then he continues:

It is therefore surely worth the effort to try and answer the following questions:
What attitude is Christian ethics going to adopt towards war?
Does war have a place in the Christian world-and-life view?
Or must war at all times and in all places be condemned and opposed as a crime?
Does war make any ‘sense’, or is it never anything but gruesome injustice, brute force
and a work of the devil?

 In this investigation the Old Testament need not detain us for very long. For no one can deny that in it war is again and again referred to as a divine right. Throughout the centuries, from the time of the Exodus in the fifteenth or fourteenth century B.C. up until the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., Israel was involved in strife with the surrounding nations. This strife was looked upon religiously and ethically as a war waged by the God of Israel against heathen gods.

Yahweh, the God of Israel, is the Lord of hosts, the God of the armies of Israel (1 Sam. 17:45), a warrior (Ex. 15:3), mighty in battle (Ps.24:8), who goes to war with His people (Judges 4:14), equips the judges by his Spirit (Judges 3:10), teaches David the art of war, girds his loins with strength and delivers his enemies to him for destruction (I Sam. 22:35f). Just as he sometimes ordains the defeat of His people for their chastisement and humiliation, so He also grants victory in battle by divine aid. In many a psalm or hymn, therefore, such help is invoked, or gratitude is expressed for victory (Ex. 15; Judges 5; I Sam. 22; Psalms 3,27,46,68, etc.). This is not only the people’s view of war, but also that of the prophets. Abraham took part in the battle against the despots of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 14). Moses and Joshua, the judges and the kings led Israel in battle against her enemies in and around Canaan. Deborah stirred up her countrymen for battle against Sisera, the Canaanite general (Judges 4:6,14). Samuel mustered the children of Israel against the Philistines (I Sam. 7:5f). An unnamed prophet encouraged Ahab to wage war against Behadad of Syria (I Kings 20:13f).

From Amos onwards the later prophets repeatedly proclaim that the great and terrible Day of the Lord shall be preceded by awful wars (Amos 5-7; Isaiah 13:6-18; Joel 3:9-17 etc.). But after that the kingdom of peace shall come – to Israel and to all the nations of the earth. Then they shall beat their swords into ploughshares and their spears into pruning hooks, nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more. Peace shall be so rich and abundant that even the animal world and nature will participate in it. The wolf shall lie down with the lamb and the lion shall eat straw like an ox (Is. 2:1-4; 9:2-7; 11:6-9; etc.).

All such peace shall accrue from the Messiah, who is the Prince of Peace (Is. 9:5; Mich. 5:5; Zach. 6:13), and to whose kingdom of justice and peace there shall be no end. (Ps. 72:17; Is. 9:6).

Now ancient Israel lived in circumstances completely different from those of the Christian community in the days of the New Testament. Hence its history cannot simply be our directing principle or example. Nevertheless, the Old Testament propagates the view that war is not of itself unjust and unlawful in every case. Moreover, in God’s hands it can serve as a means toward higher goals, towards the coming of the Kingdom of God. Furthermore, war is temporary and at the coming of the Messiah shall immediately make way for the kingdom of eternal peace.

Now it is at this point that the New Testament picks up the thread. For it is the Messiah, who by this time has appeared in the person of Jesus, who brings peace on earth (Luke 2:14), guides our feet into the way of peace (Luke 1:79), and establishes a kingdom which consists of righteousness, peace and joy (Luke 19:38; Rom. 14:17). This peace is, of course, primarily religious in nature. Objectively it is the relationship of peace which Christ has established between God and man (Eph. 2:17). Subjectively it reveals itself in the blessed knowledge that we are reconciled to God and that no guilt will ever remove us from fellowship with Him (Rom.5:1). This peace is bestowed on the community by the Father, who is the God of peace (Rom. 1:7; 15:33). It forms the content of the Gospel which is called the Gospel of peace (Acts 10:36); Eph. 6:15), and even now believers enjoy peace as a fruit of the Spirit (Gal.5:22). However, this religious peace also has ethical results. For by his sacrifice Christ not only brought reconciliation and peace between God and man, but also between the various nations and peoples (Eph. 2:14f), so that there is no longer Greek or Jew, barbarian or Scythian, slave or free, male or female, but all are one in Christ Jesus (Gal.3:28). Thus Jesus declares that not only the poor in spirit and pure in heart are blessed but also the peaceful or the peacemakers. He says that these shall be called sons of God (Matt. 5:9). In the Sermon on the Mount he exhorts his disciples not to be contentious, but to be kindly disposed to their opponents; not to resist him who is evil (Matt. 5:39); to love their enemies; to forgive until seventy times seven, etc. In the same spirit the apostles exhort us to pursue peace, and, as far as possible, to live at peace with all men (Rom. 12:18;  Heb. 12:14).

The New Testament ethical standard is so high that in practice it seems to be in no way applicable. These words of peace and the gruesome reality of war stand in such sharp contrast that reconciling them seems to be impossible. Christ commands us not to resist him who is evil and to love our enemy, but in war the very opposite is required: murder, burning, plunder, destruction and everything that contributes to the enemy’s ruin and downfall. The antinomy has been felt in the Christian church since ancient times and has led to varying attempts to solve the problem. Some have dismissed the world as the domain of Satan and have, either in isolation or in small groups, sought to apply the fundamentals of Jesus’ teaching. Others have reversed this and have rejected his teaching as thoroughly impractical and – at least in public life – have denied its value completely.

Still others have struck a compromise by distinguishing between higher and lower ethics, between counsels and commands, between clergy and laity.

(Bavinck then gives historical examples of movements and men who held to an uncompromising pacifism and of others who extolled the virtues of war. Of the former he names the Anabaptists, the Quakers and Tolstoi. Included in the latter group are men such as Hegel, Spencer and Bismarck.)

Neither of these sentiments, however, can be harmonised with Christianity. The champions of peace do indeed at all costs like to appeal to Jesus’ utterances in the Sermon on the Mount.

Yet by so doing they forget other truths which also find expression in the Gospel. The Sermon on the Mount is not to be equated with Christianity, and the problem of war is not so simple that it can be resolved by an appeal to a single text. It is much rather part of a wider issue which touches on the relationship of Christianity to natural life as a whole, to the entire sinful world and all it contains.

At this point it must immediately be said that although passive morality is in the foreground in the New Testament, an active and positive element is by no means lacking. The virtues which were then recommended to the Christian (vis. patience, long-suffering, forbearance, meekness, submissiveness) all played a large part. What else could be expected at a time when Jesus’ disciples were few in number, small by the world’s standards and without any influence on public life? But it is all the more striking that Christianity is devoid of all asceticism and from its very beginning took on a positive relationship to the world at large. This fact is principally found in the statement that God loved the world and that Christ came not to destroy the world but to save it. From this focal point lines are drawn in all directions to indicate the place Christians are to occupy and the attitudes they are to have in this sinful world. They must not withdraw from the world, but being in the world they are to keep themselves from the evil one. Nothing is unclean of itself. All God’s creation is good and nothing is to be rejected if it be accepted with thanksgiving. Marriage is honourable among all. The government is God’s servant and is entitled to obedience and respect. Whoever becomes a Christian is to remain in the calling to which he was called. The prayer of Jesus’ disciples is that God’s name be hallowed, that His kingdom come, that His will be done on earth as it is in Heaven. All this points, not to an avoidance, but to a sanctification of the world.

In this connection it is significant that the New Testament never disapproves the military profession as such. The soldiers who came to John the Baptist did receive an order not to take money by force, etc., but not an order to leave the service (Lk.3:14). Jesus expressed his amazement at the great faith of the centurion at Capernaum and healed his servant (Matt.8:5f). Later the centurion Cornelius and his whole household were baptised and admitted to the church (Acts 10). Without having any scruples about it, Jesus, in one of his parables, speaks about a king who before going to war sits down and considers whether he with ten thousand men is able to meet his opponent who has twenty thousand (Lk.14:31). Similarly Paul takes pleasure in using military imagery to describe the life of the Christian (Rom. 6:13; I Cor. 9:7; Eph. 6:10-18; I Tim: 2:3, etc.). Even more striking is the fact that Jesus explicitly forbids the use of the sword for his defence, as the weapons of believers’ warfare are not of the flesh, but mighty before God (Matt. 26:52; 2 Cor. 10:4). Yet he is just as definite in affirming that he has not come to bring peace on earth but a sword, that is, to cause discord between people, even between the members of one family (Matt. 10:34,35). Therefore, when the disciples are presently to go out into the world to preach the Gospel, they are to expect persecution and hate from the world. Then they will not only need a purse and a bag but also a sword, i.e., they must be completely ready to engage in spiritual warfare against the world (Lk. 22:36).

To be continued.

We look forward to receiving feedback about any of our posts. We also encourage you to share our posts with family, friends and acquaintances; in fact anyone you think may appreciate and/or benefit from the knowledge and wisdom handed down to us from the past.   To view previous posts visit our website at www.tsrevisited.com

Leave a comment

The Church And The World

Trowel & Sword. November 1963

Preamble: “The Church and the World” was a statement issued by THE REFORMED ECUMENICAL SYNOD, which met in Grand Rapids, Michigan, U.S.A., August 7-16, 1963. In it the synod expressed its concern at the “increasing alienation of modern man from the church” in a self examination of the the Church’s own short-comings. The statement refers not just to the short-comings of the Reformed Churches but of the universal Christian Church world-wide. Did this statement have an impact? Consider the state of the Church and the World today. Has anything changed in the last 63 years?
Following this article is a link to an address by Rev. G. Van Groningen of the RTC to this Synod which some may find worthwhile.

The Church And The World

The Reformed Ecumenical Synod meeting in Grand Rapids, August 7-16, 1963, at the request of several member Churches, discussed at length the calling of the Church in the growing estrangement of mankind from the Gospel. Evidence of this estrangement can be seen in the increasing alienation of modern man from the Church, in the advancing secularisation of human society and in the moral chaos of our day. The Synod considers it necessary to concern itself seriously with the growing hostility and indifference to the Gospel and to address this brief message to the Churches concerning the Church and the world.

The Church must remember that she will be a blessing to the world only if she lives as a Church in humble and complete submission to the Word of God. This the Church has not always done. The cause therefore for the growing disaffection with the Gospel is not to be sought in the world alone. The Churches must share the blame for they have often fallen into unfaithfulness and apostasy.

The Churches contribute to the estrangement from the Gospel when they depart from the only sure foundation which Christ provided in the teaching of the apostles and prophets (Eph. 2:20), or fail to declare the whole counsel of God as their message to the world. Likewise, when Churches permit ministers of the Word to declare the Church confessions obsolete and to contradict and disobey the infallible Scripture, they becloud or deny the Gospel and thus foster the growing estrangement. But Churches are also to blame when, while maintaining an orthodox creedal confession, they fail to express in witness and life, the vitality of the Christian Gospel which is the power of God unto salvation. Finally, the Churches err when at times they rend the Church of Christ in a way that cannot be defended before God in the light of Scripture; thus by their separate existence such Churches which otherwise seek to live in harmony with the Word of God make the Church appear to the world to be a house divided against itself.

It should be emphasised that the turning of many from the Church and Gospel preaching may not induce the Churches to leave the world to its fate and withdraw into a spiritual isolation. The Churches ought rather to follow the Good Shepherd (Luke 15) who by self-sacrificing and forgiving love, seeks that which is lost and gone astray. Hence the Churches may not be content simply to warn of coming judgment upon those who refuse to turn in repentance to God, but must also proclaim the full Gospel to the whole world knowing that God our Saviour “would have all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth” (Tim. 2:4 and 4:10). For this reason the Church may not be a stranger to the world. She must show her solidarity with the world by seeking to understand the world’s spiritual and material need and by alleviating mankind’s distress in a manner consistent with her nature and task, in obedience to Jesus Christ.

The Church may not be concerned for the well-being of individual men only, for she must devote her whole-hearted attention to the whole of society with the full Gospel. She must proclaim the truth of the Gospel for all areas of life – not only for education and science, but also for social and political activities on the national and international levels. The great goal of the Church in these endeavours is the hallowing of God’s Name and the coming of His Kingdom.

Thus the Churches must strive, like the Good Shepherd Himself, to guard the sheep from apostasy from the Word of God (Matt. 18), and at the same time endeavour with all the means legitimately at her disposal to bring back the erring and lost under the dominion of Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God, the only Saviour of the world.

In view of all the imperfections evident even in faithful Churches, the question might well arise whether, rather than turning first toward the world, Churches ought not first pursue their own greater sanctification. It would be a mistake, however, to think that the one could be done without the other, for the Church cannot truly be the CHURCH without also being concerned for the world. Likewise, the Church cannot be a blessing to the world unless in her own life, in her confessing and preaching, in her discipline and sanctification, in her unity and catholicity she submits herself and binds herself to the eternal and imperishable Word of God. In short, unless she remains truly CHURCH.

The message of the Reformed Ecumenical Synod to the Churches concerning the estrangement of mankind from the Gospel is this: Let the Church of Jesus Christ be truly Church in love, in truth, in obedience to her Lord! In her concern for the world let her take heed to herself. Let her loving concern for the world increase as she seeks to grow in grace and in knowledge of her Saviour.

* * * * * * * * *

Click on the link below to read the address By Prof. G. Van Groningen to the Reformed Ecumenical Synod.

hthttps://rtc.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/The-Reformed-Ecumenical-Synod-its-Mission-Prespective-and-Problems-GvG-2-1964.pdf

Recent Comment: “I would love to see Trowel and Sword resurrected. It’s so good to keep in touch with each other and encourage each other. 
Maybe we could employ a journalist or other suitable person to manage and edit it? 
Sarene Sietsma”.

Leave a comment

Trowel And Sword -The Early Years

Dick Vander Pijl. Trowel & Sword. 1965

Preamble: If the title of this article and its contents sound familiar, they should be. This was the opening article of our recently published (December) Trowel & Sword – Special Edition. Why publish it again? Because like the Auckland brethren responsible for getting the ball rolling for the original Trowel & Sword, we strongly believe that there is still a place for a monthly denominational magazine. One of the stated motivations of these brethren was to produce, “A better monthly paper than the present local ‘rags’.” We presume they were talking about bulletins/newsletters produced by individual churches. It is our belief that there are churches that no longer produce even these, and where they do, they are often no more than activity lists and rosters for their own congregations. Judging by the reaction to last week’s post – “The Power Of The Written Word”, we believe that there is still a demand, maybe even a hunger for a denominational paper. So we will continue on with TSR in the hope that Trowel & Sword will one day again become what it was originally intended to be. A magazine for all the Reformed Churches of Australia and New Zealand, perhaps even as an extension of New Zealand’s current magazine, “Faith in Focus”.

Trowel And Sword -The Early Years

In 1954, on April the 20th, a circular was sent to all the sessions of the Reformed Churches of Australia and New Zealand from some Auckland brethren with a suggestion to come to the publication of a monthly paper to serve both denominations. These brethren were moved by the following motives:
– A better monthly paper than the present local “rags”;
– A great time-saver for the pastors, (there were not too many of them then);
– An excellent communication for subjects as Unions, Sunday work, Theological training, christian schools, liturgy, the English language in the worship-services, (notice the problems which then existed and now have been – partly – solved).

These brethren then proposed a paper which would contain apart from church-news also articles for the education of our members on church-history, dogmatics, liturgical subjects, missionary work etc.

At the same time these Aucklanders formed an Association with a Board of Directors (sic) and in its constitution it was stated in article 3: “The purpose of the Association is to publish, sell or in any way bring to public notice, papers, books, and what-so-ever is necessary for the dissemination of God’s Word”. The last Article of this constitution stated that in case of dissolution property and moneys belonging to the organisation or the Publishing House shall be donated after liquidation to a christian cause, cordially in agreement with art. 2 and 3 of this constitution.

Without being ironical I must say that to my knowledge this organisation never officially dissolved itself; it neither owned any property nor bank-account. And its only product, the beginnings of this present paper, were after several coma’s and revivings handed over to “doctor” VanderSchoor who at that time lived in Tasmania and managed to get the infant through its early years.

To go back to its start, the first editors were Rev. VanderBom and Rev. Deenick (spelled Deenik at the time. They had dreamed the dream and seen the vision and consequently were made responsible for its contents. For posterity’s sake the originators – apart from the above-mentioned editors – were W. van Rij, chairman, P. Suurmond, secretary, M.G. van Dalen, treasurer and myself the manager of the Publishing House.

We were all honourable (sic) members which meant that we did not receive any remuneration for our work. And incidentally, this was not by any means to be-littled (sic).

Did we start off with a printed publication, after several issues we were through our subscription-fees for the first year. And realised that humbleness of mind is better than nice printing.

Here follows a narration of the production of one of these issues in the first years:

“Mrs. Lenie Bijlsma worked two full days typing the stencils; Rev. Deenick picked up the stencils on a return trip from some country work – Mrs. Bijlsma lived about 30 miles out of Auckland – checked the contents and delivered the stencils two hours later at the van Rij’s home when he passed through for another little trip to Auckland. These were hectic days, you know, what with power-cycle etc. Saturday afternoon, at 1 p.m. van Rij and myself turned the duplicator-handle. As the teller was out of order – every time – we had to count the sheets as they were run through the machine, 20 x 650. This task was finished at 8 p.m. Meanwhile the families Suurmond, van Dalen and Int’ Veld arrived and together with some van Rij children they started to write out the addresses. When this was finished, we all joined in the compilation, stapling and bundling of the papers, ready for the post-office. Without fail we all usually turned up for the worship service next morning.”

That the Board of Directors were quite serious with regard to the constitution could be seen when the first issue came off the press and editor Rev. Deenick received an alarming letter from these men, questioning some of the contents on their “un-Reformed” point of views. In his reply Rev. Deenick said: You mind the organisational side of this affair and I will mind my side and he then continued to prove to the Board the correctness and scripturalness of his articles. One of the questionable articles was that in which he stated that “Holy Days” had no biblical grounds. The Board of Directors happened to disagree. When he was questioned again some time later, he wrote back that it was time for a little round-table conference to clarify somebody’s position and put some others in their place (the last eight words are mine – writer of this article).

That “Trowel and Sword” tottered on the brink of bankruptcy for quite some time should not have been necessary at all . Both denominations together had a total of 1500 members at the time; the cost of the publication came to about 1300 pounds but only 159 members in Australia, 58 in Tasmania and 175 members in New Zealand were the original subscribers. Fortunately a number of churches donated at regular times to help continue the publication of this worthy paper.

The history of the early beginnings of this venture was like that of any christian organisation which goeth fast on and (finally) prospereth in their hands.

DICK VANDERPIJL.

We look forward to receiving feedback about any of our posts. We also encourage you to share our posts with family, friends and acquaintances; in fact anyone you think may appreciate and/or benefit from the knowledge and wisdom handed down to us from the past.   To view previous posts visit our website at www.tsrevisited.com

Leave a comment

The Power Of The Written Word

Prof. A. Barkley. Trowel & Sword. March 1958

Preamble: WARNING! Do not read the first line of this article, assume that it is about television and stop reading. It’s not! And it’s not a warning about Soviet Russia and Communists. It is rather a call to arms, both in 1958 and to us in 2026. It’s an article which looked into the future and asked, “Why did you stop producing Trowel & Sword in 2010? Why are so few of you writing articles, booklets, tracts, letters to newspapers and the like and flooding the country with them? Why do so many of you only write sermons to preach to the converted inside the safety of your own churches? Why? In the not so distant past clever bumper stickers were in vogue but even they seem to have disappeared. Today they could well be deemed “hate speech”. Offensive. Are we as Christians to be intimidated into silence?

The Power Of The Written Word

The advent of television has introduced a new factor that must wield an increasing influence in the community. More and more people are being brought into contact with programmes presented on the screen, and less time is given to reading and meditation. The games that children play are largely reflections of the scenes they have watched on television. Despite all this influence, however, we must not lose sight of the power of the written word and we must not excuse ourselves on the ground that other forces are at work.

The ‘battle of the books’ is still being waged, and in a more sinister sense than ever the pen is proving mightier than the sword. Soviet Russia has been leading recently in certain aspects of scientific development, but for a number of years Russia has been leading in another sphere of which little is heard. It was once our boast that the Bible was the world’s most widely translated writings, but, according to Peter Edson in the “Washington Notebook” column, that no longer holds. During the period 1948 to 1955 Lenin’s works were translated into 968 languages, while in the same period the Bible was translated into 887 tongues. The writings of Stalin, Tolstoy and Gorky took third, fourth and fifth places respectively in total translations.

Communists have not failed to appreciate the power of the printed page. The leaders in Red China boast that they have accomplished more in ten years than the Christian missionaries did in one hundred years. It has been the lamentation of the Church that millions of Chinese never heard the name of Christ. After ten years of propaganda the Communists claim that the name of Stalin is known to all the people of China. This claim may be exaggerated but it cannot be dismissed.

The Editor of the magazine, “The Flame”, quotes Nelson E. Hinman as stating, “The missionaries in China preached, built hospitals, orphanages and Bible schools, but paid little attention to the potential of the printed page as a medium for spreading their message. The Communists, meanwhile, majored in printed propaganda. Today, they occupy these hospitals and use the orphanages and Bible school buildings for their own purposes. The missionary has been driven out. The battle was won with books.”

In India a similar programme is in the process of development. A highly educated young Indian has stated, “The missionaries taught my people how to read, but they have let the Communists give my people what they read”..

When printing was first discovered it was extensively used by the Church for the propagation of her massage. As a matter of fact the invention of the printing press is one of the causes of the widespread influence of the Reformation movement. Books and pamphlets were written and placed in the hands of those who read them and accepted the truth thus presented. Today there is need for a similar movement by the Reformed Churches throughout the world.

We are grateful to God for the splendid volumes that are published in the interests of the Reformed Faith. These, however, are costly and are therefore restricted in circulation. In some cases there is such a display of learning that the average reader is unable to grasp the meaning. If the Church could flood the country with publications at a reasonable price and written in language that the common people understand, we venture to predict good results. When our Lord taught, the common people heard him gladly. Yet in His teaching there was an authority that transcended all the obscure and weighty utterances of the Scribes and Pharisees. We need more people who are willing to use the pen and state the truth in simple words. In this way a greater appeal could be made to those who never get beyond the Intermediate standard in English.

Augustine was a great believer in the power of the written word. His style of writing is open to criticism for such weaknesses as repetition of the same word and verbosity, but he says, “I would rather be censured by the grammarians than not understood by the people”.

This is a reading age and God will hold us responsible for not taking advantage of the opportunity presented.

Blackstone, a celebrated lawyer in the reign of George III had the curiosity to go from church to church and hear every clergyman of note in London. He says that he did not hear a single discourse which had more Christianity in it than the writings of Cicero, and that it would have been impossible for him to discover from what he heard, whether the preacher was a disciple of Confucius, Mahomet or Christ. The picture is not so dark in Australia and New Zealand but there is widespread ignorance of the truth and God has not given us the light to be hidden under a bushel. It would give a great impetus to the spread of the truth in these lands if more ministers and laymen in Reformed circles could be encouraged to write tracts, articles and perhaps even books. There are many who cannot preach but they are willing to put good wholesome literature into the hands of those willing to read.

In the book “Reformed Evangelism”, Miss Gertrude Holkeboer provides a very interesting chapter on “Tract Distribution”, in which some facts are presented to show the importance of the written word in the ministry of the Church. She refers to the days of John Wesley when it was said, “The gospelers of these days do fill the realm with so many of their noisome little books that they be like the swarms of locusts which did infest the land of Egypt”. The movement started by Wesley had a wholesome influence in Britain in a time of crisis. They had not the facilities we have and yet vast multitudes were aroused.

The enemy is Quick to take advantage of the most recent inventions for the spread of false teaching. We shall become awake when it is too late.

It is not for us to fix a date as far as God’s plans are concerned, but it may be possible that the sand is running low in the hour glass as far as the end of this age is concerned. Are we satisfied that we are doing all we can to spread the Gospel of Christ’s kingdom in these lands where we are privileged to serve the Lord?

A. BARKLEY.

We look forward to receiving feedback about any of our posts. We also encourage you to share our posts with family, friends and acquaintances; in fact anyone you think may appreciate and/or benefit from the knowledge and wisdom handed down to us from the past.   To view previous posts visit our website at www.tsrevisited.com

Leave a comment

Previous Articles

Addiction To Self – The Problem

David Groenenboom. Trowel & Sword. Jan/Feb. 1999

Preamble: In his opening statement Davis names “Addiction to Self” as the “…biggest threat to the western Church at the end of the 20th century.” He also writes that it has been a problem since Adam. It would therefore be safe to say that it is just as much a problem today as it was when he wrote the article 27 years ago, and will be until Christ comes again. So what hope do we have? As Dave himself points out – only one.

Addiction To Self – The Problem

Addiction to self is the biggest threat to the western Church at the end of the 20th century. Of course, there are lots of other threats manifesting in various doctrinal and pastoral forms, but addiction to self could well be the most dangerous and the most insidious.

What is addiction to self? It is living for your own happiness, seeking life the way you want it, looking for comfort any way you can get it – generally the quicker it comes, the better. Addiction to self has been a problem since Eden. Self-glory was the carrot the serpent used to lure our first parents into rebellion. They sought self-exaltation and equality with the Creator. They saw the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom. So headlong they fell into sin, and self-addiction has been with us ever since.

While the virus of self-addiction is present in every human being, today’s cultural climate has presented an environment for the virus to mutate into an ugly life threatening disease. Australians in 1999 see as their birthright the very things self-addiction feeds on. People expect to have happiness when, where, however and with whom they fancy, and they expect it to be pretty well immediate.

The credo of 1999 Australia is “Me first, and now!” The temples of self addiction are the ritzy shopping plazas, CBDs, and credit agencies. Its high priests are the beautiful success stories of the business world. The salvation they offer is the bliss of contentment. These are the temples, the priests, and the salvation – but where is the sacrifice? Well, that’s the challenge: the sacrifice self-addiction requires is Christian commitment, personal integrity and Kingdom compassion. Self-addiction demands that we sell our soul. The difference in 1999 is that all this is seen as socially acceptable.

Which is precisely why it’s such a danger for the church: because self-worship is socially acceptable we may just miss the presence of the disease in our midst. If we do, this virulent parasite may suck our lifeblood before we realise what’s going on. Consider the following:

Evening service attendance. I would like a dollar for every time someone has said to me (or to an elder), “I don’t need to attend church twice on Sunday.” I find myself asking, “Your need? Who said anything about your need?” Worship is what we bring to the Lord of life! Worship is the product of our desire to honour the Lord who has given us grace! Its focus is His worth, not our need. But today’s church is suffering from a cultural osmosis where the values of society have started to determine what we do in worship. So the focus of worship shifts from what God deserves to what we want. No wonder people are staying home or going somewhere else! How long will it be before people feel they don’t need to go at al? That a better “happiness hit” can be had in the secular temples? That it is mediated by much more attractive priests than pretty well any preacher? Consequence? Christian commitment is sacrificed on the altar of self worship.

Or consider marriage. How many times has one partner walked out on another because they wanted “space”, “personal freedom”, or “more happiness”? When personal happiness is at life’s centre, another person cannot be there as well. Not even a husband or wife. “Until death do us part” has, in 1999, become “as long as you make me happy.” Some 43% of Australian marriages on the scrap heap are a lamentable testimony to just how entrenched self-worship has become.

Or consider church commitment. It used to be that people cared about church teaching and confessional responsibility. Many still do. But some today are simply content to stay with a church as long as it meets their needs. Should things get a bit crusty and the congregation hit the rough side of the road, people feel justified bailing out and finding somewhere better. At least there, they’ll be happy and things will be peaceful (or so they think). And so the Christian integrity which gets forged in the crucible of shared pain and mutual reconciliation never sees the light of day. Consequence? A weaker church and Christians with stunted growth.

True, these are oversimplified generalisations but they hold a fair measure of truth. Self-addiction eats away at life as worship, it sucks commitment from marriage, it undermines the body of Christ. If self-addiction is the virus, then only Christ’s grace can be both the cure and continuing immunisation. More on that next issue.

David Groenenboom

We look forward to receiving feedback about any of our posts. We also encourage you to share our posts with family, friends and acquaintances; in fact anyone you think may appreciate and/or benefit from the knowledge and wisdom handed down to us from the past.   To view previous posts visit our website at www.tsrevisited.com

Leave a comment

The Rights Of Your And My Children

Prof. G. van Groningen. Trowel & Sword. October 1965

Preamble: Children – They are a blessing from God, but how often do we see them as an inconvenience or, dare I say it, even a source of annoyance when it comes to church life and/or the worship service? Children misbehaving or babies crying are often seen as a distraction, or worse, barely tolerated by other worshippers. Over the years various solutions have been adopted. Creche or a “crying room” where the service can be followed by means of speakers, and for many churches, Sunday Schools during the service, which in some churches have also euphemistically been called “Children’s Church”. These all involve separating the children from the “adults” so that the “adults” can “enjoy” the worship service in peace. We suspect that these solutions would not have sat well with Prof. V.G. who, with his wife Harriet, introduced Cadets and Calvinettes into Australia and was passionate about his work with the youth of the day.

The Rights Of Your And My Children

In this article I want to centre our attention upon the RIGHTS OF YOUR AND MY CHILDREN IN THE CHURCH. Particularly, I wish to stress the rights of the children in regard to the ministry of the Word.

We hear of the duties of parents (and of their children) stressed far more than the privileges, rights and blessings that the children (and their parents) have. Now I immediately grant that every blessing, every right, every privilege, involves an obligation, a duty, a responsibility. It seems to me that as we stress the latter we forget the former too often. If we would stress the former, i.e., the rights, less attention, time and energy would have to be spent admonishing and urging parents and children to do their duties in regard to the instruction of the young. For the doing of duties really is nothing other than to acknowledge and claim one’s rights and privileges.

Your and my children have RIGHTS in the church of Jesus Christ. They have a right to attend and participate in the worship services. They have a right to join in the family visits. They have a right to the use of the church property. I want to stress here that children have a right especially to the TEACHING and the TEACHINGS of the church. That means our children have a right to claim the time and energy of the ministers who are particularly trained in the Word of God and who are trained to preach and to teach this Word.

The Church of Jesus Christ has given these rights to the children. It did so outrightly when the children were baptised and acknowledged as members of the Church and Kingdom of Jesus Christ on the basis of their covenant membership. Remember, it is not the session, nor the minister, nor the parents, but God Himself who has declared that children of those who believe are members of the covenant. Therefore they are baptised. As members of the covenant and of the church of Jesus Christ they are HEIRS to the riches of Jesus Christ. The children have a right to the blessings and treasures of God. I repeat, this is by divine ordinance.

So then, when the children were (and are) baptised in the midst of the congregation, the entire church, through the action of the session and the actual ceremony of baptism performed by the minister, says plainly and pointedly to all children; “children, we recognise you as heirs of great treasures”. And the church should say at the same time “and you have a share in all the treasures of God as given to us in His Word and through His Spirit and WE OWE IT TO YOU to make you an intelligent and active participant.”

In the Baptismal form and ceremony stress is laid on what the parents should do. I wish and so hope that before long our form for Baptism and ceremony will be altered, if only to include a direct statement of what the church and its ministry in the Word OWES the child that is baptised. Indeed, if the parents must repeat their solemn promise to instruct the child in the doctrines contained in the Scriptures, the church too should repeat its duty to teach and share the treasures of truth Christ Jesus Himself has committed to the church.

If we truly acknowledge the rights of your and my children in the church, then it follows that our attitude as parents, elders and ministers especially, to catechism work and youth work in general will be directly and powerfully effected. The Lord willing, I hope to make some remarks to this effect in later issues.

G. VAN GRONINGEN

We look forward to receiving feedback about any of our posts. We also encourage you to share our posts with family, friends and acquaintances; in fact anyone you think may appreciate and/or benefit from the knowledge and wisdom handed down to us from the past.   To view previous posts visit our website at www.tsrevisited.com

Leave a comment