A Revival Of Mysticism

Rev. J.W. Deenick. Trowel & Sword. March 1964

Preamble: As the charismatic movement was expanding in the early 1960s, Rev. Deenick wrote this article to warn Reformed members of the dangers of seeking experiences outside of the light of Scripture. He warns us that we cannot live a healthy spiritual life that is not anchored in the clear teachings of Scripture – a healthy reminder 60 years later on. So how does this article stand generations later? Should we be seeking a deeper experience of God? Is Rev. Deenick’s definition of mysticism too narrow or too broad? I would suggest that the opposite danger of mysticism, is rationalism. In a Christian setting this where we look at Scripture in a hard rationalistic light without being amazed by the mystery of God, faith and regeneration that Scripture reveals to us. We fail to apprehend a God who is, ultimately, beyond human understanding. God’s work of salvation is  still, in many senses, a mystery. Calvin was called the reformer of the Holy Spirit. Kuyper wrote his wonderful devotions on the Holy Spirit: “The Work of the Holy Spirit.” Both men understood that God’s work is an amazing wonder that, at best, we can only faintly grasp. But as Rev. Deenick reminds us, it grows out of our understanding of Scripture. So how do we read this article 60 years later in this post Christian era? Are there new dangers, new challenges and new perspectives that we need to be alert to? 

A Revival Of Mysticism

With pentecostalism and related trends in christian thinking a curious type of Mysticism has re-emerged. The methodist type.

I will have to explain what I mean by mysticism and what by the methodist type of it. 

When we speak of mysticism we do not mean christian piety as the Bible teaches it. Paul wrote to Timothy: “Train yourself in godliness”. This godliness or piety in which every christian should daily train himself and that lives with the written Word of God is well to be distinguished from mysticism.

Mysticism is something quite different. It is a spiritual movement nearly as old as human history and by no means limited to the christian era or to the christian sphere. There is a muslim and a buddhist mysticism, and during the middle ages mysticism flourished in the Roman church. After the Reformation various types of mysticism began to disquiet the protestant world.

Mysticism is a counterfeit piety. It is a complex movement but it always dreams of a special and direct relationship to God or to the gods; an exclusive fellowship with the divine, and it describes the way in which the miracle of spiritual illumination, extasis (Greek) is to be received.

THE RISK OF TAKING UP THE SUBJECT 

I am aware that by raising the subject I am in danger of being misunderstood. Yet that cannot always be avoided. The issue itself cuts right through the heart of our christian life.

People complain that what we lack in the churches today is a living christian piety. That is true. Nothing seems to be less popular than piety. People hate the very word. They delight in extremes. They either live on the very fringe of the church in utter coldness or are carried away by the growing storm of spiritual enthusiasm. Mere christian piety is too commonplace and too unexciting.

In that situation the church faces the problem that mysticism offers itself as a substitute for piety. It is therefore that we should learn carefully to distinguish between the one and the other. Because particularly as Reformed churches we have to stand for – and to practice – that plain christian godliness that the New Testament teaches and with which the christian panel beater, accountant and doctor serves his Master.

TWO TYPES OF MYSTICISM

In Reformed circles a certain type of mysticism is very well known. You could call it a “Calvinistic” type of mysticism, although it has nothing to do with Calvin or with Calvinism. It has merely developed in Calvinist surroundings. It dreams of a very special relationship between God and the exclusive number of His elected few, “one from a city, two from a tribe”. It contends that in this special relationship moments of divine illumination are experienced, but this blessing cannot be obtained through human exertion; it can only be received by grace; it is given to the chosen few, so that all that a “believer” can do is wait and hope (against hope) that somewhere the Lord may open a little door of salvation for him and snatch him away “as a firebrand plucked out of the burning”. This type of mysticism is well versed in the Scriptures and has an appearance of godliness. But it has misled many a “seeking soul”, denying thousands of christians the assurance of salvation. It made men trust in their spiritual experiences rather than in the promises of God.

There is however another type of mysticism in protestant circles, the methodist type, and on the high waves of pentecostalism it seems to come in like a flood. Many a protestant christian lets himself be carried away in the surf. It is an exciting experience, they say, to be lifted up high on the crest of the waves of the Spirit. This second type of mysticism is “arminian” in its approach, although we cannot blame Arminius for it. Its roots go far deeper, and further back in history. It dreams of a deeper spiritual life and of illuminations by the Holy Spirit far brighter than such as the ordinary and carnal christian could possibly experience. But, in distinction to what we found above, this type of mysticism teaches that the believer may condition himself for receiving the blessing. That is why I call it the “methodist” type, although it is far older than methodism. Even outside the christian world the buddhist mystic knows of the conditions he will have to meet before he will find the blessings and delights of spiritual extasis. This trend returns here: if you follow the prescribed method and pay the demanded price (it is not to be got cheaply) you will receive the blessing. But if your prayers have not been answered and the blessing or the healing is not received, it is because you did not meet the conditions.

We witness a revival of this type of mysticism. It confuses the evangelical world and obscures the biblical truth that the christian lives by faith alone. It is necessary therefore that a reformed believer learns to see the marks by which it Is recognised.

It is only very seldom, of course, that we meet pure mysticism – of whatever type in evangelical circles. But we do meet old remnants and new beginnings of it nearly everywhere. We sometimes meet it in evangelical brothers whom we love and honour for their work’s sake. Further down I will mention the names of Torrey, Grubb and Wells, men who have been and are used of God as missionaries and evangelists. Yet, if the clarity of the evangelical, or rather the Reformed witness is at stake it would be wrong not to try to discern the trends.

THE MARKS

  1. Mysticism tends to trust and to delight in spiritual experiences rather than live by faith in the written Word of God. It tends to consider faith as no more than one of the conditions that need to be met before the deeper and higher experiences of the Spirit will be received. These higher and deeper experiences give the christian his real standing in the Kingdom and make him a fruitful worker for Christ

In biblical piety this is different. The man of God lives by faith alone in the promises of Scripture and so he battles by faith alone. That battle leads him through thousands of experiences and blessings – some of them very precious, deeply moving and sanctifying his heart and life – it leads him through trials, defeats and triumphs. But he will never base his assurance or joy upon the experience of triumph, nor will he let himself be robbed of his assurance by the experience of defeat. He desires no other ground to stand on than the promises of God and he stands upon them foursquarely by faith alone.

The mystic believer however depends for his assurance and joy upon what he has experienced. Thus he has little or nothing to hold on when after the experience of defeat and failure his heart despairs. He will pity and bemoan himself rather than glory in the promises of God.

2. Mysticism – in the Arminian methodist sphere – will tend to prescribe precisely how the deeper spiritual life is to be experienced and the blessings are to be received.

In his book on “The Holy Spirit” R.A. Torrey devotes a chapter to the question: how the baptism with the Spirit is to be obtained, in which he gives an exposition of the four steps that are needed to prepare a christian’s heart for the outpouring of the Holy Spirit.

In an article on: “Be filled with the Spirit”, Robert J. Wells tells that once he approached God in prayer in this way: “Lord, I believe that you did something for D. L. Moody. You will do it for me if I am willing to meet the conditions that are laid down in Your Word”, and further in his article he points to the four steps – different somewhat from Torrey’s four steps – needed in order to meet God’s conditions. Finally I refer Norman Grubb in his booklet “Touching the invisible”. In a chapter on: “How to obtain guidance from the Holy Spirit”, he explains that in his experience there is a special way of preparing yourself for the reception of such guidance, not coming from the Scriptures but directly from God, and that four preparatory steps create the condition in which the guidance may come, or rather will come, as promised.

How different is all this from the simplicity of a life by faith alone in which the believer has full confidence in God that He through his Spirit heaps blessing upon blessing, grace upon grace, and guidance upon guidance on such believers as have never really met one condition and have never succeeded in climbing the spiritual stepladder of the conditions for the higher level life. By faith he trusts that God will always and everywhere guide him through the Scriptures and fill him through the means of grace and so enable him to his appointed task. He knows that God’s arm is not shortened nor His grace limited.

3. There are more marks of mysticism on which we could enlarge, as I may do later. I merely mention then now.

Mysticism will tend to preach the christian and his experiences, rather than the gospel and its promises. Mysticism competes with romanticism in story telling.

Mysticism has no real interest in reforming the church. It tends to form little churches within the church.

Mysticism has little interest in the training of the ministry or in the soundness of doctrine. Spiritual experience binds together more than unity of faith.

And finally mysticism tends to distinguish between two or more types of christians: the carnal and the spiritual christian, the filled and the unfilled christian, the initiated and the uninitiated christian. The Bible knows of no such distinction. The Bible knows about christians and unbelievers, but not of christians in various degrees of illumination.

CONCLUSION

Several of the statements I have made would need more careful, scriptural evidence than I have opportunity to offer within the limits of this article. If readers desire more such evidence they could ask me for it through the “Question Box”. For now this should suffice.

Mysticism, we found, is no substitute for true piety. In fact there is no substitute for it. We need the very thing itself. We are not in need of a revival of mysticism, but we ARE in need of a revival of that christian piety that lives with God as He speaks through His Word day by day. Professor Runia wrote a series of articles on this in our paper. Our own hearts and the churches need to be revived in this point.

It would not be a revival as spectacular as the ones in which mysticism got involved, But it could be more solid and lasting. 

J.W. Deenick

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

Don’t forget to “Like” the article. It helps to spread the word to a wider audience.

Leave a comment

The Two Olive Trees

Prof. G. van Groningen. Trowel & Sword. May 1964

Preamble: Question – Where in the Bible do we find the book of Zechariah? If you could without hesitation answer that it is the second last book of the Old Testament, Well done? My guess is that most of us would have to think about it, perhaps for a few seconds, perhaps longer. Being one of the “Minor Prophets”, it is probably not one of the books that we turn to all that often. It may not even be preached about all that often. In this article Prof. Van Groningen show us some of the riches to be found in what may be considered one of the lesser books of the Bible It contains a powerful message and well worth reading and studying.

The Two Olive Trees

Do you know the story of the two olive trees? If you do, or don’t, you will do well to turn with me to the prophecy of Zechariah Chapter 4.

However, before you read of the two olive trees, read of the sinner, who, foul and guilty, meriting everlasting condemnation, accused by Satan, is standing before his Lord, the Judge. But the accusing Satan is condemned. The foul guilty sinner is pardoned, cleansed and recommissioned in the service of God. Wondrous grace – happy saint! Zech. 3.

This happy saint has a big task to perform. “Keep the Lord’s commandments”. Walk in the Lord’s way”. “Build the City and Kingdom of the Lord”. An impossible task for the saint. He tends to despair. In fact, the people to whom Zechariah preached had given up. Enemies, shortage of building supplies, lack of co-operation, diminishing zeal for the Lord all combined to make the saints’ knees weak, their backs ache, their hands inert, their heads bent in shame.

Then comes the story of the two olive trees. These two trees are elevated. They pour a constant supply of oil into a bowl. The bowl has seven little pipes leading to seven candles. The seven candles are on a candle stick. In fact, every feature in the story, the trees, bowls, candles, are on the candle stick.

Revelation 1 clearly identifies the candlestick. It is the Church. The Church must let its light shine. It can! The wicks are lit. The oil comes in steadily from the two trees.

Hear the word of the Lord now. “Not by human power or strength, but by My Spirit saith the Lord. Mountains of enemies, oppositions, handicaps, shortages, problems just disappear. It is God the Spirit who is the mighty worker.

Must men then, having faith in this God the Spirit, exercise their faith and wait for the Lord to act? Never!! That had been the problem before. There was faith. The oil was there and still no activity. If any activity was discernible, it was the disappearance of zeal, obedience and active faith.

Zechariah had a task in this situation. He, as a prophet of God, had to remind the sinner of his sainthood. By Christ’s work he is pardoned, cleansed, and given his task. And he can do his work. That is why he is reminded of the two trees.

What then is the meaning of these two trees? We see that the oil, the symbol of the Spirit which brings light, power, activity into the Church, comes from these trees. The trees are explained in 4:14. “These are the two anointed Ones”. And who are the Anointed Ones? Turn to Chapter 6 and there we read of the perfect union between Joshua and Zerrubbabel. The Priest and the Ruler (or King) are perfectly united and together sit upon the throne. Through these two the Lord performs His wonders on earth. Through these two the Spirit comes in abundant and constant supply into the Church.

To encourage the saints to do their task on earth, Zechariah points to Jesus Christ the Saviour and King. How correct indeed!

Turn to the New Testament. Jesus promised His followers that he would give them His Spirit fully and freely. But first, the priestly task had to be accomplished. Jesus had to suffer, die, be buried and suffer the anguish of hell. Then, having accomplished that, He had to assume His royal position. He had to arise from the grave, ascend to heaven, and sit at Father’s right hand, THEN and only then would He send forth the Spirit. Acts 2:33 tells us that that is just what happened.

The Priest and King – known as a personal Saviour and Master, loved and obediently followed, became the great source of the Spirit’s power and activity in the pardoned, cleansed and commissioned saints in the early New Testament Church. These saints preached, worshipped, prayed together and possibly even spoke in tongues at times.

Today we find some churches emphasising “Jesus Saves”. They even blazon it on their church towers with neon lights. And the preachers, evangelists, elders, teachers wonder why their church is not more active and fruitful.

The answer is before us. One of the main oil supplies is cut off or almost plugged. Christ as the Sovereign is not known or honoured as He should be according to His Word. Men rely upon themselves too much. We often call this Arminianism. In Calvinist circles we gladly herald the Sovereignty of our Lord. We emphasise the Kingly aspect. And all too often the King is granted His domain there where the individual man, woman, boy or girl is not too intimately involved. That could possibly become too much of an “experience”.

In Reformed Calvinistic circles men tend to shy away, or pull back when PERSONAL salvation, assurance of personal pardon, cleansing and commissioning is spoken of as a necessary experience. It just sounds a bit too pietistic to say: “I know Jesus died for me! Oh happy day, Jesus washed my sins away.” It sounds a bit strange to our ears to hear a man rejoicing in his cleansing and new life by the grace of God. Why? One of the main supply lines is not functioning properly. We emphasize the Sovereignty of God but do not stress enough the personal relationship with Jesus Christ established through His priestly work. And, as a result, we do not render Him our full personal allegiance either as our Sovereign Lord. As a result we become guilty of quenching the Spirit, the supply lines from the two olive trees do not send forth a steady, constant supply.

What is our great need in the present day and age? Yes, let us warn one another of dead orthodoxy. Let us warn one another of false and empty piety. But, above all let us do the following:

1. Let us search the Scriptures more diligently and become better acquainted with our Lord Jesus – our Priest and King. Let us not only exercise our faith in Him, but let us also more actively experience His pardon, cleansing, fellowship and love.

2. Let us join together in fellowship and share the treasures of God’s Word. By all means attend the worship service as often as you can. Let us also have prayer meetings, study hours, (name them what you will) where we all feed our souls on the Living Christ and where we in fellowship experience the wonders of God’s grace.

And, in this fellowship, around the Word of God, God having spoken (not some man through a book) let us pray together, giving thanks, supplicating, submitting ourselves to Him as we eagerly await His blessings for daily life and work.

3. Let us, exercising our faith, and rejoicing in the blessed experience of fellowship with our Saviour and Master, go forth and do our task, knowing that our Priest and King, the Saviour and Master gives us His Spirit to accomplish the work of the Lord on earth. And as we thus work let us sing:

Dwell in me, 0 blessed Spirit
How I need Thy help divine
In the way of life eternal,
Keep, 0 keep this heart of mine.

Round the cross where Thou hast led me,
Let my purest feelings twine.
 With the blood from sin that cleansed me, 
Seal anew this heart of mine.

Let me feel Thy sacred presence;
Then my faith will ne’er decline.
Comfort Thou and help me onward; 
Fill with love this heart of mine.

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

Don’t forget to “Like” the article. It helps to spread the word to a wider audience.

Leave a comment

The Scientist And The Bishop

Prof. K. Runia. Trowel & Sword. November 1963

Preamble: The battle between science and religion has been going for a long time. In essence, it is a battle (if one can use that word) between God and Satan – the wannabe god, which started in Eden with Satan setting out to recruit his first disciples, Adam and Eve. But wait! Can we really talk about “science” when referring to the ancient world? Emphatically, yes! Can we really speak about Babel, or the construction of the pyramids without acknowledging the scientific prowess of the builders in construction techniques? Even the Romans were able to make concrete which are still sound after two thousand years. Modern concrete buildings barely last more that a couple of hundred years. But Satan’s attacks are relentless. You may have heard the saying that if you repeat a lie often enough people will start to believe it. It has also been said that the more outrageous the lie, the more likely it is to be believed. Politicians have been using this principle for years. Not even church officials are immune. And so we come to the story of the scientist and the bishop as told by Prof. Runia.

The Scientist And The Bishop

Last week nearly all daily papers wrote about the bold statements which the famous Australian physicist Sir Mark Oliphant made about the Christian faith. One of our readers in Canberra was so kind to send us the Canberra Times of Saturday, October 12, in which the greater part of the lecture was quoted verbatim.

Ever since the famous Galileo case in the 16th century, when some groups in the Roman Catholic Church of that day forced this astronomer to recant his statement that the earth revolves around the sun (on the basis of Joshua 10:12,13), there has been a conflict between science and theology. In some centuries this conflict was more prominent than in others, but nearly always it was there. Especially in the 19th century it came into the open. The publication of Darwin’s books on evolutionism meant the end of belief in the Bible for many scientists. We do not need God any more, He is a superfluous working hypothesis. Evolution explains everything.

Prof. Oliphant also seems to belong to this purely rationalistic school of thought. In a way he does not make any new point. All the arguments used by him are as old as Darwin. Occasionally he is even very unscientific, as appears from some of his remarks about the ministers of the Church. At one point of his lecture he speaks of the difficulty a Christian has in believing in a loving God and at the same time having to explain diseases, pestilence, famine, etc. In this connection the scientist writes: “A fat prelate in Rome, London, New York, or Sydney, his belly lined with good food, claims greater knowledge of God than was possessed by Pasteur, by Newton, by Gowland Hopkins, by Einstein, or by Rutherford”. Such a bantering way of speaking is far below any standard!

But what does Sir Mark Oliphant believe for himself?

To be honest: nothing at all. He is a pure materialist. All religions (including the Christian religion) are explained as products of evolution. From primitive times onward man has always felt the need of explaining things. There must be a deepest cause of both good and evil. Thus people came to belief in gods and devils. Of course, all these beliefs are nothing  else than projections of the human mind. This does not all mean that they are unimportant. Prof. Oliphant graciously admits: “The creator of Heaven and Earth, of all things seen and unseen, the benevolent  Father of all mankind, has been a source of strength in adversity, of law and justice, of the most magnificent architecture and art, and of quiet, inner, hope and fulfilment, to countless human beings of many great religions”. Nevertheless, from the scientific point of view it is nothing else than projection. “Suppose, that on some other ‘earth’ in the universe, it was the porpoise, a creature with a large brain and great intelligence, which overcame the disabilities of its environment and evolved to as high a degree as man on this earth? Would the porpoise-beings imagine God as a super-porpoise?” 

But what then?

The only thing we know is that the universe is infinite, both as to space and time. “The universe of space, matter and radiation (light) is no ephemeral thing, but possesses in itself those attributes of creation, permanence, and limitlessness, which are associated with the idea of God. Surely then, if there is a God, he is this universe. Through it, and in it, he must express himself. In it and by it, he must have his being.” That is all that is to be said about ‘God’. As far as man himself is concerned, he is nothing else than a high product of this material universe. He is able to think, etc., but this is not unique, it is only a glorified aspect of his physical existence. The highest task of man is not to strive for salvation – “petty personal aim” – but for understanding of himself and of the world in which he lives.

It is obvious that this is pure, unadulterated materialism. Sir Mark Oliphant has no place for God in the universe. Sir Mark Oliphant has no place for God in his own life. Man is only a tiny part of nature, lives as such and presently will die as such, which is the absolute finish. God is only another name for the universe. That is, the universe is God, which is equal to saying: there is no God at all. There is only nature, creative and infinite.

In all this there is nothing new. It is the old, well-know scientific materialism, for years already defended by such men as Julian Huxley and others. It is the belief (yes, this too is a form of belief) of autonomous man, who refuses to see himself as a sinful creature and therefore ‘gives the sack’ to God. It is the through and through superficial unbelief of the scientist who is willing to accept only what he can see and measure with his instruments, and rejects everything that falls outside this scope. It is the proud unbelief of the sinner who refuses to acknowledge his own smallness and powerlessness, who refuses to be taught by the God of the revelation.

We do not believe that this lecture of Prof. Oliphant is very important. We have referred to it here only because it is a symptom of a very general attitude. At the same time we wondered: what would Sir Mark Oliphant say of the book written by Dr. J.A.T. Robinson, the Anglican bishop of Woolwich: ‘Honest to God’? I have the impression that he has not read the book of the bishop. But I have also the impression, that if he would read it, he would strongly applaud it! In actual fact there is no essential difference between the scientist and the bishop. I know that the bishop speaks much about God. It is a term which he still treasures. He also says many ‘profound’ things about God. But is there really much difference between the two? Really? The physicist says: the universe is god. The bishop says: God is the Ground of Being in all things. Surely, there are certain differences, but I do not believe them to be of an essential nature. In fact the bishop himself often appeals to Sir Julian Huxley, the materialist who wrote a book about ‘Religion without revelation’. The bishop definitely has certain reservations. He criticises the materialist, but ultimately he himself cannot get away from some kind of naturalism. There is no personal God existing apart from this universe. What is then really the difference?

Yes, this is the shocking situation: a bishop of the Church of England gives such a version of the Christian faith that essentially there is no difference between the ‘Christian’ bishop and the atheistic scientist! For this reason the bishop is a much greater danger than the scientist. The latter is an open, avowed atheist and as such he will not deceive anyone, neither a believer nor an unbeliever. The former is a ‘guardian of the truth’ in the Christian Church, but his teachings are as a spiritual lullaby for all unbelievers.They can even go on to call themselves Christians and be members of the Church (even Sir Mark Oliphant!), yet without regeneration, without conversion, without atonement, without the living God of the Scriptures. 

K. RUNIA

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

Don’t forget to “Like” the article. It helps to spread the word to a wider audience.

Leave a comment

Prof. J. A. Schep Professor-Emeritus The End Of An Era.

Prof. K. Runia. Trowel & Sword. K. October 1964

Preamble: It would be fair to say that the majority of articles in Trowel and Sword were written for the purpose teaching or informing readers about Reformed faith and/or doctrine. This article does neither. It is instead a nostalgic piece written in recognition of the services rendered to both the church and the Reformed Theological College by one of the pioneers of both, who went above and beyond what would normally be expected of a minister of the church. Was he exceptional? Prof. Runia obviously thought he was. But then, many of the early pioneers were. How would we stack up today against men who did so much in such a short space of time.

Prof. J. A. Schep Professor-Emeritus The End Of An Era.

On Friday, August 4, at the occasion of the annual College dinner, we officially said farewell to Prof. Schep as professor in the College. It is almost impossible to visualise the reality expressed by these cold words. The names of Prof. Schep and of our College are inseparably related. When the College was established in 1955, Prof. Schep was one of the first lecturers, together with Prof. Barkley. As was said on August 4, he has borne the heat of the day and the cold of the night, which characterised the first years. At first there was really nothing. There were no funds, no building, no library, no organisation. There were only a handful of students and two inexperienced lecturers. But Prof. Schep undertook the heavy burden with all his energy, and that at an age then others are almost considering retirement! And the Lord has blessed his work wonderfully.

Now the first ten years have gone and precisely at this stage Prof. Schep has decided to retire from active College work. This is no less than the end of an era.

At the dinner, this time given in the honour of Prof. and Mrs. Schep, many words of appreciation were spoken. Attention was drawn to Prof. Schep’s great gifts of learning and teaching, to his fatherly interest in the students, and above all to his faithfulness to the Word of God and His great love for the Lord. Prof. Schep himself said at the end of the evening: “I am very grateful that I was allowed to do this work. These have been the ten richest years of my life and ministry”.

Now he has retired from his active duties, but we are all sure that he will remain active. He himself mentioned this too. All emphasis was placed on one specific activity: the labour of prayer for the College and its community. “I hope to ask the Lord daily that all connected with the College may remain faithful to His Word and that teachers and students may be Spirit-filled men”.

We believe it to be most fitting that this fact of Prof. Schep’s retirement is mentioned on the pages of our magazine. From the very beginning he has had a leading place in the life of our Churches. Several churches in Tasmania came into existence through his ministry. Through his work in the College, his articles in ‘Trowel and Sword’, his numerous advices given to sessions and individuals, his reports for Synod, etc. he has rendered invaluable service to all our churches in Australia and New Zealand.

Our prayer is that the Lord may bless him and Mrs. Schep in their days of retirement. At the moment they are making preparations for another world tour to visit their children in The Netherlands and Canada. They hope to leave Australia some time during this month. On behalf of all our readers we bid them Godspeed.

K. Runia

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

Don’t forget to “Like” the article. It helps to spread the word to a wider audience.

Leave a comment

The Cadets. 

The Van Groningens. Trowel & Sword, September 1965

Preamble: Four week’s ago we published “Jesus Christ Lord of Life and Cadets” by Prof. George van Groningen, which appeared in T&S in November 1967. It was a passionate defence of the Cadet movement introduced into Australia two years earlier, also by Prof V.G. This article tells the story of how it all came about – at the suggestion of one of his sons. It is interesting to note that the churches across “the Ditch” in New Zealand had beaten Australia to the punch (again) and already had Cadets up and running when van Groningen started Cadets in Geelong. It would be interesting to know how and when Cadets started in New Zealand. Does anybody know/remember?

The Cadets.

Geelong youth leaders made four attempts in the past seven years to plan and develop a programme of instruction, youth activities and fellowship for the boys and girls.

The first attempt was the Saturday Morning School. This received the backing of the parents, good support from the session. The Saturday Morning school is still functioning.

The second attempt was to form a Junior Youth Club. The club was intended for boys and girls from 10-15 years of age. Bible study, craft (hand work), games, outings, etc. were on the schedule. A few leaders worked hard. But slowly on attendance dropped and ere long there were more leaders present at a meeting than boys and girls.

A third attempt was made. It was an attempt to revive the afternoon club. Junior choir practice was added as a feature. However, this new attempt did not succeed either. For a few years the youth aged 10-15 had nothing in the way of Christian fellowship and specific youth activities. The two Saturday afternoon clubs were, it seems, patterned too much after the Senior youth clubs, emphasis on study, discussions, etc. “The youth were expected to act older than they were”, might be a way to sum the matter up. Probably it is still better said this way: “The former attempts did not properly allow for the broad range of interests that 10-15 year old boys and girls have.

In 1963, when we visited in the U.S., our boys visited Cadet clubs. They were enthused about the meetings. One of our sons said as we were preparing to return to Australia, “I’d be completely ready to go back if we had Cadet meetings in Australia.” As parents we resolved to see what could be done to satisfy the boy’s desires.

We made a visit to the Cadet Headquarters in Grand Rapids. (200 Commerce Ave.; S.W. Grand Rapids, Mich, U.S.A.) We learned there, and subsequent to that visit, that the Cadet Corps is both international and interdenominational, though it is and remains a strongly Reformed youth movement. Cadet clubs were functioning in the U.S.A., Canada, Argentina and New Zealand. We learned that an Australian Council could be formed. As a Council the Australians would be part of the greater international Corps, drawing supplies from the headquarters in the U.S. The Council would be allowed latitude and freedom to develop the Cadet work in such a way that the Cadet programme would best suit Australian needs and yet remain within the broad framework of the Cadet Corps.

Soon after our arrival in Geelong in 1964 we called the parents together to discuss the possibility of organising a Cadet club. The parents were enthusiastic. In mid-winter the club was formed. Nineteen boys became Cadets. Four counsellors began to prepare for the meetings. In September ’64 the Geelong club became members of the Cadet Corps – club No. 440. A special Council patch – with the Kangaroo on it – was prepared in Grand Rapids specifically for the Australian Cadets.

Tasmania folk heard of the attempt in Geelong and ere long a Cadet club was formed in Kingston. Meanwhile a Cadet club was (also) formed in Brisbane.

The specific emphasis of the Cadet Corps is to train boys for Christian leadership. To do this, the spiritual, social, physical and cultural aspects of a boy’s life are combined into a beautifully balanced programme. Bible study, hikes, discussions, hand work, games, outings and projects are all included in the schedule.

Good leaders are very necessary as counsellors. Requests for a Cadet and Calvinette leaders meeting has been suggested. Some preliminary discussion is now being held about a long weekend camp for leaders. This “training camp” , if it is held, will be in Victoria late January or early February 1966.

The Cadet movement thus is geared to fill a real part in the boy’s life. The Cadet Corps received strong support from the Synod of the Christian Reformed Church (U.S.) in 1951. A synodical committee made a study of the Boy Scout movement and found it to be thoroughly humanistic, even if it was adjusted to a church organisation or sponsored by a local congregation. The committee also heard that young boys who became enthusiastic scouts while young were often lukewarm and cool to the church as they grew older. These factors may well apply in Australia also.

Some parents, when they first hear of the Cadet programme, think it quite expensive. In Geelong we have found that 36 sh(illings – $3.60) per boy, as an initial outlay, provides each boy with a kerchief and slide, a cadet guide book, cadet emblem, council patch and recruit stripe. A Cadet flag for the club was purchased. One shilling and sixpence (15 cents) per week after that pays for general expenses and the CRUSADER, the monthly boys magazine – containing Bible studies, stories, craft helps, merit badge explanations, jokes, etc. The uniform is the plain grey twill shorts and shirt, grey socks and plain shoes.

In the first year of operation, the Cadet club in Geelong has been enthusiastic, lively and most helpful. The Cadets have cheerfully paid their dues to date and all have been able to pay their initial expense. Truly, they paid little money compared to the immense benefits they received in spiritual growth and fellowship and in terms of plain good boys’ fun and activity.

The Calvinette programme is organised somewhat differently. An article on Calvinettes will appear in a later issue. 

The van Groningens

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 Don’t forget to “Like” the article. It helps to spread the word to a wider audience.

Leave a comment

What Does Our Youth Think Of The Ministry?

Stephen Voorwinde. Trowel & Sword, March 1977

Preamble: When speaking of “The Ministry” it has been generally understood that one is referring to a pastor/minister of a church, so it is interesting that the questionnaire mentioned below was given to both male and female participants at a state camp, particularly as fifty years ago the question of women pastors in the Reformed Churches would not even have been considered. It could however be argued that women married to or considering being married to a man thinking about the ministry should be aware of how this would also affect her life. It’s a tough gig for both and not one that should be entered into lightly. So the outcomes of this “research” makes for interesting reading and the questions asked should be thoroughly considered by anyone thinking about whether God has called them to enter “The Ministry”.

What Does Our Youth Think Of The Ministry?

When you stop to think about it this is a question that should make you hold your breath. “Humanly” speaking the future of our churches might well depend on the answer. What if our young people thought negatively of the ministry? Or, perhaps worse, didn’t think of it at all? Well (and again we’re speaking “humanly”) you need have no fears if all the Reformed youth of Australia are as serious, dedicated, spiritual and perceptive as are many of our young people in N.S.W.

At one of our State camps in 1976 they were presented with a questionnaire entitled “If You Were a Minister…….” This questionnaire was answered by 64 young people – 29 males and 35 females. Of these approximately 55 were members of a Reformed Church. Their ages ranged from 15 to 27 years; the average age was 20.

As you read their answers given below, you might keep in mind at least three facts that this survey tells us about these young people:

Firstly, their answers will reflect how they have been taught.

Secondly, their response will let their ministers know what is expected of them.

Thirdly, it will indicate whether or not they have at all considered the call to the ministry for themselves.

Here then are the results of the questionnaire. (The questionnaire itself is in bold print, the answers in ordinary type).

WHAT WOULD YOUR PRIORITIES BE? (LIST ORDER OF PREFERENCES) 

Visiting church members   3 

Evangelism 14 

Preaching 39 

Church Administration   1

Catechism and youth work   3

Community service   1

Other   3

2.  WHAT WOULD BE THE OVERALL GOAL OF YOUR MINISTRY?

As might be expected, the answers given here tied in closely with those to the previous question. The overall goals were seen mainly in terms of preaching and evangelism, sometimes with remarkably clear insights into the relationship between the two. Here are some examples:

“To arouse an interest in the study of God’s Word and to orientate the Church towards its aim of obeying Jesus’ commission.”

“To provide for the spiritual needs of the congregation and to give counsel and comfort in matters of their faith. I feel this is paramount because these are God’s people and they have to be led. Then would come evangelism to others.”

A sixteen year-old’s reply was to the point: “Helping people meet God.”

3  HOW LONG, ON THE AVERAGE, WOULD YOU SPEND PREPARING EACH SERMON?

0-5 HOURS 5

6-10 hours 23

11-15 hours 21

16-20 hours.   6

Over 20 hours   5

4. FOR WHAT REASONS WOULD YOU VISIT CHURCH MEMBERS?

Here an equal priority was given to social and problem-oriented approaches. Each of these was given as a reason by 26 of the young people. Considerably less emphasis was placed on counselling (12) visiting the sick (11) and discipline (6). Again some samples:

“Coffee, cake, closer relationship.”

“To keep in contact with them, build up a relationship where they feel free to bring any problems they may have to you. Fellowship.”

“To help in problems concerning understanding of the Bible and personal relationship to Jesus; to urge them on in personal devotions.”

5. WHAT WOULD YOU EXPECT SUCH VISITS TO ACHIEVE?

The recurring trend in each answer was basically to retain communication and a closer relationship. Once this was established, then to move on to various other issues. These included: better understanding, sharing concern, counselling opportunities and encouragement. At the bottom of this list (surprisingly) were such diverse replies as: “solving problems” “ability to assist.” and “no achievement.”

6. WHAT PERSONAL QUALITIES WOULD YOU AIM TO HAVE?

What struck me in the answers given here was an almost complete absence of the heroic, the dynamic and the charismatic. The emphasis was much more on the “quieter’ side of the minister’s character. The qualities most frequently mentioned were: understanding (24), communication abilities (23), wisdom (19), patience (19), Christian love (13) the ability to listen (12) and knowledge of the Bible (12). On the other hand, leadership ability was mentioned only 8 times and boldness and enthusiasm each occurred only once.

7. WHAT WOULD YOU EXPECT FROM YOUR WIFE? YOUR CHILDREN?

“To be a normal Christian family!”

“Co-operation with your daily work, good family relationships.”

“For her to love me in my work, to be ordinary children, but to be true Christians.” “That they love the Lord, help you with your work, be patient, and that my wife would be able to cope with my sudden disappearances.

These answers were fairly representative. Again “understanding” was the quality given top priority for both wives and children.

8. HOW MANY HOURS A WEEK WOULD YOU SPEND ON EACH OF THE FOLLOWING? PERSONAL PRAYER 10.2 HOURS (average) 

Bible study 10.5 hours

Sermon preparation 12.5 hours 

Being with your family 29.3 hours

Visiting church members 9.4 hours 

Evangelism 8.4 hours 

Church administration 6.4 hours

Involvement in the community 9.0 hours

If we leave out “Being with your Family,” we have a fair indication of the minister’s

working week. Here the average was 66.4 hours, with a range in responses from 35 to 136 hours! The latter would leave a whole 32 hours for eating, sleeping and being with the family. What a life!

9. WHAT OTHER SKILLS WOULD YOU AIM TO HAVE APART FROM PREACHING?

Strangely enough two of the most common replies were “communication” (15) and “teaching’ (10) – which shows that the respondents either misunderstood the question or the nature of preaching. Other skills frequently mentioned were: social work (18), organisation (11), understanding (11), listening (7). Two young people also indicated that the minister should be a good motorist. If the shoe fits, wear it, brother!

10. HOW WOULD YOU INVOLVE THE YOUTH OF YOUR CHURCH

Top priority was given to participation in youth services (21 replies). Next came Bible studies (17), evangelism (16) and community involvement (15). Only a handful of young people mentioned such customary activities as catechism classes, cadets and Calvinettes. Sunday School teaching was also mentioned.

11. HOW MUCH LEISURE TIME WOULD YOU HAVE AND HOW WOULD YOU SPEND IT?

Here there were some interesting differences in replies between males and females. Average weekly leisure time for male respondents was 24 hours. For females it was 17.2 hours. Spending time with the family either at home or on outings was a leisure activity mentioned by 28 females but by only 17 males. Various sports, however, were mentioned equally by both sexes. Except for house maintenance, other activities received almost no mention.

12. WHAT FORM WOULD YOU EXPECT A CALL TO THE MINISTRY TO TAKE?

“Feeling that doing something for God is right for you.”

“I feel that it would be intrinsic – a voice from within (the Holy Spirit), and that if I didn’t yield to it; it would hound me until I did.”

“Suddenly hitting upon something in the Bible and being so inspired so as to want to take up the ministry.”

You may be relieved to learn that these respondents answered the next question in the negative. Those who answered it affirmatively had obviously given this question much deeper thought:

“Long months of prayer, talk, and thought about it. It must not be a snap decision. Of course, the Lord will have put the thought into your mind in the first place and will guide the end decision.”

Looking at your talents, gifts, and opportunities; being interested in the field; seeing a need in the Church; and being prepared to study.”

It was encouraging to discover that those who said “yes” to question 13 generally had a clear, sensible and Scriptural view of the call to the ministry. Others, however, often gave answers that were vague and confused. Some said they simply did not know the answer. Amidst our present shortage of ministerial manpower, could this not be an area where greater pastoral concern and guidance is called for?

13. HAVE YOU HAD SUCH A CALL? 

Nine answered “yes”. 46 answered “no”. Six were unsure and three gave no reply.

14. HAVE YOU EVER PRAYED ABOUT IT?

30 said “yes” 29 said “no”.

Again it is encouraging to see how many young people are taking these matters seriously. But now, my reader, how would YOU answer the last two questions?

STEPHEN VOORWINDE

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 Don’t forget to “Like” the article. It helps to spread the word to a wider audience.

Comments on previous articles:

I wholeheartedly subscribe to the comment of T&S Revisited editor(s) with regard to the book “Things we could not say”. I bought it for myself and have encouraged some of my children and grandchildren to read it and become more a ware of what actually happened in Western Europe in these war years. Family members of my parents’ generation were actively involved in various resistance activities during that time and suffered for it in various ways. (Pieter v.d.W.)

I loved the article written by Allan Quak!  We may not be able to go to church twice on a Sunday to worship and praise God but we can be thankful that we can go at least once and that we are not hampered in our freedom to worship. I think the principles in this article could/should be highlighted in our Church Newsletter so that, hopefully, our congregation would be encouraged again to read why we make time to stop what we’re doing during the week and honour God and be obedient to His Word to keep the Sabbath Day holy…  Why has playing sport (especially) become such a big thing, such a big distraction? Do we realise what we are doing, teaching our children/young people when we allow them to substitute their game to take the place of attending church to worship God? It is pure idolatry! Nothing else! We should be repenting of this sinful attitude. There maybe a time coming that God will say to us, ” You had no time for me on that weekly special day? I don’t know you! Go away from Me…”  (Henriet V.)

Leave a comment

The Debate Goes On

Rev. J.W. Deenick. Trowel & Sword. December 1976

Preamble: Bill Deenick was passionate about many things and Parent Controlled Christian Education (PCCE) was high on his list of priorities. To him Christian Education was never about creating schools that ran parallel to the state system with a bit of Bible teaching thrown in as an added extra. Back in 1976 the question was being asked: What is Christian Education really all about? This was not an easy question to answer back then and if the truth be told that debate still continues today. In the interim, state education has to a large extent become a political football, but can the same be said about PCCE? As J.W. writes in his closing paragraph, “….we need all the talent we can muster to work together and to find biblical ways for the development of a Christian school curriculum.” Have we come any closer to achieving that goal than we were in 1976? And so…

The Debate Goes On

This paper has never been ashamed of its excitement about the Christian education issue, or about the progress made towards the establishment of Christian schools controlled by Christian parents. We are well aware of the relative smallness of the Christian school movement but we would like to believe that being small does not necessarily mean being insignificant. A beginning has been made, schools have been established, the issues have been raised and the debate on what Christian education is about has been thrown wide open.

In the circle of the Australian National Union of Christian Schools the Education in Focus Conferences have been a tremendous help. As a venue for discussion and for training in Christian educational thought the conferences have been unique in Australia. It is essential that the Christian School movement finds its own answers to the educational challenge of the day: which are the ultimate aims and the methods of classroom education?

Not every one at the Education in Focus (E.in F.) Conferences came up with the same answers. That was hardly to be expected and it was never the case. Yet, when I look through the pile of studies and papers delivered at the conferences since they started I can only be impressed with the great variety of the work done and with the skill and enthusiasm with which it has been done. Taking into account that nothing much of this nature has been tried in Australia before and that the evangelical community never managed to proceed much beyond a program for Bible-in-school lessons we may forgive the participants in the E.in F. conferences their reliance on work done overseas, particularly in Canada. It is only understandable that much of the Toronto material has been received here with enthusiasm. For one thing nothing much else is available: and for another the Canadian material, based on the philosophy of Herman Dooyeweerd, represents the first effort to come up with an all-over Christian educational program.

Even when we are critical of that program (for more reasons than one) we ought to make sure that our criticism is restrained and constructive. If we concentrate on picking holes in the various publications coming from Toronto (which in itself is easy enough) we offer little positive service to the Christian educational community. When I listen to criticism of the integral school curriculum which the Canadians have begun to produce (Joy in Learning) I am tempted to fear that we are driven back into the wilderness where for over a hundred years Christian teachers looked for a Christian philosophy of education and found Bible-in-school lessons.

However, this is not to say that the Canadian program is sacrosanct. It is not; nor is the philosophy on which it is based, the Dooyeweerdian philosophy, sacrosanct. It is good to remember that the Christian school movement is NOT a Dooyeweerdian movement. It never was. Long before there was a Dooyeweerdian philosophy there was a Christian educational program. It could even be argued that the Toronto men have come to the educational scene as Johnnies come lately. It is therefore proper that their material is studied carefully and that critique and corrections are offered freely where these are believed to be needed. The discussion is still wide open. The Toronto Institute does not function as the Holy See for Christian educational thought; nor has Dooyeweerd been canonised.

Not so long ago Dr. Noel Weeks has offered points of criticism regarding the Canadian program as presented at the E. in F. conferences. Some of his questions I find most relevant and to the point, but in other instances I find his critique uncertain and the Canadian propositions more Biblically sound.

Dr. Weeks asks a very pertinent question on the consequences of what the Bible teaches regarding the total depravity of the human nature for Christian thought on education. Good question. He also challenges some of the Canadians on what he sees as their compromise with present day unbelief in educational philosophy (Dewey). Did we reject the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas on account of its attempted synthesis between the gospel and classical thought in order to do some modern day synthesising ourselves? Dr. Weeks further raises the issue of the school as a unique structure of society, and of history as normative for the truth.

On the other hand there are questions that I would like to ask Dr. Weeks: e.g. since we all agree that God’s self-revelation in the Scriptures is normative for the faith and life of God’s people what reason is there to doubt that also His self-revelation in the creation can be trusted by those who read “the book of nature” believingly, i.e. believing the whole self-revelation of God in the creation and in the Scripture? And when we do study God’s creation by faith do we then not discover by faith His wonderful and wise designs and the amazing order in all that He has created? It seems to me that not the Bible but that the solar system tells me in what wonderful ways God keeps the solar system together. For the pulpit it is enough for me to say that He does so by the Word of His power; but in the school and at the university I have to explain what Bible believing research has discovered about the laws of creation by which the Word of God’s power functions in the solar system. And these discoveries then have authority for my Christian thinking as well as for my Christian behaviour within the solar system.

And so the discussion is altogether wide open yet and the debate goes on. But let it be positively directed. We need to furnish the young men and women who pioneer in teaching at the Christian school not only with good material and textbooks, but also with a comprehensive program for Christian education in which the textbooks properly fit. This may seem a mammoth task; and it is. But then we need all the talent we can muster to work together and to find biblical ways for the development of a Christian school curriculum. In T&S we hope to continue taking part in the discussion on these educational matters. One point that we hope to bring up in the next issue is that of the confessional basis of the school. This is the more interesting since the same question has come up in the context of the Association for a Christian University and its confessional basis.

BILL DEENICK

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

Looking Back – “Things We Couldn’t Say”

On May 26 we posted a book review, also by Bill Deenick, with the above title. In it he wrote: “Now that I have read it, I want to tell the readers of T&S more about it, because it is a very wonderful book; and it deserves place of honour on the book shelves of those who have come to love and serve the Lord Jesus in the Reformed tradition.” I took Bill’s advice, bought a second hand copy on the internet and finished reading it last week. I concur with everything Bill wrote about this incredible book. Being knee-high to a grasshopper when my family migrated to Australia I have never really felt a connection to the country of my birth – until I read “Things We Couldn’t Say”. My parents never spoke about their experiences during the war but this book has given some insight into what they went through. It explains a lot why they were the way they were.

It also sounds a warning about the anti-Semitism that currently appears to be sweeping through the Western World, including Australia. A warning that history is repeating itself. In the postscript Diet writes: “When the war ended we all said,’This can never happen again.’ But now polls show that 22 percent of the US population does not believe there was a holocaust. The story has to be retold so that history does not repeat itself.” That was written over 25 years ago. Diet Eman and many of those who worked with her were members of the Reformed Church in the Netherlands. It is time that the CRC here in Australia and also in New Zealand make our voices heard in our churches, in the papers and in the halls of power to stop the increasing anti Jewish sentiment from growing into another holocaust.

Leave a comment

Are Our Congregations Really Active?

Rev. Prof. K. Runia. Trowel & Sword, August 1959

Preamble: Take note of the date of this article – 1959! As with so many previous articles re-published in TSR, it is hard to escape the thought that Dr. Runia could just as easily have been writing also for 2025. In doing so he is not necessarily offering solutions for the denomination then, or now, as to what he sees as some of the problems we face, but rather encourages his readers to think about, debate, and formulate a plan of action to overcome our shortcomings and then to put that plan into action to reflect, in his own words, “GODS’ ORIGINAL INTENTION WITH (for) THE CHURCH.” Keep in mind that, with hindsight, it could be said that Prof. Runia wrote these words in what could now be considered probably the most active and productive period of the CRCA.

Are Our Congregations Really Active?

A Slow And Inert Flock?

Undoubtedly every minister and every elder or deacon will agree with me, that the question in the heading of this editorial is one of the most important questions in our Reformed Churches. Are our congregations really active? Or are they a (more or less) willing and docile (?), but also a (more or less!) slow and inert flock, that constantly has to be urged and spurred by the office bearers to go on and display some kind of activity?

Of course such a contrast, as I have indicated here, is always in danger of being an unfair generalisation. In every congregation there is a certain number of members, who are willing indeed to be active, to sacrifice their time and energy for the cause of the Church and its Lord.

But – and that is the question here – are they typical of the total congregation, or are they rather the exceptions which confirm the rule? Personally I fear that the latter is more true than the former.

And therefore it is a truly burning question: Are our congregations really active?

The Days After Pentecost And Today

However, not only in our Reformed Churches this question can be and must be asked, but this same problem is also under discussion in many other Churches, In our days, in which the Church is faced with the situation of being again a ‘ little flock’ (Luke 12:32) in the literal sense of the word, in the midst of a world which is in a process of ever increasing secularisation, all Churches are forced to reflect upon their own attitude.

And then always this question comes up: Why was the newborn Church of the days after Pentecost so flourishing? Why was there that great increase of numbers, or which we time and again read in the book of acts? It is an impressive list of texts: Acts 4:4; 5:13,14; 6:7; 8:6; 9:31,42; 11:21,24;12:24; 14:1,21; 16:5; 17:4,12; 18:10; 19:20.

Of course there is first of all the Holy Spirit Himself, who in His superior force breaks through all the obstacles of Judaism with its legalism and of Paganism with its lawlessness. But – the spirit did his work then, as well as now, through the medium of the BELIEVERS: Why that amazing result in those first days and also in the subsequent centuries? Why again in the days of the Reformation? Why still today in some mission fields?

WHY?

All over the world the Church struggles with this Question. In an article in the “REFORMED AND PRESBYTERIAN WORLD” (Vol. XXV, No.4, of Dec. 1958) I read some very helpful and instructive thoughts about this problem, and I would like to pass some of them on to our readers. The author, Dr. Richard SHAULL, an American minister, does not go into the practical side of the matter, but rather concentrates on the underlying principles. I hope these principles may be of such an impact upon us, that we too start to think about the problem and then try to find out some practical measures, which can be applied in our special situation, in order to reach the desired goal: the combined activity of all our members.

Is The Setup Of Our Church Life Right?

In his article ,entitled “The Service of The Church”, Dr. Shaull points to the fact that the Church is called to be a COMMUNITY OF SERVICE AND MISSION IN THE WORLD. And of course we all agree! But the author immediately adds: When it comes to pursuing this to its logical consequence we are still mere children. The whole set-up of our Church life seems to be defective in this regard. The actual situation is this: “By means of a programme primarily under the responsibility of the pastor, the faithful come together to hear the preaching of the word and receive the sacraments, to be instructed and nurtured in Christian faith and life”. In other words, the members of the congregation are entirely AT THE RECEIVING END. They are mainly the object of ministerial and pastoral care, rather than subjects who abound in personal activities.

How insufficient and unsatisfactory this set-up is, becomes evident especially in the mission fields. In many places in the mission fields, there are small congregations which, as they come into existence, are dynamic missionary communities, but which lose much of their vitality and outreach as they take on the established pattern. New converts come to the Church as militants but, after a few years on the receiving end of a religious programme, they lose much of their original enthusiasm or become so involved in the programme of the ecclesiastical institution that they have little possibility of service in the Church’s mission to the world”.

Of course this does not mean that we have to throw away the preaching of the Word and the administration of the Sacraments, the nature and the fellowship, as we have them now. On the contrary. They are indispensable. But – they have to function in the great context of the all-important task of service and mission in the world.

In this connection we could certainly learn a great deal from the sects. Some of them, such as the Pentecostals have discovered again what it means for the local Church to be a dynamic missionary community. We could also point to the activity of the Communists. Nobody can be a real, good Communist, without being at the same time a fervent propagandist of the doctrine of his party. The author himself says: “On several occasions I have been shocked when I have taken militant Communists to activities of our Church and they have told me quite frankly that they could see little correspondence between what I had said to them about the mission of the Church, and what they saw in the programme and activities within its walls”.

WHAT WOULD A COMMUNIST SAY OF OUR REFORMED CHURCHES IN THIS REGARD?

Can We Leave It To The Minister?

Further there is the place of the MINISTER in our Churches. We are not Roman Catholics who say that their spiritual leaders belong to a higher order or class. Yet we, too, are in constant danger of Clericalism (DOMINOCRATIE).

We tend to think of the ministry of the Church as the work of the pastor and make him the centre of the congregation. The layman tends to have a passive role, to be thought of as the person who assists the pastor in the work of the Church.

But is that the right relation between the two? WHO has to do the work of the Church in the world? For the Church exists only, or at least: mainly, to fulfil her service IN THE WORLD. WHO has to do this? Can the minister do it alone? Or should it be so that the real witnesses are the laymen in the factories, shops, offices, etc? Is not the main task of the minister to nurture the members of the congregation in order that they may obtain the spiritual strength to perform their missionary task in the world?

VERY OFTEN WE ARE QUITE SATISFIED(?) WHEN WE HAVE A NICE CONGREGATION, WHICH AS TO ITS ORGANISATION RUNS SMOOTHLY, HAS A SOUND FINANCIAL BASIS, A NICE CHURCH BUILDING AND A POPULAR MINISTER. But – DID JESUS GVIE HIS LIFE TO CALL FORTH SUCH ORGANISATIONS?

What is our highest aim in and with the Reformed Churches? A NICE congregation, with a NICE minister and a NICE building and NICE organisations, etc.? Or do we realise that we are Church of Christ IN ORDER TO REACH OUT TO THE WORLD?

But should then the set-up of our Churches not have to become quite different? Should then not every member have to become a missionary? Should then our congregation not be a real failure, if it is NOT such an active community, directed at the world outside the Church? Should then not each one of us have to be ashamed, if we come before God’s Holy countenance on Sunday and we have NOT witnessed of Him since the service last Sunday?

Come, O Creator Spirit!

What then to do?

It is easier to ask this question than to answer it . Dr. Saull mentions a few points, which I pass on without any comment. They may be useful as a starting point for further reflection.

FIRST he points to the fact that the New Testament speaks of a much greater variety and richness of ministerial callings than our Church permits at present. (See I Corinthians 12:4-30). How can we make room in the Church for more  of this  richness ? Or in other words: HOW IS IT POSSIBLE FOR US TO MAINTAIN ORDER IN THE CHURCH AND STILL REMAIN OPEN TO THE HOLY SPIRIT?

SECONDLY, the ministry of the Church is called to prepare all the members of the Body for the service of Christ. Too often the MINISTER DOES NOT THINK IN THOSE TERMS. How is it possible for him to develop a new conception of his role in the Church and become in reality what he is called to be? What changes doos this demand in the way he uses his time, in the work that he does in the organisation of the programme and life of the local Church?

THIRDLY, what changes are demanded in our programme for the training of THE MINISTRY? If the minister is called to prepare and stimulate the development of a community of servants, called to suffer with Jesus Christ in the world, how then should he be trained? What aspects of his training have to receive the main emphasis?

Back To The New Testament!

It is obvious that a wide field of reflection and research is opened up here. It is also obvious that this new line of thought, and eventually of practice, will not be easy. This will ask a complete rethinking of the life and function of the church, followed perhaps by a complete re-organisation.

But I am sure that we cannot and may not avoid these problems. This is not a matter of introducing novelties, but we are faced here with the centre nerve of the Church’s existence.

It is true, we are prompted to it. by the changing situation in our modern world. But is it not equally true that precisely in this way we are PROMPTED BACK TO THE NEW TESTAMENT SITUATION, even more: TO GODS’ ORIGINAL INTENTION WITH THE CHURCH.

K. Runia

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

Don’t forget to “Like” the article. It helps to spread the word to a wider audience.

Leave a comment

Jesus Christ Lord of Life and Cadets

Prof. G. van Groningen. Trowel & Sword. November 1967

Preamble: VAN GRONINGEN – remember that name; especially the younger members (under 50) who may not have heard it before and do not know the significant part that both George and Harriet played in the development and growth of the Reformed Churches in Australia and New Zealand, the Reformed Theological College; and their passion for children’s and youth programs. They were unashamedly Calvinistic in their outlook and this defined their theology and their Christian worldview. It makes one wonder – where are the Van Groningen’s of today?

Jesus Christ Lord of Life and Cadets

As Calvinists we hold with conviction and fervour to the blessed truth that Jesus Christ is Lord of life. He is the Master, the King, the absolute Sovereign over all of life. Jesus Christ , through whom the world and all it contains was created is also the redeemer of the Cosmos. Jesus suffered, died and bore the anguish of hell because the cosmos – man’s home as well as man himself, lay under the curse of God upon sin and evil . Paying the debt of sin and guilt, Jesus Christ ransomed man and his home . Our Lord Jesus is a cosmic Redeemer. And as a cosmic Redeemer He is also a cosmic Lord.

This great and glorious truth is one of the main reasons and motives for my intense interest in the Calvinist Cadet Corps, its program and above all its members – counsellors as well as boys. This truth stimulates me to continue as an active worker in the Cadet Corps .

In case you wonder what another main reason is – I’ll be happy to tell you….  It is: six young Van Groningens! Yes, we have six sons whom our Covenant God has entrusted to us . My wife and I do our utmost in our home to train these sons in the way of our Covenant Redeemer and Lord. Our sons attend the Christian schools. They miss Catechism and worship services only when attendance is made impossible by unusual circumstances. Yet there was a real lacunae , a specific vacuum in the lives of our sons. It was in the cultural and social realm. And praise and thanks be to God, the Cadet movement is God’s answer to that problem.

Criticism and/or varying opinions have been voiced concerning the Cadet movement. One father expressed the opinion that the Cadets (and Calvinettes) were really worth nothing to him. Said he in effect: if the home does its part, Catechism, Sunday school and church services were attended faithfully and if the young folk attended youth club then the Cadets were like an unnecessary coke drunk with a lunch.

Now it is very evident to me that this father is not well informed at all as to what the Cadet program is or for whom it is intended . Taking the last point now , if a young person is to attend youth club after his/her 16th birthday, why should this person not attend a youth club before that time? The Cadet movement is for boys 10- 15 years old.

The father’s problem is much bigger however. It is really this: he considers the Cadet movement a type of Boy Scout movement which has its outdoor and recreation emphasis. This “recreation” is employed to attract boys to Bible study . This father has the opinion that sports, craft , camping are to be compared to a bottle of coke which a man drinks to help him swallow down his dry bread (Bible study). This opinion is to be compared to some people’s idea of the Christian school – reading, writing, arithmetic, plus a few prayers and a half hour of Bible study per day. Just as many people have a very wrong conception of Christian education – subjects plus – so there are those who are equally confused and wrong about youth work – Cadets and Calvinettes specifically.

So, whether a man calls himself “Pete from yesterday” or “Tom of today” or “Tony for tomorrow”, whether he is “John the Layman” or “Jack the preacher” or “Bill the teacher” makes little difference when he expresses an opinion about youth-work that is not correct. The all important thing is this: what is true? What are the true answers to the questions: What is the real nature of the Cadet (and Calvinette) movement? What is its intent? What needs in the lives of Covenant (and non covenantal) children does it fill?

It is to be granted immediately that: 

(1) The home life and training of any child  is very, very important . Nothing can take its place. Parents have a most solemn, important and thrilling opportunity and duty with regard to their children. At home the children must be taught to know the Lord through His Word and Spirit, to pray, to know life in its various dimensions, to enjoy real Christ centred Spirit dominated fellowship. Indeed, the home is so basic. But, as the church and school are vitally necessary, so I insist that youth-work, which I consider as part of the wider church program, is also equally necessary. 

(2) No movement is perfect. I’ve yet to enter the perfect home and meet the ideal covenant parents. I have yet to meet the perfect preacher, the flawless teacher. I have yet to meet the top notch counsellor or youth worker in Australasia . But lack of attaining the perfect goal or acquiring the ideal leader – teacher – preacher parent is of course no reason to discard a youth movement – school, church or home .

There is another criticism that has been voiced in various quarters about the Cadet movement. It is closely related to what is discussed above, but it is a much deeper criticism. It goes right to the core of the matter. Let me try to quote one of the men who voiced this criticism: “The cadet movement is not concerned with the Lordship of Christ. Jesus Christ is not recognised properly as the absolute Sovereign of all of life. The Cadets are not taught to see Christ as the Sovereign Lord to whom they must surrender their lives, whom they must serve in every sphere of life. Cadets  are not taught this because Christ is not given His proper place as Lord of nature, Lord of life, Lord of culture, Lord of nations. Rather the Cadet movement is at heart a personality cult. It is devoted to making good boys, hale hearty well met fellows. The cadet movement tries to put on an external coating, a veneer that covers up or polishes down the bad, rough and unsightly elements of human nature and life. In short, the Cadet movement is so concerned with boys it forgets about Jesus Christ the absolute Sovereign Lord of the boys.” And continued this voice, “I have come to this evaluation about the Cadet movement by reading the materials that have been published by the organisers and leaders of the movement.”

Well, this is really a serious criticism! If it is true then there are only two imaginable alternatives before us: (1) eradicate the whole system from our Church and Christian environment, or (2) reform and transform the entire movement so that no signs of its former character remains.

Frankly, I am not ready to do either one because I don’t believe the evaluation is true at all!! I do not deny that there is room for improvement, that in some instances the nature, intent and methods could have been stated more meaningfully. I do not deny that some Cadet  club organisers and leaders may not have Jesus Christ as Lord as fully in mind as they should. (Do all parents, teachers and preachers?) And I also admit that the Cadet movement does not emphasise the Lordship of Christ primarily in terms of Christian organisations in industry, labor, professions and sports . I do insist however, that Jesus Christ is ever held before the Cadets as the Sovereign Lord. Lord of the Cosmos, Lord of individual people, Lord of culture, Lord of all!

The Lordship of Christ the Redeemer is one of the very basic principles of the Cadet movement. No, we don’ t minimise the centrality of the Word of God, the importance of Justification by faith, the Sovereign grace of God in man’s salvation , the necessity of a Spirit filled and directed life, the unique character of the church, the inclusive nature of God’s Kingdom. In fact, because these basic Reformed Biblical principles are the very building blocks which form the foundation of the Cadet movement, therefore the Lordship of Christ is also included. One cannot have some of these principles and omit the others, even if some are stressed more than others.

ln due time I hope to write more about the Sovereign Lordship of Christ and its meaning for boys , for their lives, for their education, training and fellowship. I  conclude this introductory article by urging all parents (yes parents first), all preachers, all teachers and all youth leaders and counsellors to continually teach that the gracious Saviour of a boy is also the absolute Master of that boy; that as salvation effects the totality of a boy’s life, so does the Lordship of Jesus Christ effect every aspect of his life.

The theme song of the Cadets is a real boys’ song. “Living for Jesus – in All that I do”!  Why live for Jesus? Because Jesus is their only Saviour, Teacher and Master!!

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

Don’t forget to “Like” the article. It helps to spread the word to a wider audience.

Leave a comment

Let’s Keep Our Sunday Evening Worship

Paul H. Alexander. Trowel & Sword. Sept.1999

Preamble: Following on from last week’s article – “Why Do We Need To Go To Church Twice? – we take a further look at the current trend towards one service per Sunday for most churches. Is this an adequate response in showing gratitude through worship to God for what He has done for us? We wonder what Calvin would have made of this apparent stupor considering he was known to favour daily worship services. This week’s article, from the same edition of T&S in Sept. 1999, continues on the theme of the importance of having (at least) two services on Sundays. It was written by Rev. Paul H. Alexander and first appeared in New Horizons, a Periodical of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church.

Let’s Keep Our Sunday Evening Worship

One of the small pleasures of my early childhood was playing with other children outside the church after Sunday evening worship. For a half-hour or more, the adults seemed to forget their parental responsibilities and we ran wild and free in the soft summer air of a Kansas evening. While our parents pursued more mature interests, we captured lightning bugs, played tag, or chased girls with toads we had caught. It was one of the high points of the week. Life without Sunday evening worship would have been a drag! Fewer and fewer children would think so today. Sunday evening worship is not a part of their lives because an increasing number of churches are not including it in their schedules. Sunday evening worship seems to be on the endangered species list, and there is a lot more at stake than a child’s game of tag. Sunday evening worship can meet important needs in the lives of God’s people.

True, Sunday evening worship is nowhere specifically prescribed by Scripture – but then, neither is Sunday morning worship. Both services are established at the discretion and on the authority of the elders of the church, on the basis of such texts as Hebrews 10:25-26 and 13:17. The historic fact is that the practice of worshipping twice on Sunday is a firmly established tradition in evangelical and Reformed churches. What has changed that would warrant a departure from the wisdom of our godly forefathers, who established and maintained this practice for so many centuries?

Below are four reasons which, I hope, may persuade us to keep this tradition alive, or revive it, as the case may require.
The Importance Of Frequent Public Preaching
The need for the frequent preaching and teaching of God’s Word is the primary reason for maintaining both morning and evening worship services. The apostle Paul urges Timothy: ‘Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage – with great patience and careful instruction’ (2 Tim. 4:2). In this concluding and climactic challenge of his apostolic ministry, Paul is following the example of Moses and all the prophets of the Old Testament, as well as that of our Lord Jesus Christ and his apostles. These great servants of God were pre-eminently preachers and teachers of God’s Word. Preaching was the key tool they used to advance the kingdom, and they were at it incessantly.

Since the Reformation of the sixteenth century, Reformed churches have led the way in emphasising the necessity for the frequent public preaching of God’s Word. John Calvin exemplified this principle in his own practice of preaching nearly every day of the week, as well as on Sunday. First in Britain and then in the American colonies, our Puritan forefathers followed Calvin’s example by preaching twice nearly every Sunday and often at a weeknight service called ‘the lecture.’ This pattern has characterised Reformed churches (and other evangelicals as well) until very recent times.

The preaching of God’s Word, therefore, in both morning and evening worship services on the Lord’s Day, has been regarded as an important application of this frequent preaching’ principle, crucial to the life of the church. Granted, this principle might be fulfilled at other times than Sunday evening, but experience has shown this to be the time that best suits most Christians. This practice has been regarded as axiomatic for Bible- believing churches and went almost unchallenged for nearly four centuries.

Not so today! ‘Church growth’ experts are advising us that the evening service (and frequent preaching in general) is excess baggage, inhibiting evangelism and getting in the way of ‘small group’ ministries now deemed more important than preaching. We are being advised that ‘the culture has changed,’ that evening worship no longer meets the ‘felt needs’ of our contemporaries, and that we need a great variety of programs to meet the needs of every age and interest in our world. If we do not change with the culture, it seems, we will be consigned to the trash heap of irrelevance, or, what may be even worse, to smallness, a fate worse than death to the ‘church growth’ mind.

We should be asking if this is really the time to reduce our own efforts at preaching – the means God has ordained and blessed for communicating his Word. Our times have been called ‘the information age’ because of the rapid growth of data in every field of knowledge. The mass media are propagandising us intensively with amoral as well as immoral messages that are quite obviously impacting our church people as well as the world. Add to this the vast bulk of distracting trivia that the media peddle as important, and we have a seriously confused populace. To reduce our preaching either in quality or in quantity at this point in history appears to be a concession to the worst side of modernity. It is a dangerous experiment. The tried and true method of frequent preaching is being cast to one side for the sake of an unproven methodology, right when there is the most crying need for the preaching of God’s Word.

Writing in 1971, Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones spoke clearly to this issue when he said, “The most urgent need in the Christian church today is true preaching; and as it is the greatest and most urgent need in the church, it is obviously the greatest need of the world also.” A bit later in the same book, he said, “What is it that always heralds the dawn of Reformation or of a Revival? It is renewed preaching. Not only a new interest in preaching but a new kind of preaching. A revival of true preaching has always heralded these great movements in the history of the church.’ (Preaching and Preachers, 1971, pp. 9, 24-25). This is the kind of guidance we need today.
Greater Breadth In Our Preaching Teaching Ministry
Sunday evening worship provides an appropriate opportunity for pastors to present a broader scope of teaching and preaching than is possible in the Sunday morning worship service. The Sunday morning worship service has long been regarded as the time for a quite formal sermonic style. Given the majesty and holiness of God, and the awesome significance of the gospel, this is most appropriate. God deserves worship characterised by deep reverence and high dignity, and the gospel is the most weighty issue before mankind.

Without departing from due reverence, it is also appropriate to employ a somewhat more informal style in the preaching and teaching of God’s Word on such occasions as the evening service. Here the pastor may adopt a more conversational approach, such as our Saviour employed on occasion in teaching his disciples. An evening service may have somewhat the atmosphere of an adult Sunday school class, using a variety of teaching aids such as an overhead projector and even questions and answers from the congregation. This also has roots in puritan practice. Our colonial fathers often used the lecture method as their Sunday afternoon or evening style of preaching. This meant that they would address topics of timely and practical interest that might not seem appropriate to the Sunday morning worship.

Whether or not a more informal or more topical style is used on Sunday evening, the point should be obvious that we need a greater breadth of biblical and theological instruction than can be given within the confines of the Sunday morning sermon. Our Christian colleges and seminaries are reporting that an increasing percentage of young people applying for training lack the basic Bible knowledge that used to characterise applicants. Failure to maintain Sunday evening worship and preaching will only add to the growing ignorance of the Bible and our confessional standards prevalent among too many of our people. To feed God’s flock anything like an adequate diet of preaching and teaching, Sunday evening worship seems to be an absolute necessity. This is one of the things it takes to produce the kind of strong, well-rounded disciples needed to advance the kingdom.
Keeping The Lord’s Day Holy
Morning and evening worship on Sunday is a valuable means of preserving the biblical observance of the Lord’s Day. Like the morning and evening sacrifice which Israel offered to God, morning and evening worship marks the whole day as holy, setting brackets around it to remind us of its special purpose in God’s plan. While we may differ on the details of Sabbath observance, some being more strict, others more lenient, surely we all agree that God requires us to keep this day holy.

This is my shortest point, but not the least important. The fourth commandment is of equal importance with the other nine. To treat it with contempt or indifference is to treat the whole of God’s law and God himself with contempt and indifference (James 2:10). Those who may not accept the full teaching of the Westminster standards at this point, are, nevertheless, under a compelling biblical mandate to discover and practice what Scripture teaches on the keeping of the Lord’s Day. To decry every other kind of moral decay without recognising Sabbath desecration as a great evil is to betray our whole cause.

We must keep the Lord’s Day holy. God requires it and we need it. We were created with a need for the Sabbath, and Jesus reminds us of this need (Mark 2:27).

Against a culture that seems bent on despising the Lord’s Day and all else that is holy, we need all the help we can get to hold our ground. The history of both ancient Israel (Ezek.20) and the modern church provides sufficient evidence to convince us that to lose the Sabbath will eventually mean to lose all biblical distinctive and to lose our faith itself. The practice of morning and evening worship is conducive to preserving the sacred meaning of the day and, thus, the sacredness of all of life.

The ordained elders of Christ’s church have been calling his people to worship twice on the Lord’s Day for many centuries. If we will continue to hear that call, he will continue to bless us. This point leads naturally into the next. The preaching of the Word and the keeping of the Sabbath are keys to Christian culture, a whole way of life that blossoms and spreads through the faithful use of these means.
Maintaining And Propagating Our Christian Culture
There is a quality of spiritual life that develops and thrives around the worship of God twice on the Lord’s Day. Something about being in church with God’s people twice every Sunday has a wonderfully positive effect, producing not only Christian individuals but a whole Christian culture, a community lifestyle distinguished by its caring, Christlike quality, and a missionary zeal that reaches out to the whole world.

Such church is modelled for us in Acts 2:42-47. Here is a beautiful example of a ‘normal’ Christian church community. Frequent preaching and teaching of God’s Word is obviously the very heart of this early church and it was wonderfully productive of that first Christian culture, setting the pattern for healthy, self-propagating church life from that day to this. Churches that develop along these lines can expect God’s blessing for generations to come.

Os Guiness sees the opposite in the modern ‘church growth’ movement – the movement that, more than any other influence, has contributed to the abandonment of Sunday evening worship. Guiness warns that such churches may have ‘no grand-children’ because ‘the tools of modernity are successful in one generation but cannot be sustained to the third generation’ (No God but God, 1992. P.157). We should stay with the established pattern. It has proven itself.

Evangelical and Reformed churches of recent history have come in for their share of just criticism. We have been far from perfect. At the same time, we should be reminded that it is those churches, with their twice every Sunday’ pattern of preaching and teaching, that have produced the many positive benefits of the Reformed and evangelical movement. These twice every Sunday’ churches were all we had until about twenty years ago. This older model may not have grown as fast as the new streamlined ‘once on Sunday’ types, but they produced nearly all of our present pastors and denominational leaders, just about every Christian college and seminary professor you or I ever met, and the entire modern missionary movement. This is no small achievement. Experience also supports this point, please forgive me for being just a little autobiographical at this point, but thirty-seven years in one pastorate has given me a somewhat unusual perspective. I have been able to watch people in my congregation grow up, get married, raise children, and finish careers – in short, live out large parts of their lives – during that lengthy tenure. My generalisations about my parishioners may seem too narrow a database to satisfy all the demands of contemporary scholarship, and am sure that I am lacking in total objectivity. At the same time, I am confident of one conclusion: Those who regularly participate in morning and evening worship over a period of years are the most stable and productive Christians. They are, furthermore, the most joyful and effective.

Our present membership is three hundred. Over the years, more than a thousand have come and gone, largely because of the nature of employment in Huntsville. Among those who have come to church twice on Sunday, there is a remarkable record of family stability and spiritual productivity. Of course there have been exceptions, but from these families has flowed a constant stream of children who have grown to maturity honouring the Lord, marrying in Christ, and following the Lord in their vocations. This is what it’s all about.

Another interesting fact is that in all those years there have been only three divorces among those who have been regular in our morning and evening worship. I have been reluctant in the past to tell such a statistic in public for fear the Devil would attack more of our marriages just to embarrass us. Confident that we can trust the Lord to protect our people, I tell it now in order to give praise to the Lord and to the means of grace he has given us to make us strong in him. Participation in Sunday morning and evening worship is a proven means of helping God’s people to be ‘strong in the Lord and in his mighty power’ (Eph. 6:10). It certainly is not the only thing we need, but it is an important source of strength and blessing to those who have used it.
Courage Friends!
I have written this to encourage church members, officers, and pastors wondering about the present shift away from evening worship. I believe that we are seeing a major paradigm shift away from a tried, tested, and proven means of practicing our faith. Advocates for this change have not provided adequate reasons for us to follow them. Such changes in the past have proven disastrous. We have every reason to keep the course we have been following and to persuade those who might be wavering to return to this established pattern.

J.C. Ryle, a great evangelical leader of the last century, described a leader of the first Great Awakening in terms that should encourage us all in this direction. Ryle said, ‘The good old apostolical plan of incessant preaching, both publicly and from house to house, was nearly the only machine that he could use. He was forced to be preeminently a man of one thing, and a soldier with one weapon, a perpetual preacher of God’s word. Whether in the long run the minister of the last century did not do more good with his one weapon than many do in modem times (late nineteenth century) with an immense train of parochial machinery, is a question which admits of much doubt. My own private opinion is, that we have too much lost sight of the apostolical simplicity in our ministerial work. We want more men of ‘one thing and ‘one book,’ men who make everything secondary to preaching the Word. It is hard to have many irons in the fire at once, and keep them all hot. It is quite possible to make an idol of parochial machinery, and for the sake of it to slight the pulpit.’ (Christian Leaders of the 18th Century. pp.269-70).
Let’s Keep Our Sunday Evening Worship!
We should reaffirm this practice and continue it. Last Sunday night, as I walked out of church, there were the children out on the lawn catching lightning bugs, playing tag, and chasing girls with toads. I am praying it will still be that way until the Lord comes back. I am praying that all of you will join me in working to that end.
Paul H. Alexander.

This article first appeared in New Horizons
Periodical of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church
Used with permission

Leave a comment