New Zealand Elders Conference Labour Weekend 1984

Jack E. de Graaf. Trowel & Sword. Jan/Feb 1985

Preamble: In 1995 Rev. John Westendorp looked back through old Trowel & Sword magazines to see what had been written about back then. Ten years earlier T&S reported on a New Zealand Elders conference and the wide variety of topics discussed make for interesting reading. It makes one wonder how many of those topics could again be on the agenda of an elder’s conference, a classis meeting or a synod today. We suspect, quite a few.

New Zealand Elders Conference Labour Weekend 1984

This conference was attended by some 30 elders and a few ministers as well. The aim was to discuss items of common interest and concern as well as fostering unity and understanding. The meeting place was Wellington and the meetings lasted all day Saturday and Monday morning. It was a truly memorable occasion.

The conference was opened by the host congregations’s minister, the Rev. Kevin Rietveld, who meditated on Ezekiel 34 which deals with the subject of shepherds who are accountable for the security of the flock until that flock is eternally secure – a beautiful but responsible task.

Keith Sewell of Wellington gave the first address on “Reflections on the History of Calvinism.” This was an excellent address on the history of the church and the influences the church has been subjected to over the ages.

It is not often realised that Luther actually set out to reform the church from within and never set out to the be founder of protestantism. Until that time Scripture was regarded as a book containing abstract doctrines of God where the thinking patterns of Aristotle were confirmed by men like Thomas Aquinas and carried official papal approval.

The Reformation changed all that when men like Luther and Calvin said that the Scriptures are the oracles of God and that God is just and faithful in His dealings with men.

Calvin wrote his famous Institutes which were meant as an aid and an introduction to the study of the Scriptures.

After Calvin, however, things slipped back to Aristotle-inspired logic which resulted in reformed scholasticism. The Synod of Dordt would be described by some as an example of this, where it has been claimed that logic prevailed rather than the influence of the grace of God.

This also became the age where religion and science became less and less related.

The speaker urged us to continue working with the Calvinistic view on Scripture, to do more reading, and to improve our knowledge of Church History. We realised that we may live together in the one denomination where both Princeton and Continental influences are meeting together. It is important that we discuss together, but more important still that we pray together before we discuss.

Gerard Haverland of Christchurch addressed us on The Training and Calling of Office-bearers. He mainly confined his address to the calling of ministers.

Very thought-provoking questions were asked.
Should our churches have a “wise committee” to nudge certain ministers and churches in certain directions?
It could also investigate if various ministries are fruitful and if not – why not?
Should vacant churches advertise the vacancy? Would there be a minister bold enough to answer?
Is any call a call from God? What about a declined call?

Arthur Snoek from Wellington then introduced Worship and the Worship Service. Worship is done by those who know they are redeemed. It is dialogue between God and His people.

How can our worship be more meaningful? Are there any changes required? The speaker suggested that the main change should be a change of attitude.

Do we know why we do things in our worship service? Are we not so used to being entertained that this is our attitude when we go to church to worship God? We are not to be spectators but to be very much involved!

Our worship should be orderly. Any change in the order of worship is to be orderly and while variations are good, surprises should be avoided. The matter of kneeling for prayer was raised, as well as the congregational ‘Amen’ after prayer. Scripture reading must be done clearly and with reverence.

We should also be very much aware of the fact that we come to worship and not criticise. Are we bound by traditional restrictions which are unscriptural?

Addresses on The Future of our Churches were presented by Frank Gouman of Balclutha, who viewed this from a small congregation and by Wim Weeda of Hamilton, who viewed it from a large congregation. Some problems are the same. Again many questions were asked.

Do we and our children know why we established the Reformed Churches?
Is there a firm conviction?
Is there faithful preaching and does it include application?
Are the moral issues of the day addressed?
Is there a faithful exposition of the doctrines and are we able to defend them?
Do we encourage the young to serve?
Is there not too much criticism at home of ministers and elders and if so, how can we expect our children to become any different?

The small churches suffer from the drift to the cities for education or work. Sometimes only a small core remains with many reading services. Involvement in the community is easier in smaller centres, but this is not necessarily always a good thing as it can be the wrong type of integration. If a large congregation loses some members they are able to carry on as usual, but in a small congregation this can be traumatic and a real test of faith.

On Monday Martin Kuitert of Avondale addressed us on the subject of Church Discipline. The term has a sour taste mainly because it has often been wrongly applied in history. Laws for church discipline are set out in Matt. 18:15-18 and John 20:21-23. Its purpose is to keep the church pure and should be carried out to give glory to God only; the purpose is to win the sinner. Ruling elders are called to rule in love, not lord it over the flock but shepherding.

When we set about to exercise discipline, are we acting as a ‘clobbering machine? Ideally session should be the last to be involved in discipline as first of all discipline should be exercised by the membership as a whole.

If a church finally ex-communicates we do not cut off a person from the Kingdom – he/she was never in it in the first place, and this is confirmed by ex-communication.

This is a comforting thought for sessions that have to impose the final step of church discipline!

It was a good conference and I apologise for the semi- telegram style of reporting but this allowed a fair coverage. There have been many questions asked to encourage readers to think and maybe react.

Jack E. de Graaf

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

Leave a comment

This Month In Trowel & Sword History

John Westendorp. Trowel & Sword. February 1995

Preamble: Was this the fore-runner of Trowel & Sword Revisited? Thirty years ago John Westendorp, as the editor of T&S must have thought it would be interesting to look back through past T&S’s to see what was being written about in the February of 1955, ’65, ’75 and 1985, giving a brief outline of one or two of the articles appearing in each of those editions. If it was good enough for John it is good enough for us, so for the next few weeks we will be going back to those articles mentioned by John and reprinting them in full. Did John do this more than once? We don’t know, but it does make us wonder whether it was coincidence (luck?) that out of a mountain of magazines we happened upon this one, or was it God’s providence that guided us to this one page, and if so, to what end? And if that is the case was it also God’s providence that guided John to write such an article in the first place for us to find thirty years later? These questions could make for a very interesting discussion.

10 Years ago

The cover featured God Squad leader, John Smith, who had just been involved in a week of outreach at Mt. Evelyn, sponsored by the Reformed Church there. Jack de Graf reported on an Elders’ Conference in N.Z. at which Keith Sewell gave an opening address. ‘Reflections on the History of Calvinism’. He called those present to implement the Calvinist view of Scripture in the various spheres of life rather than allow a separation of, for example, religion and science, as happened during the period of reformed scholasticism.

20 Years Ago

The late Revd. John Van Wageningen continued a series of meditations on lifestyle. Under the heading, “The Agony of the World and our Life-style’, he asked whether we have learnt to be content with food and clothing. He called readers to avoid the pressures of a consumer society and develop a simple life-style. The Revd. Keith MacPhail lamented the Government’s decision to spend 4.6 million dollars on works of art (remember ‘Blue Poles’?) while spending only one hundred thousand on aid to Ethiopians in Eritrea. He called the church not only to set its own house in order but also to be the salt and light by calling the government to task for its wrong priorities.

30 Years Ago

Prof. K. Runia reminded readers that Catechism classes would soon be commencing again. He gave six pointers to effective church education.
1. The purpose is not to impart cold facts but to share with young people the saving knowledge of the Lord Jesus
2. Hence teaching of the love of God and Reformed distinctives should be with enthusiasm and conviction.
3. Preparation should be thorough and aim for effective involvement of the young people.
4. We should insist on regular attendance as a fulfilment of vows made at the baptismal font.
5. Since this is the church’s ‘school work’ some homework each week is not only desirable but essential.
6. All this should be surrounded by prayer.

40 Years Ago

The Revd. J.W. Deenick took to task a prominent Christian worker in New Zealand who had claimed that what people want today is Christianity and not Churchianity. He protested that in the New Testament the Christian faith always includes loyalty to the church of Jesus Christ, which is His Body. Christianity without Churchianity is not Christianity at all. He went on to point out that the answer to the problems in the church is not to dismiss the church but to work for its reformation and sanctification. In the same issue was a report about a recent Synod of the Reformed Churches of Australia announced the setting up of the Reformed Theological College.

John Westendorp

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

Christmas – Its Origin And Its History

J.W. Deenick. Trowel & Sword. December 1963

Preamble: Once again the countdown has begun – “ONLY SIX WEEKS TO CHRISTMAS”. “Avoid the last minute rush and get your Christmas shopping done early”. Cost of living crisis? There’s no such thing when it comes to Christmas – that comes later when the credit card has to be paid off. For many people that’s Christmas in the twenty-first century. In the 1960’s the pressure was not quite so intense. Even so, Rev. J.W. Deenick considered it important enough to try to bring some perspective, and “sanity” to the celebration of Christmas. As Christians, it may serve us well in this pre-Christmas period to give some thought to how and why (if at all) we celebrate Christmas this year, and in the years to come.

Christmas – Its Origin And Its History

Christmas customs differ from country to country, from home to home. They are often pagan in origin, some are tasteless, some have been promoted by purely commercial interests. And we do not seem to be able to get rid of them. The Christmas card with a little romantic church in the snow complete with mistletoe and fir-tree seems to die just as hard as Father Christmas himself in his entourage of garlands and a blasphemous “Silent Night”.

Through the centuries the Christian Church has tried to do away with such popular misuse of the Christmas cycle. Two different methods have been used to that end. Mostly the Church tried to Christianise the celebration of the day. But sometimes the Church tried in disgust to abolish Christmas as a Christian celebration altogether. Neither method was very successful. In this connection it is interesting to study the history of Christmas.

Its Origin

It is difficult to establish in which way the celebration of the Lord’s birthday commenced in the early Church. It seems certain that it was comparatively late before people began to think of it. This is not so strange if we consider that no corresponding festival was presented by the Old Testament as in the case of Easter and Pentecost. Moreover the day and the month of the birth of Jesus are nowhere stated in the gospel history and cannot be certainly determined. Again, the Church concentrated first of all on the death and the resurrection of Christ, and made these the centre of the weekly worship and the church year.

Particularly the question of the date of Jesus’ birth gave considerable difficulty and gave occasion to a great deal of confusion. Clemens of Alexandria, who lived in the second half of the second century suggested as the date of the Lord’s birth the 18th of November. Others proposed the 24th of April or the 25th of May. The Eastern Church celebrated at the time a festival which they called the Feast of Epiphany, i.e. on the 6th of January. This was not meant however as a commemoration of Jesus’ birth in the first place, but rather of his “epiphany”, his public appearance and his baptism. In the Church of Armenia this festival is still celebrated instead of our Christmas.

How came the 25th of December to be considered as the date of Jesus’ birth?

This again is uncertain. Two explanations are offered, which do not actually exclude each other. There is an old tradition that reckons the 25th of March to be the day of Jesus’ immaculate conception. Now this date marks the beginning of spring in the northern hemisphere, and was also considered to be the day on which God created heaven and earth. The same date was chosen for the commencement of God’s work of recreation and redemption. The actual birth of the Saviour would then have occurred nine months later, on the 25th of December. A second explanation for this date points to the great pagan festival celebrated on the 25th of December, in honour of Sol Invictus Mithras, the invincible God of the Sun, whose victory over the darkness of winter was then commemorated. It is suggested that the Church, clashing head on with the Mithras religion, chose on purpose this date to place the message of the birth of Christ face to face with the inventions of heathenism. But both explanations make it quite clear that nothing is known about the actual date of Jesus’ birth and that the 25th of December was chosen for other reasons.

Its History

Although the date for Christmas was rather arbitrarily chosen the early Christian Church certainly did its utmost to have the day celebrated in a Christian style, and after Constantin’s conversion the civil magistrate assisted the Church wholeheartedly in this. Civil law demanded that the day be observed as a day of rest, even for slaves, and no fasts, no public or secular festivities were permitted. There is no doubt about the joy and sincerity with which the early christians observed their Christmas celebrations.

Soon Christmas was one of the main festivals of Christianity. It was called the feast of the nativity. In old French the “dies natalis”, the birthday of Christ came to be called “na-el”, “nou-el” or “noel”, which is still used in English today.

Still, no matter how sincere and strict early Christian observance of the day may have been, in later years various old pagan and superstitious customs, which had remained popular among nominal Christians and unbelievers, began to penetrate the church celebrations of the birth of Jesus and during the Middle Ages Christmas too often became a “Kermis”, a ball and fancy fair business, that gave the church authorities many a headache and against which the General Councils and the civil magistrates availed very little.

Calvin And Christmas

It stands to reason that the reformers were not very keen on retaining the many Roman Catholic festivals that had contributed so considerably to the decline of the Church and the decay of public morality. Luther for instance originally favoured the abolishment of all holy days except the Sunday. In 1520 he wrote: “I would that God gave that no holy days were left in Christianity and that all the feasts of the women and of the saints were held on the Sunday.” Later he changed his opinion and did away with all specifically Roman festivals alone and those not based on the gospel and the Apostles’ Creed.

In Switzerland Zwingli retained a few festivals apart from those based upon the Apostles’ Creed, but others did away with all celebrations apart from the Lord’s day. So did Farel and Viret at Geneva. When Calvin arrived at Geneva no Christmas or any other holy day was observed there and he did nothing to have them re-introduced. Later, when they had been re-instituted during the years of his banishment from Geneva, he did nothing to have them abolished. He himself writes about this in 1551 in a letter to Bullinger: “After my return, when through my influence I could have abolished whatever was established during my absence, I quietly acquiesced in the situation. I so restrained myself that I even kept back those who clamoured for the abolishment of these days. We accepted a middle road namely that people would keep their shops closed and rest during the morning, but that they would do their normal work after midday. This was so decided nine years ago. But even so the controversies did not stop.” Later the City Council abolished again all holy days but Calvin writes to Bullinger that this was not done at his request and that it was not fair that people blamed him for measures for which he was not responsible.

There is a story according to which Calvin never preached a Christmas sermon. That is not correct. There is for instance a Christmas sermon on the first half of Luke 2 which he preached on a Christmas day. But this Christmas day coincided with an ordinary Sunday and after the sermon the Lord’s Supper was celebrated. It is difficult to asses whether or not Calvin ever preached a Christmas sermon on a Christmas day that was not also a Sunday. Calvin preached every day of the week in the early morning service; 6 a.m. in summertime, 7 a.m. in the winter. We know that on the 25th of December 1555, which was not a Sunday, he preached on Deut. 21 and that he did not even mention Christmas in that sermon. He had preached his Christmas sermon on the Sunday before. But that was in 1555 when the authorities had abolished the Christmas day. From the fact that Calvin preached Christmas messages in the Christmas period we may well conclude that he preached on the message of Bethlehem on Christmas day when according to the ruling of the Council this day was still observed in Geneva.

In Later History 

In the years after the reformation there was little enthusiasm for holy days. The Reformed Church of Scotland allowed no other holy day but the Sunday. A century later the Westminster directory for public worship still stated, that festival days, having no warrant in the Word of God, are not to be continued.

In the Netherlands the National Synod of 1574 decided that the message of Christmas was to be preached on the Sunday before. But four years later Synod ruled that where the authorities maintained the day the churches should instruct their people on the doctrine of Jesus’ birth. The National Synod of Dort 1616-1619 simply ruled that the Christmas day and two or three other days had to be observed. I would say that ever since the Dutch church. has celebrated the day as a special day for gospel preaching on the subject of Jesus’ birth, although neither Christmas day nor Ascension day were ever sanctified in the same sense or on the same level as the Sunday, the christian sabbath.

It is remarkable however that although the Reformed fathers of Dordt and the Westminster divines did not see eye in eye in this point they never broke up their fellowship.

Our Reformed Churches in Australia and in New Zealand follow the ruling of Dordt. We have our Christmas day and most of our people observe it with real joy. They are fond of the traditional Christmas services with the hymns and the sermon for the occasion. It is around the church services that the celebration of Christmas centres. It is the task of the sessions to see to it that the Christmas day is observed in good style, not in cheap sentimentalism, but in the strong and worthy manner of a church that has a message for the world, a message for every day, for every Sunday, for every Christmas: that Jesus Christ of Bethlehem lives.

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

Reflections On Life And Faith

Harry Burggraaf. Trowel & Sword. August 2000

Preamble: What does the future hold? This question may well have been on the minds of Adam and Eve as they were “shown the gates” of Eden. It may also have been on Harry’s mind as he wrote this reflection. Does Leonard Cohen, (I’ve heard of him), have the answer? Do the Indigo Girls? (I’ve never heard of them). I still remember the uproar among the youth of our church when Rev. Groningen criticised the Seekers song “A world of our own”. But I digress. Here’s Harry.

Reflections On Life And Faith

“Behold I am coming soon… I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.” (Jesus Christ) 

“I’ve seen the future, baby: it is murder” (Leonard. Cohen)

Usually the talk at our dinner table is fairly mundane: ‘How was your day’? ‘What will the weather be like tomorrow’? ‘Teachers who set a lot of homework should be strangled’. ‘Do we have to eat sprouts again’? ‘My friend Wendy bought a new CD today’, and more of such trivia. Sometimes the conversation is a little more elevated and we discuss more substantial issues: ‘Is John Howard a better Prime Minister than Paul Keating was’? ‘Is work for the dole a good thing’? ‘Are safe injecting houses justified’?

The other day we really scaled the dinner chat heights and discussed, or argued, about the shape of the future. Much of the conversation seemed to focus on future gadgets and things, but, with a little leadership from the olds, we did manage to reflect on what society and life might be like in the next twenty years and beyond. Mind you, we were soon back to the favourite television programme for that evening. Serious reflection, it seems, is hard to sustain. 

The future does make for interesting discussion. It has generated some vigorous theological debates.

Futurist books have become best sellers. Alvin Toffler’s books ‘Future Shock’, ‘Third Wave’ and ‘Power Shift’ have sold millions of copies. Hugh McKay, one of Australia’s foremost social analysts, sells well when he writes about the future shape of Australia. Futurology is big business. Successful companies are into ‘future needs assessment’ and ‘contextual forecasting’ to make sure that they capture an increased share of the future market.

Christians should be discussing the future and praying about it. Reflecting on the future and, what has been dubbed a ‘post modern’ age, we are faced with a challenging picture. There is all the potential of the information and communication explosion, fascinating technological advances, economic development, international co-operation, biotechnological innovation. Yet at the same time there is a terrible lostness, shattered memories, burnt out ecology, economic anxiety, technological overload, dehydrated imagination, and above all the fragmentation of world view, where there is no shared understanding about the great questions of life, no framework for truth.

This lostness and fragmentation is so cogently captured in some of the popular music of our day:

“Things are going to slide in all directions. 
Won’t be nothing
Nothing you can measure any more
The blizzard of the world
has crossed the threshold
and it has overturned the order of the soul.’
(The Future. Leonard Cohen)

“I am trying to tell you something about my life
Maybe give me insight between black and white…
The less I seek my source for some definitive
The closer I am to fine.” (Indigo Girls)

 Cohen’s image of people in a postmodern age being trapped in a blizzard, where there is total disorientation, no sense of direction, no clear way forward, no boundaries, no coherent ‘story’ or framework to give life meaning, stands in stark contrast to the Biblical picture of the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, the sovereign God, Jesus the Lord of heaven and earth, in charge of the future and providing hope and direction.

Brian Walsh, a challenging author and scholar, suggests that in this age of confusion and loss of meaning Christians must be in the business of ‘sensitive discernment’, ‘critical discrimination’ and ‘redemptive engagement’. What the future needs is a ‘re-imaging of world view and the great ‘story’ or narrative’ of the Christian faith must be communicated and lived in a fresh, dynamic way. The Bible presents us with that great unfinished drama of – Creation, the Fall, Israel, Jesus, the Church and the Eschaton. To a culture that has ‘lost the plot’ Christians must provide the story line. This is a challenging task for church, home, Christian school, individual Christians. God has not provided us with a day-by-day script to live by, nor should we try to re-live the old script of the past. 

With the conviction that God is in charge of the future and directs the course of history and, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, we are invited to make innovative and courageous responses to the problems and issues the future brings in technology, the economic order, social structures, business and the market place, the legal system, work and leisure and everyday life.
Edna St Vincent Milloy captures the challenge for Christians vividly:

“Upon this gifted age, in its dark hour
Rains from the sky a meteoric shower of facts –
they lie unquestioned, uncombined.
Wisdom enough to leech us of our ill is daily spun,
but there exists no loom to weave it into fabric.”

Ecclesiastes reminds us that the overall pattern of the fabric is God’s.

“He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in the hearts of men, yet they can not fathom what God has done from beginning to end”.

He has provided the loom and we have the privilege of being weavers in the task of faithful improvisation.

Harry Burggraaf

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

Sheep and Shepherds

John Westendorp. Trowel & Sword. June 1999

Preamble: While he is obviously trying to make a point, John’s opening statement that, “The Lord God isn’t paying us a compliment when He calls us ‘sheep’, would seem to be rather unfair, not only to sheep, but also to His people. Yes, in the 20th/21st centuries, sheep do require a lot of work. But we should also remember that when God created sheep he called them “very good” along with the rest of creation. They would also have been very different in Jesus day. Created sheep were very different to the sheep we have today. Marino sheep, specifically bred by selective breading by John Macarthur in the early 1800’s have large skin folds and fine, dense wool (to increase the wool clip), and are susceptible to lice and fly strike, so a lot of that extra work John refers to is largely due to man’s intervention in God’s original created “kind”. John’s assessment of sheep as “incredibly stupid is also rather unfair. Consider that whereas most animals have some sort of defence system against predators, sheep have none. They need to be protected; hence the need for shepherds in times past. Unfortunately, in todays profit driven world the welfare of the sheep is often secondary to the desire to maximise profit. So flock sizes have increased from hundreds to thousands, and shepherds have been replaced by fences, dogs and motorbikes. It is little wonder that sheep today are the way they are (Neurotic?). So yes, the imagery of Psalm 23 is beautiful, but it makes much more sense when viewed through David’s eyes than through the eyes of a 21st. century sheep farmer.

Sheep and Shepherds

The Sheep

The Lord God isn’t paying us a compliment when He calls us ‘sheep’. The memories of my childhood include vivid images from the sheep station in central Victoria where we grew up as children. In fact, our first ‘home’ in this land was a shearing hut – temporary residence of the shearing crews that would annually come and relieve the sheep of their heavy fleeces. The nearby shearing shed was a mixture of non-too-pleasant smells. Sheep droppings, tallow, greasy wool, and sheep dip.

Over the years we became familiar with the routines. Two things stood out. The first was that sheep needed a lot of work. Unlike the cattle, which were let loose in the back paddocks and largely left to fend for themselves for most of the year, the sheep were forever being rounded up for some sort of attention. Not only was there the annual shearing time – a highlight on the sheep station calendar. The sheep would also be brought in for foot-rot treatment. Then there would be the crutching, as wool was trimmed from the posterior to minimise fly infestation, and of course the dreaded sheep dip, as sheep were made to swim a foul smelling channel laced with chemicals that staved off a variety of plagues.

Lambing time required extra work – not only to rescue the ewes, making sure that the problem of orphan lambs was minimised, but that tails (and certain other body parts!) of the lambs were appropriately docked- all to aid the production of the nations wool and mutton.

Today I understand a little better why the Lord calls His people ‘His sheep’ and not ‘His cattle’. We, who live life under His care and who want to produce something worthwhile for the Master, need a lot of TLC. The rot of sin repeatedly needs to be cut out of our lives with the sharp knife of His discipline. His grace and Holy Spirit constantly guard our lives from the maggoty infestations of the evil one – more effectively than any sheep dip protects our four-legged namesakes. When we get ourselves Into the rut of depression, HIS loving and gentle hands lift us out. When things go well and pride rears its ugly head we need to be directed once again into the right paths of humility.

The Lord’s sheep sure do take a lot of work. Anyone who takes an active role in the life of the church quickly becomes conscious of need after need in various members of the flock. There is so much to do for so many people.

Before God we are sheep – creatures with many needs and with a certain helplessness and dependency about us. We may not like to acknowledge that but this is the Lord’s comparison: We are the people of His pasture, the flock under His care. (Ps.95:7).

A second thing that stood out was that sheep are not the most intelligent creatures on earth. One is even tempted to suggest that they are really incredibly stupid. Put a Border Collie sheep dog in amongst a flock of Sheep and when it comes to intelligence there is no contest. Sheep also tend to follow the leader unthinkingly. Many are the times I have watched a flock of sheep unwilling to go through a gate. They balk at going through the narrow opening and instead mill around, waiting for the nip of the sheep dog to drive the first sheep though the opening. But when one is through there is no stopping the rest. The whole flock then moves with the same relentlessness that drives lemmings over the face of the cliff. Again the Lord’s comparison of His people to sheep seems appropriate. We too so often do not want to be where it is best for us to be. Too many of the flock frolic on the sports oval when it’s really much better for them to gather in a worship service. Too often we resist going where the Lord wants us to be – up to the point where the nip on our heels convinces us that we have little other choice. And as for the peer pressure that reflects the herd mentality…? Most of us have experienced at one time or another the hard way that following the crowd is not always the best policy.

The Lord isn’t complimenting us when He calls us ‘the sheep of His pasture’, rather for our own good He is giving us a picture of what, in reality, we are.

The Shepherd(s)

The Lord comforts and encourages us when He calls Himself the Shepherd. For many years I thought shepherds didn’t exist in Australia or New Zealand. That seemed to be one of the big differences between our contemporary situation and that of Jesus and Bible times. The Biblical picture is one of shepherds taking personal care for the flock and personal responsibility for each individual sheep. Their life’s duty revolves around leading the sheep out to pasture… bringing them back to the pens at night… rounding up strays… attending to wounded and sick animals.

Here we do it a little differently. Where I grew up thousands of sheep were scattered over many square kilometres of land. After shearing they were let loose to roam the paddocks and fend tor themselves. While the farmer counted them before they were let back into the paddocks, he did so in the knowledge that the crows would pick the eyes out of sick animals and that foxes would make short work of lambs that strayed too far. All too often a walk through the paddocks would bring one across a straggly heap of wool and bones – all that was  left of yet another casualty. Of course the farmer was concerned – especially if too many casualties were taking place – but he learned to live with a certain percentage of loss.

Many years later, in the Tasmanian Highlands, we discovered for the first time that in this part of the world too we have professional shepherds. People who do a little more than just bringing the sheep in for shearing and dipping. Yet even they fall far short of the shepherding imagery God adopts as Shepherd of His flock.

The beauty of that imagery in Psalm 23 is unsurpassed. Here is the Shepherd who makes sure that we are in need of nothing. This Shepherd makes us lie down in green pastures and leads us beside still waters. And the greatest blessing is that because of our Shepherd we will ‘dwell in the house of the Lord forever’.

The Lord Jesus Christ applied that imagery to Himself. He not only told us about a God who cares so much that He leaves the ninety-nine in the fold to go and hunt for that one lost sheep but He called Himself the Good Shepherd who would lay down His life for His sheep. That’s a far cry from driving the sheep out into the paddocks until the next round-up.

As if all that was not enough grace and mercy for the sheep the Lord has also appointed under shepherds’ over His flock. God’s pastoral care for us is personal and intimate. Through Jesus that pastoral care is life-saving. Through the presence of the Holy Spirit we are nurtured in an ongoing way. But the Lord also ministers His Shepherd’s care through those whom He appoints to the task of pastoral care in His church.

God’s people are quick to see in their minister God’s ordained pastoral carer. We even call him ‘Pastor – a reflection of his pastoral task and calling. Many of us are far less likely to see our elders in the same way. Some of us may even wonder why these men come around every year with their questions to pry into our personal affairs. Yet the reality is that they are Gods gift to His church, appointed to shepherd the flock. To put it even more strongly: the Good Shepherd extends to us sheep His own pastoral care through those whom He has commissioned to shepherd the sheep. The apostle Peter’s words are very much to the point: “To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder, ….be shepherds of Gods’ flock that is under your care.”  (IPeter 5:1,2).

It’s more than a little sad when the elders are not welcomed with open arms into our homes as God’s under-shepherds because the Good Shepherd is extending His pastoral care through them. Of course our elders too are frail creatures of dust who often grieve their Lord. But no matter how well we know the short-comings of an elder, that does not excuse us from declining his request to come in Christ’s name. To turn down a request for a family visit from your elders is worse than shooting your self in the foot. It is to deprive yourself and your loved ones of the pastoral care God provides to us, needy sheep.

The Lord comforts and encourages us when He calls himself our Shepherd. And He comforts and encourages us even further when He brings into our lives the care and concern of His under-shepherds. Let’s not rebel against that sort of pastoral care.

JW

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

Hudson Taylor

Dr. K. Runia. Trowel & Sword, August 1959

Preamble: Books! Ecclesiastes 12 tells us that… “of the making of books there is no end”. If that was true 3000 years ago, assuming that its traditional authorship and date are correct, how much more true is it today? With so many books to choose from, how does one decide which book to read and what to set aside? One popular way it to read books that come highly recommended by someone we trust. On this basis, “Hudson Taylor – The Man Who Believed God” comes within that category. You may ask, who was Hudson Taylor and how much do I know about him? Let Dr. Klaas Runia whet your appetite.

Hudson Taylor

Have you ever heard of Hudson Taylor? I would not be surprised, if you had not. It was the same with me, before I read the small, but precious book, that one of our New Zealand readers kindly sent me. The title of the book is: “THE MAN WHO BELIEVED GOD”, The Story of HUDSON TAYLOR, written by Marshall Broomhall.

I must say, it is a long time ago since I have read a book, that captivated me so much and also strengthened my own faith so much.

Hudson Taylor was the father of the China Inland Mission. As a young man of 21 years he left England in 1853 to sail for China. Officially he was sent by the Chinese Evangelisation Society, but in actual fact he had to do all his work on his own responsibility. Little help, both financial and spiritual, was given to him. But this young man was filled with a burning zeal for his Lord. He had but one passion: to bring the gospel of Jesus Christ to the Chinese nation. His soul was burdened with a nearly unbearable burden, when he thought of the fact that “every day 33.000, every month 1.000.000 subjects of the Chinese Emperor pass into eternity, without even having heard the Gospel”. And he has spent all his life in bringing the message to China. In the first part of his life by personal mission work, in the last 25 years the builder of the organisation of the China Island Mission.

In all these activities he indeed was the man, who believed God. When you read this book, you see a man, who earnestly believed (and practised!), that we should hold God to his Word. More than once he himself stated that his life and his life’s work, were founded upon three facts, namely, that:

“There is a living God.

“He has spoken in the Bible.

“He means what He says, and will do all He has promised”.

Somewhere he wrote the following: “The living God still lives, and the living Word is a living Word, and we may depend upon it; we may hang upon any word that God ever spoke, or ever caused by His Holy Spirit to be written. Forty years ago I believed in the verbal inspiration of the Scriptures. I have proved them for forty years and my belief is stronger now than it was then. I have put the promises to the test. I have been compelled to do so, and I have found them true and trustworthy”.

“We want to impress upon you that the Word of God is God’s own Word. If I did not believe in the inspiration of a Bank of England note, if I was not quite sure whether the note that professed to be for £50 would be cashed for £5 of £50, it would not be worth very much to me…. What would you have thought if I had been foolish enough – nay, I might say dishonest enough – to part with it for less than it represented? I wish that I could say that I have been as faithful to the Word of God. Oh, how often I have discounted God’s promise and been surprised, almost, at getting a small part of that promise fulfilled, instead of expecting and claiming all”.

“But we can tell you something more than this. We have found that when our faith has broken down, even in God’s own Word, His faithfulness has not broken down, and that when we have been poor children, we have had a very kind Father, that when we have been unworthy servants, we have had a glorious Master. ‘If we believe not, yet He abideth faithful, He cannot deny Himself”.

It is striking that this man, who in our human opinion was so faithful, writes this about himself: “Oh, how often I have discounted God’s promise….”  For this is the man who in all his cares depended upon his God. When he had only a few shillings left and did not know how to maintain himself for the first couple of his days, he nevertheless gladly gave that money to somebody in need, expecting that the Lord would provide. And He did! When he needed fellow-labourers in the enormously vast Chinese field, he prayed to his Lord, and continued his work, trusting, even more: being certain that God would give them. And again He did.

Would that all our readers were going to buy this booklet. It is not expensive and yet so precious. I am sure that we of the Reformed Churches can learn much from this man, Hudson Taylor. In his life we see many truths of the Bible verified and realised. It would be a great blessing, if this same spirit, which is the fruit of ThE SPIRIT, also invaded our Churches. Many of our ‘regular complaints would disappear as snow before the sun.

We intend to Quote some of Hudson Taylor’s most striking words in the coming issues of “Trowel and Sword”. And we do hope that all our readers, both in New Zealand and in Australia will study them, reflect upon them and. take them to heart. 

K. Runia.

*Editor’s Note: This “small booklet” (264 pages) can still be purchased – both new and pre-owned. If you are interested, ebay would be a good place to start looking.

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

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