“Things We Couldn’t Say” – Book Review

REV. J.W. Deenick. Trowel & Sword. May 1995.

Preamble: It’s bizarre that today, eighty years after the horrors of WW2, the word “Nazi” is thrown around so casually, often as an accusation against someone we may disagree with. But the holocaust was no casual affair. Despite his obvious reluctance to again bring it to the fore, Bill Deenick obviously felt compelled to bring to our attention the heroism of those who opposed Nazism and risked, and often lost their lives in their efforts to rescue the victims of this evil regime as told by Diet Eman, one of the many who fought to rescue Dutch Jews. Although he doesn’t mention it, Bill was himself also deeply involved in the fight to save Jews in the Netherlands so one can only imagine the emotions he went through as he read this book. It is little wonder that he recommended it so highly.

“Things We Couldn’t Say“

Many T&S  readers, will have seen the film based on Thomas Keneally’s book, Schindler’s Ark. I saw it somewhere in Melbourne. It is both an important and a deeply moving film. Important, because it documents in an historically responsible manner the atrocities committed by the Third Reich; and deeply moving, because it portrays one man’s heroic efforts to save from the gas chambers as many Jewish men, women, and children as he was able. 

Yet, for most of us there is a saturation point where we begin to say: now I have heard and seen enough of the Second World War, the Nazis, and the holocaust.

Therefore, when in my Beacon Hill Books Catalogue I saw a notice that someone had written another book about the Nazi persecution of Dutch Jews, I might not have been as keenly interested as I should have been, had it not been for one name I recognised. It said that was all about a young woman, Diet (pronounced Deet) Eman, and about her fiance’, Hein Sietsma. And I happen to know a solicitor in Sydney of that name, a brother of the other Sietsmas, well known to many readers of this paper in NSW and Vic.

When I further discovered, that this Hein Sietsma was indeed a cousin of the Australian Sietsmas, and that like his uncle, Dr Kornelis Sietsma, this young man was apprehended by the Nazis and transported to the death camp of Dachau, I wanted to know more about that book.

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.

It is the story of two young people, in their early twenties, who became instruments in God’s hands for the hiding of hundreds of Jewish people on Dutch farms, mostly in the province of Gelderland, round the towns of Nykerk, Barneveld, Putten, Zwartebroek, and Terschuur.

At the start of WW II, Diet Eman, who lived with her parents on the Malakka Straat, in The Hague, was eighteen years old and worked as clerk at the Twentse Bank in the city centre. Already before the beginning of the war, she had come to know a young fellow from Holk, near Nykerk, where his father was headmaster of the Christian school. At the time, he too lived in The Hague and had his further training at Shell Oil Company. These two young people came to love each other very deeply.

When the German armies had occupied most of Western Europe, including Holland, and the Nazis began to make life difficult for Jews, people of the Reformed faith had to make some very fundamental decisions. Should the German authorities be accepted as the de facto government and as such be obeyed; or, should they be resisted both openly and underground? Should the German occupation be seen as an instrument in God’s hand for the punishment of the Western nations and be submitted to for that reason? Could Christians in the resistance movement live under false names with all the lying and deceit that would follow from that? How could Jews be hidden without creating a smokescreen of evasion and lies?

Diet Eman and Hein Sietsma were directly confronted with these dilemmas when a Jewish friend, Herman, with his Jewish girl friend, Ada, had to make the life or death decision: shall we do as the Nazis tell us to do? Shall we let ourselves be rounded up, together with all other Jews, in one designated section of the city of Amsterdam, or shall we hide? And whom can we ask to hide us? That was, writes Diet, how it started.

She writes: “This was how our (resistance) group was formed: we simply got together and talked about what the Germans were doing to the Jews”. They decided to seek a hiding place for Herman and Ada; and for Ada’s mother. But soon, Herman’s uncle came and said: “Can you help this one and that one too… and I have more.” Rosa, Herman’s sister, also needed a place. “The whole thing grew so fast that within two or three weeks we had over sixty people who wanted places out in the country, in the Veluwe. And that was just the beginning. Hein went out on his own to Holk, trying to find places; and he placed many Jews on farms round that little town. But the list kept growing.”

At first they did not realise what all of that would involve with regard to transport, identification cards (IDs), ration cards, correspondence, and finance. The one step had to lead to the other. They had to become better organised. In order to get ration cards and IDs, they sought the help of a gang that was active round Rotterdam and Zwyndrecht, raiding local council offices. Their own group, which they called HEIN (Help Each other In Need), was not involved in that; nor did they join the National Organisation of resistance groups, the LO. And the violent activities of some groups which were prepared to execute high-ranking German officers and traitors, they condemned.

When they became aware that the Secret Police was looking for them, Diet and Hein began to live under false names with forged ID cards, hiding at many different places, Hein mostly working in Friesland and Diet in Gelderland. They had never set out to do anything heroic, but they did believe that the Lord God had made them responsible for the Jewish people. They could not run away from that. In the process, they suffered enormous anxiety and loss. Although they were deeply in love, they had great trouble organising a day or a weekend for themselves. And always there was the threat of the Secret Police.

Diet mainly functioned as “postman”, on foot or on push-bike, from farm to farm all over that part of the country, passing on ration cards, messages, correspondence, money, and heaps of illegal material, constantly being in danger of being apprehended by the SS or the Gestapo. 

In April 1944, Hein, who travelled disguised as a Reformed pastor, was searched on the train in Friesland and, loaded with incriminating stuff, was apprehended and taken to the Leeuwarden prison. From there he was transported to the concentration camps of Amersfoort, Neuengamme, Ladelund, and Dachau.

Less than a month later, the same happened to Diet, who was taken to the infamous prison at Scheveningen, and later to Vught in Brabant, where she was briefly detained with Corrie ten Boom in the same barrack. Because she managed to make the Secret Police believe her fantastic story of innocence, she was released from Vught in August, 1944.

After the war, Diet Eman suffered deep distress and sorrow, because of the loss of the boy she loved. Why could she not have died also? For many, many years she refused to tell her story. She fled away from it all, to Venezuela, to the USA.

Finally, after she had heard Corrie ten Boom tell about her experiences and about God’s faithfulness, her conscience began to trouble her. Her children too insisted that she write a book. But she could not. Then finally, when Dr James Schaap, professor in English at Dordt College, Sioux Centre, Iowa, offered to write it with her, she gave in. And, praise God, she did.

This is a great book, for a good many reasons. First of all, because it is a truly honest book and a deeply religious one. It is written in the first person singular, and based on the diaries of both Diet and Hein and on their correspondence. There is no embellishment about it. It tells how two ordinary young people of the Reformed faith wrote things down, and talked to each other about what they believed to be their calling from God under these extremely taxing circumstances.

That the Lord God used them wonderfully is evident from the fact that all Jews they had hidden with Christian farm families made it; every single one. Yet, of their own group of underground workers, eight young men died at the hands of the Nazis. As followers of Jesus, they gave their lives in defence of their Jewish neighbours.

There is no doubt that they were indeed Reformed young people. On December 11, 1939, the then eighteen year old Diet Eman wrote in her diary: “Again, a conversation with the doctor. We always come back to the same point: ‘The church may not mix in politics’ he says. And I tell him that when you are a Christian and profess that God is almighty, there is no single area of life from which you can eliminate God.” If ever I have felt that I should wholeheartedly recommend a book, it is this one. Young people especially will love reading it. It will help them to understand, and to identify with, what so many of their (grand)parents went through at that time.

For New Zealand readers this final note. The author mentions as one of their co- workers, Adrian Schouten from Zwijndrecht. From what she tells about him, I would not be at all surprised if he was the same Adrian Schouten whom we later came to know as a member of the Hamilton church. And more importantly, the young Albert, the Jewish boy who on the farm where he found a hiding place came to know Jesus, whom he later confessed as the Messiah, and who eventually married a minister’s daughter, could he be Albert Van Gelder, one of Christchurch’s leading elders at the institution of the Reformed Church there?

J.W. Deenick 

“Things We Couldn’t Say” has been published by Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, Mich

Footnote: “Things We Couldn’t Say” is still available from Koorong books for $39.99. Second hand books are also available from various suppliers. Enter the title in your search engine.

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

Of The Making Of Many Bibles Will …. ?

Prof. G. van Groningen. Trowel & Sword. September 1974

Preamble: “Be warned, my son, of anything in addition to them. Of making many books there is no end, and much study wearies the body.” (Ecclesiastes 12:12). It has been said that one of the greatest inventions of the modern era is the printing press; although even that has now been surpassed by the digital age. Even so, it is hard for us to imagine that already 3000 years ago Solomon was lamenting the making of many books. In this article Prof V.G. has built on this theme by assessing the many versions of the Bible in existence in his time, 50 years ago; this in the light of the fact that the NIV was in the process of being the latest version to be published. It makes one wonder how many more versions have appeared since then. Why so many Bibles? Considering the Bible is still the No. 1 bestseller in the world today, we suspect that the making of much money may well be, in part at least, a motivator.

Of The Making Of Many Bibles Will… ?

The stack of Bibles before me on my desk is a high one. It could be even higher because the Hebrew Bible and the Greek Bible, (both Old and New Testament) are not included. Neither the latest Dutch Bible (De Nieuwe Vertaling). These are kept separate for specific usage. And let me add that the three cross reference Bibles (Thompson’s, Dickson’s and Monser’s) which are kept available as study aids, are not included either. Only a selected number of English translations of the Bible comprise the stack before me.

The venerated Authorised Version, The King James of 1611, is at the bottom. The English Revised Version and the American Revised Version, both having appeared at the turn of the past century to enable the readers of the first half of the twentieth century to read the Bible according to their own idiomatic style and choice, are on a nearby shelf, accessible for reference. On top of the Authorised version is the Revised Standard Version of the Bible which appeared in 1952. Then comes the Modern Language Bible, which is a revision (in part) of the Berkeley Bible. The original Berkeley appeared in 1959, the revision in 1969. The Jerusalem Bible is next; it was published as an English Bible in 1966. The New English Bible, the publication date of which is given as March 16, 1970 is next. The New American Standard Bible is next. And on top of the stack is the Holy Bible, New International Version, New Testament. The Old Testament of the N.I.V. will not be ready for publication for another three or four years.

Three of the professors of the Reformed Theological Seminary at which I work, are participating in the translation of the N.I.V., Old Testament. The question can quite legitimately be asked: Why do these professors spend time on this project, considering the fact that there is such a big stack of modern translations available already? A few words on the specific characteristics of each recent translation should place the above question in proper focus.

The Authorised Version based on the venerated ‘Textus Receptus’, (the Hebrew & Greek Bible of 1400) will not be replaced as the dearly loved Bible for many people. It need not be either, if readers prefer to read in the English style of 1611 and are not specifically concerned to have recently discovered factors (regarding ancient languages, literature, historical setting) aid them in their reading. However, the English and American Revisions appearing at the turn of the century indicate that there was a call for updating the translation of the Bible by previous generations.

The Revised Standard Version has not really met the need of the modern age. It is a revision of the Authorised Version; it is not a new translation. However, many changes have been included in the R.S.V. on the basis of what revisers found in the various manuscripts in the original languages. But the revisers worked with the dubious assumption that the Bible developed through various discernible stages. A few words on this problem will be included later in this article.

The Modern Language Bible has been hailed by some scholars as an outstanding achievement in evangelical Biblical scholarship. But many scholars have been critical. Added to this is the fact that this Bible has not been received with a great deal of general public enthusiasm. Among the assets of the “Berkeley”, one can mention its faithfulness to the original texts and its effort to employ the language of the average modern reader. The legitimate criticisms which are voiced include reference to its specific American (U.S.) terminology and the idiosyncrasies largely due to the original one-man effort on the New Testament, and the comparatively small team effort on the Old Testament as well as on the recent revision of the New Testament.

The Jerusalem Bible (J.B.) has been hailed as a scholars’ Bible. This is because of the extensive explanatory materials, both textual and theological, found in the notes. These notes present a definite problem for many readers because they were added, as the general editor states in the foreword, for the deepening of theological thought. He adds that these notes are not intended to be sectarian or superficial.  They are not superficial; but they do reflect the theological bias of the translators. The actual translation is intended to keep the readers “abreast of the times” so that what was “crystallised in antiquity” may be shown not to have been “fossilised” in time. The J.B. translation team, of Roman Catholic heritage, guided by French and Jerusalem scholarship, relying on English publication requirements, have not produced a translation which can be satisfactorily designated as international, interdenominational and of general public appeal.

The New English Bible is a strictly English production. It is also based on unwarranted textually critical assumptions. J.A. Sanders, concluded his comparison of the N.E.B. with the R.S.V. and J.B., in The Christian Century (March 18, ’70) by quoting Ps. 118:23 “This is the Lord’s doing, it is marvellous in our eyes; this is the day on which the Lord has acted: let us exult and rejoice in it.” He thus indicated his exuberance as well as his theological bias. The N.E.B. is said to expose the richness and the majesty of the English language. Very well! However, it also exposes the conjectures of critical scholarship much more than the R.S.V. does. At this point, it may be feasible to say a few words in explanation.

The translators of the N.E.B., the revisers of the R.S.V. by and large, and some authors of the notes in the J.B. reveal their critical conviction concerning the original texts. Let it be understood that these men seek to be men of integrity. However, they follow the assumptions of scholars who believe that the “Bible grew”, i.e., it developed through successive stages. The stages referred to are not those, e.g., of the Pentateuch, the pre-exilic prophets, the post exilic prophets, etc. Rather, they believe the actual text of the Bible was written, edited, rewritten and re-edited. J.A. Sanders points out that the translators of the N.E.B. believed that there are four or more, successive stages to be discerned in the transmission of the text. The last stages for the Old Testament are: 1) the Massoretic era, 1000 AD; the last stage;  2) the post Jerusalem era; after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD, the text passed through its second to last stage;  3) the temple era of Jesus’ day represents the third to last stage, and  4) the Ezra to Maccabee period, 400-200 B.C., represents the fourth to the last stage. N.E.B. translators have tried to reflect what they believe to be the earlier stages, second or third to the last stage. Hence, e.g., a reader will find certain sections of the Bible in places other than the traditional place.

Back to the stack before me. The New American Standard Bible has been warmly received in various evangelical circles. It reflects a definite degree of scholarship. However, it does not communicate well.

In the interest of an exact translation of the Massoretic text, smoothness and beauty of expression were sacrificed. Some have referred to it quite correctly as the modern students’ proof text Bible and the “pony for the beginning Hebrew and Greek students”.

Some readers may wonder why The Living Bible is not included in the stack on my desk. The answer is threefold: 

1) The Living Bible is not really the Bible; it is a brief commentary on the Bible (the author readily acknowledges this by adding the term “paraphrased”).    

2) The author’s theological bias pervades throughout. Compare e.g., Acts 13:48; Rom. 8:28,29; 9:13; Eph. 2:1 as found in The Living Bible with that found in a reliable translation.

3) In the interest of simple language, many simplistic renditions are offered which do not convey the profundity of the truths revealed in God’s Word.

In view of the criticisms of the various recent translations, can one now expect the N.I.V., New International Version, to be acceptable? So far only the New Testament has been published.

It has been enthusiastically received. A few initial comments read as follows: “At last!  A worthy successor to the King James”, balanced scholarly, dedicated translation…  and “the breadth of evangelical scholarship is impressive. .”  “the sensitive word choices keep large truths from being watered down by over-simplicity.” It is fervently/ hoped and trusted that the Old Testament will be received in the same way. (see also Harry L. Hoving in earlier issues of T & S).

The editorial board and the translators of the N.I.V. have followed two specific patterns. The first pattern is in reference to the mechanics of translation. Briefly, the pattern followed is as follows: Step one: a portion is assigned to two translators who work together. Step two: the initial translation is sent to two consultants who, individually, provide suggested improvements in marginal notes. Step three: a committee of five (the Intermediate Editorial Committee), minutely, painstakingly reviews and revises the offered translation and notes. Step four: Another committee of five (The General Editorial Committee) reviews and revises the translation and marginal notes. Step five: the committee on Bible Translation, composed of 20 or more scholars, make a final review and prepare the text for publication. Literary stylists are on hand to advise all the committees working at steps three, four and five.

The second pattern is in reference to the actual work of translation. Three specific terms indicate what is expected of the translators. 1) integrity. 2) dignity, and 3) felicity. A few comments about each of these follows in reverse order as stated above.

Felicity refers especially to a combination of simplicity and beauty. Both of these are very necessary if one wishes to communicate effectively. One who has his readers in mind particularly, when translating, works to attain a high degree of felicity.

Dignity refers particularly to a combination of solemnity and profundity in a positive relationship with felicity. These aspects are very essential if a translator is to convey the reality of God speaking in the past and in the present. God’s voice must be heard, God’s character must be sensed, God’s intentions, will, desires must be discerned as one reads. The translators must so efface themselves that, in no manner whatsoever, a veil will be placed over God’s face.

Integrity has to do with faithfulness to the text and the honesty of the scholar-translator. The translator may not work, not even try or suppose he can, contrary to his convictions, his faith, his love for God and His Word. The translator may not deal with the text, the original Hebrew and Greek, other than what he believes to be true about that text. All the N.I.V. translation staff members have expressed their faith in and love for God according to what is known as the historic, evangelic Biblical confession. This confession includes the belief that the Bible books were written by men who were inspired by the Spirit of God. It also includes the belief that these books have been preserved, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, in such a manner that the original message, as given by God to the original authors, is at hand in the Hebrew and Greek texts.

Evangelical scholars firmly believe that it is not permissible to consider, or to deal with, the original text in the manner of the critical scholars referred to above. Rather, they have sought out the earliest reliable texts which are considered to be faithful copies of the original.

It is with a great deal of pleasure that the translators of the N.I.V.N.T. can read in the enthusiastic reviews such comments as these, “…. the latest in textual sources have been used,. . .’ and “fresh translation from the early Greek texts”. Discerning readers sense the facts of the matter.

It is the earnest desire and the fond hope of many that the N.I.V. will include all the combined assets of the Bibles stacked on my desk but avoid their weaknesses and errors.

GEORGE VAN GRONINGEN

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

Leave a comment

Tempting, Isn’t It?

Robert Meischke. Trowel & Sword, July 1993

Preamble: When we think, and ministers/pastors preach about the Easter story, one aspect that may be overlooked is that of the temptation of Jesus. In this article Robert brings it to the fore, reminding us that we have a saviour who knows what we experience because He too has been there and done that. Many books have been written on the subject, but in this short article Robert absolutely nails it.

Tempting, Isn’t It?

Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has gone through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold firmly to the faith we profess. For we do not have a high priest who is unable sympathise with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are – yet was without sin. Let us approach the throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need.’  (Hebrews 4:14-16) 

The bite happens.
It happens when you see someone drop a twenty dollar note.
It happens when you walk past an empty car with its engine running.
It happens when you see the plastic covered magazines on the top shelf in the news agency.
It happens when you realise that sticking to the speed limit will make you ten minutes late.
It happens when someone asks you if you have heard the latest gossip.
It happens every time you start wanting something that know you shouldn't have. In fact, when we really sit down and think about it, it happens quite a lot.
We are tempted.

I have just given a few examples of how some of us might be tempted. You probably have a few things in your own mind that could replace some items on this list or even add to it.

The problem is that we seem to run into all sorts of temptations practically every day. Sometimes they are sexual. Sometimes they are financial. Sometimes they come at a time when our relationship or family life is at a low point. They come from many different sides and they vary in subtlety from a tickling feather to train smash.

We need to remember, though, that each and every temptation we face is spiritual. They all tease and hassle our relationship with God.

Mind you, most of us already know this. How many times have you said in your mind, ‘Don’t look now God, I’m about to give in again.’

Every time we struggle with a temptation, we are actually struggling with whether or not our relationship with God is the most important thing in our lives. No matter how big or how small the temptation might be, it all boils down to saying ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to God Himself. That is why James said, ‘whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it’ (James 2:10).

Dealing with temptation is a serious matter. In fact, without the grace of God in Christ, the ‘Hungry Jacks’ slogan, “Resistance is Useless,” would be true. Without the grace of God we simply would not be able to resist or fight any temptation at all, not even the little ones.

Now, perhaps you think that no other Christian struggles with a particular temptation as much as you do. Sometimes you might feel very lonely and guilty because your sin is too big or horrible to talk about with somebody else.

Or perhaps you think that your sin is one that God will not forgive you for or help you to overcome because it is too bad.

Every now and then we need to remember just how much our God understands our sinfulness and our need for His love and grace. We need to realise this so that we may have the confidence to trust Him when we really need Him to help us deal with temptation.

Our Lord, Jesus Christ, the one high priest who stands in the presence of almighty God on our behalf, understands us better than we understand ourselves. He knows our thoughts. He knows our feelings and our struggles. He knows how strong and how subtle Satan’s temptations really are. He knows that Satan will try to lead us to hell and make us think that we are going to heaven.

Jesus knows that Satan will try to convince us that bad is good and that good is bad. Each temptation is designed to make us think that hell is really not such a bad place after all, if it really exists.

Jesus knows all this because He has experienced it. Every possible type of temptation that you could think of, Jesus has faced it. That is what this passage is saying. There is no temptation to sin that we face that Jesus has not already faced.

Have a look at the story of Jesus’ temptation by Satan in the desert in Luke 4. Satan wanted Jesus to turn His back on God and His own mission. He wanted Jesus to believe that if He did what Satan suggested then He would be doing the right thing. He even had the audacity to say, ‘If you worship me, it will all (the kingdoms of the world) be yours.’

Our Lord Jesus has been hit by every temptation in the book and He has defeated all of them. Not once did He give in and take what looked like the easy path, not even when He was called to come down from the cross to save Himself. He stayed on the cross and died so that we might be saved. He beat the power of the devil into a powerless pulp. Our Lord Jesus knows what we go through when we are tempted.

That is why we are now able to trust Him completely. What would be the point of turning to Jesus if we could not be sure that He could actually strengthen us to resist temptation. We know that He can because He has already done it.

So why not take God at His word? Why not stand and be counted as one who trusts God to give all the help and grace you need right now, no matter how trivial or how terrible your situation might be?

God is calling on us to approach Him with confidence and boldness because of what Jesus Christ has done. He is calling on us to pray, ‘Lead us not into temptation’, and really mean it. The devil is tempting us not to pray, trying to convince us that Jesus is not worth trusting. But thanks to Jesus, even that temptation has no power over us.

Rob Meischke

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

A Parent’s Mission Field

Margeeske Davies. Faith in Focus. May 2024

Preamble: While our stated purpose is to reprint past articles from Trowel and Sword, we have made the occasional exception, reprinting articles from other sources. Speaking of other sources, we have also stated that we are willing to publish previously unpublished articles submitted by Reformed Church members. Following on from last week’s post on “Faith in Focus”, a random search through their archives revealed the following article from May last year by Mrs. Margeeske Davies of the Pukekohe Reformed Church in New Zealand which “Blew me away” and cried out to be shared. With the permission of the editor Walter Walraven it makes up this week’s post in TSR.

A Parent’s Mission Field

What does discipleship mean? We know the great Commission that Christ gave us in Matt. 28: 19-20. “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations…” This easily gives us the impression that we need to ‘go’ somewhere.

When I was a young mom, with a houseful of little kids, I went through a period where I grew rapidly in thankfulness for God’s grace. I felt a strong desire to share the good news with others. At the same time I felt heavily burdened by this house full of needy children. I was not able to stand in a ProLife rally, or travel to the capital to help set up a display. I couldn’t volunteer in a soup kitchen, or travel to other countries to help build Christian schools or church buildings. I felt I was being ‘held back’ by these kids. I felt they hampered my ability to witness and minister to others, to disciple those who had not heard the good news. That was until a dear older woman laid her hand on my arm and gently stated, ”but that IS your witness. Your children, your family, is your mission field!” It was a life altering realisation.

However, many do realise that they are the ones who need to teach their offspring, and yet the idea that the gospel is for little children as well as for adults, doesn’t even dawn on them.

AS WE INTRODUCE OUR CHILDREN TO THEIR HEAVENLY FATHER, WE NEED TO IMPRESS ON THEM THAT HE IS THE KING OF KINGS. AS SUCH, BEING HIS CHILDREN, THEY ARE ROYALTY.

I grew up in a faithful Christian family. My parents modelled Christian behaviour, love, forgiveness, gentleness, self-control etc. All the fruit of the Spirit was clearly modelled by them. Yet looking back at my growing-up years, I do not see that I was being discipled. I once asked my Mum why she did not teach me to ask for God’s help when, as a young child, I was struggling with various issues. She told me she had never thought about the fact that God was for little children as well. Subconsciously, she believed that a child’s problems were not worthy of God’s time. Even though she would have stated that Christ had made abundantly clear that children were indeed important to Him. Somehow she had never realised little ones needed discipling as much as any adult. It struck me as an especially unexpected revelation since she had spent her entire career as a Christian primary school teacher and principal. And yet I don’t think this is an uncommon misconception.

There are other subconscious misconceptions that can lead us to miss this calling. We may easily miss our children as a mission field because we profess that our children are ‘children of the covenant’ and in that sense they do not need to be brought to the LORD since He has claimed them as His own. Our baptismal forms clearly state that our children are His. But what we do not do is explain the Lord to them. We need to explain to them what He has done for them and how that knowledge ought to have an effect on how they live their lives. So we are discipling, not in the sense that we are looking to convert them, but that we alert them to their privileges and responsibilities.

As we introduce our children to their Heavenly Father, we need to impress on them that He is the King of kings. As such, being His children, they are royalty. They need to know that they are being raised with many privileges. They have insight and peace that those who are not God’s children do not know. By being born under the covenant, that is their birthright. They have many advantages over those who are growing up without Christ. Through the communion of saints our children have a shortcut into understanding human nature, and insight into how nature has been designed. Many of them even have an easier time looking for work and looking for friends and spouses. But there are also limits and responsibilities placed on them in these areas because of their privileged status. We also teach them that there is much required of our children. There are behaviours that are expected and forbidden them. That too is part of their birthright.

I think Prince William and Prince Harry are a great analogy for us to use in speaking about this. From before they were born, these two were royalty. Born into privilege and responsibility. They both were given many privileges as they were growing up. Privileges that were theirs by right of birth. But there was also much required of both of these men. Specific behaviour was expected of them in certain circumstances and yet other behaviour was not permitted for them. Many advantages were granted them regarding careers and marriage, but there were also many restrictions placed on them. Both regarding careers and marriage. And their birth also placed a calling on their lives. A calling that people not born into royalty do not have. Both these young men, through birth were called to lead through service. They are expected to treat others, those that have been raised with less, with humility and patience, no matter how they are confronted by them.

And just like William and Harry, our children can respond in two different ways. Like Prince William has done, they can accept and rejoice in their privileges. They can take on their responsibilities as laid out for them by their birthright. And in doing so they will be a blessing to those around them, to those whom they serve and lead. And in doing so they become a blessing to their parents. On the other hand, like Prince Harry, they can reject their responsibilities. They can dwell on the sins of those around them and focus on things they believe they ought to have received. They reject their privileged status and so also lose many of their privileges. They live lives outside of the world where they were raised, no longer able to enjoy the privileges that were intended for them. And like Prince Harry, they often find they are out of step with that world.

So God has given these princes and princesses parents to disciple them. We can disciple them by reading His Word with them. By taking them to church, and if we have the opportunity, to Sunday school as well. But the greatest witness our children will ever get is the testimony of our lives. We teach our children about the goodness of our God through our own behaviour. As they see us react to trials and to blessings, we disciple them. We teach them who God is. It is infinitely beneficial for our children to hear us speak openly of our own struggles with trials or sin. We disciple them when we speak in specifics of God’s patience with ourselves. When we speak words of thankfulness knowing that, though we again come to Him with a repeated sin, we show that we know and trust that He is not annoyed at having to forgive us once again. In doing so we teach them about God’s character. We can live the example of a life of those caught by “His net of grace.” When our children see us asking the LORD for help, when they see our trust in the outcome of difficulties, they gain a better understanding of His care for us and them. And we teach them about His trustworthiness. That is how we disciple them. We teach them by example that we know He does not judge us but neither does He shield us from the consequences of our actions. Indeed, we know that hardship is the workshop of God’s grace.

And over time we will present them with what our own responses are. We disciple them in explaining to them what is a good and right response. And we teach them and show them the results of the wrong response. And we explain to them how their choice in response will affect them and then we have to leave it to them to choose. This is a critical stage. We need to acknowledge that we are not our children’s saviour. Only God can grow the seed He has called us to plant in them. And then, as we too allow them the freedom to choose we remain there for them. And we prepare to show them the grace God shows His people Himself. Then, when, if they DO choose the wrong response we can be their “safety net of grace.” We may be there to catch them. We get to give them the opportunity to discuss the result of their choices. We allow them to work through the outcome of their choices, so they can see how and why they ended up in trouble. And like disciples, we do that without judgement, in the same manner as God does it with us. We do not shield them from their consequences, because these are put in place by God to teach them. But we do support them. Time after time we get to steer them back to the comfort of His Word.

I have heard discipleship described as follows: “It is intentional and deliberate – it doesn’t just happen. It requires you deciding, with God’s help, to work to be a conduit for pouring spiritual blessing into the life of another person – as one aspect of your personal obedience to Christ.” I love this definition because it relays the intentionality that is required in parenting. As parents we carry the great responsibility of teaching our children about the Lord. We are called to introduce them to who He is and what He has done for us and for them. But that responsibility is also a great privilege, because in doing so, we develop a closer relationship with Him ourselves. Indeed, studies have shown that teaching is the best way to gain a deeper understanding of something yourself. It is called the ‘protégé effect’, and in raising up children to carry that torch of discipleship for the next generation, in teaching our children, we ourselves are blessed. We ourselves are being drawn closer to Christ. Isn’t it mind boggling that God worked that into our nature as well? It’s a thrilling task.

Margeeske Davies is a member of the Pukekohe Reformed Church.

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

Faith In Focus 

John Haverland. Trowel & Sword, March 1993

Preamble: In 1993 John Haverland, the then editor of Faith in Focus, the magazine of the Reformed Church of New Zealand, sent the following article/advertisement to be included in Trowel and Sword. In it he refers to the history of the two magazines and various reasons CRC members on both sides of “the ditch” should be reading each other’s magazines. These reasons are just as valid today as they were then, but unfortunately, Australia has let itself down by no longer producing Trowel and Sword. If you have done the maths you will have discovered that this year is the 50th. anniversary of “Faith in Focus”. Yes it is still going strong. We have been in touch with its current editor, Walter Walraven and have been assured that he would still be extremely happy to have new subscribers from Australia. It is an excellent publication, only available online, but past copies can be viewed at https://faithinfocus.org.nz/ Subscription is $40 per year, although I am unclear whether that would be the same in A$. Please contact Walter at walterwalraven@icloud.com for further information. One final point, “Faith in Focus” could serve as an excellent template for a renewed Trowel & Sword if we in Australia chose to take up the challenge.

Faith In Focus.

Greetings from one church magazine to the readers of another!

As the present editor of Faith in Focus am writing about our magazine to encourage you to subscribe. So this is a hybrid of an article and advertisement, included with the kind permission of your editor!

Let me be clear about what am not trying to do. I am not attempting to pull readers away from Trowel and Sword. Many of us in New Zealand have been and still are subscribers to Trowel and Sword. We receive it regularly and read it with profit. Some of our congregations have bulk subscriptions to the magazine, the session supplying every family or unit with a copy.

Nor am I suggesting that Faith in Focus is a superior magazine, although we do strive to make it as readable, informative and interesting as possible.

Why then am I encouraging you to subscribe and read our denominational magazine? There are a few reasons.

One is that most of us read very little in the way of Christian literature. Good Christian reading material usually comes off a poor second or third to television, videos and easy-to-read novels. Reformed magazines in our homes would help stimulate systematic reading.

Another reason is that many in the Reformed Churches of Australia know little about the ministers in New Zealand. It would be helpful to the trans-Tasman calling process for you to have an informed knowledge of the ministers of our churches.

A third reason, and my main one, is that this would foster understanding, relationships and communication between our two denominations.

At our synod in October last year we were privileged to have the Rev. John Westendorp represent your churches as a fraternal delegate with Dr Bill Berends representing the Reformed Theological College. Their presence and contribution reminded us yet again of the family bonds that we share as sisters.

We want to strengthen these family ties. One of the best ways to do this is to know a little more about each other; what each is thinking, writing about, reflecting on, what is going on in our churches, what issues we are struggling with and debating. Not to be a *sticky-beak’; not to peer over each other’s shoulder; rather to understand and help each other.

Originally Trowel and Sword was intended for both denominations. That is why it carries Australian Gleanings and a Letter From New Zealand. However, over time. Trowel and Sword has had more Australian contributors and consequently more of an Australian flavour. This is an understandable development and there is merit in each denomination having its own magazine.

Yet, in view of the ties that bind us, there is also value us keeping contact with each other. As I have mentioned, many of our churches and members subscribe to Trowel and Sword. Because of this we understand you better. I would suggest you would understand us better if many of your churches and members subscribed to Faith in Focus.

Perhaps you want to know a little more before you sign up! The Reformed Churches of New Zealand have been producing Faith in Focus for eighteen years. Each issue has some regular features: An Editorial: a Reflection on contemporary events; a section edited by Joyce Larsen entitled, “From a Woman’s Point of View”, some News from the Churches and a four page pull-out supplement designed especially for office bearers.

A recent development is to make every third issue a feature, focusing on a particular subject. Features so far have included one on Evangelism and another on The Reformation. Further feature issues planned for this year include: Marriage, Christian Education, Time, Suffering and Death.

Our contemporary church and society are in great need of reformation. The stated aim of both our magazines is the edification and defence of our Reformed Presbyterian faith and life in Australia and New Zealand. Let’s benefit from each other’s ideas and insights towards this great end. 

John Haverland.

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

All Of Life For Christ

Rev. Leo Douma. Trowel & Sword. December 1995

Preamble: It is a commonly held view in our society that there should be a separation of church and state. It is one of the main reasons Christian Political Parties have never succeeded in Australia. If all people claiming to be Christians voted for a Christian Party, Australia could be a different country, as could New Zealand. Would they be better? That is a different question and perhaps a topic for another day. In this article Leo looks, among other things, at how our thinking is influenced by our world view. However it is telling that often our actions don’t match our beliefs. For evidence of this take note of how people, both Christian and non-Christian celebrated Easter this weekend. Could you tell the difference?

All Of Life For Christ

One of the giants in Reformed history, Abraham Kuyper, made clear that “All of life is for Christ”. As he put it, “There is not one square inch in all the universe of which Jesus Christ does not say ‘This is mine!””

While Kuyper developed this understanding, he was not original in this. As we saw last month, the Reformation’s reclaiming of the “priesthood of all believers” opened the way again for all believers to come directly to God in whatever area of life they were dealing with and make it an act of worship.

The idea that all parts of life are to be done in worship to God is seen clearly in Deuteronomy 6:4-9. We will pick out some of the main points of this passage which shows Moses preparing the Israelites to cross over the Jordan River to enter the Promised Land. Vs.4: “Hear, O Israel: The LORD (Jahweh) our God the LORD is one”, or as can also be translated the “…only one”. The stress is that the Lord is the only God, as opposed to the idea of many gods, such as the river god, the fertility gods or the other gods of the time.

Therefore as the only God He alone is to be served, and the Israelites were to serve Him with everything that they were and had. That is the point of vs.5: “You are to serve the Lord with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength”. Note the repeated “…all”. Note also that the words ‘heart” and “soul’ and “strength” do not refer to various parts of a person, but each term on its own refers to the total person from a particular perspective. So we have a typical Hebrew repetition. The point cannot be missed: that God as the only God is to be served by the believer’s whole being. 

This is further brought to us in vs.6 when Moses says, “These commandments I give you today are to be upon your hearts.” So not just upon their “minds” as things to consider. Although to be fair, this distinction was unknown to the Hebrews who had no word for “mind”. The word used was always “heart”, which referred to the “seat of motivation” and thus to the whole person. If the commandments were “upon the heart”, then the Israelites would always be directed by those commandments, because they directed their very motivational source. And that being the case the Israelites would have the ability to constantly teach their children, as Moses says in vs.7, “When you sit at home, when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up.’

In vs. 8 & 9 Moses says of the commandments of God: “Tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads. Write them on the door frames of your house and on your gates.” That meant that God’s word was to give direction for all living. The “hands” refer to life at work, the “forehead” to that which was seen, what was read, how life was viewed. The “doorframes” refer to life at home, the marriage relationship, and that with the children. The “gates” refer to life in the community, social issues and politics. The city gate in the Hebrew village was, of course, where the elders met. It was the place to make the decisions and settle disputes, the political and court system, if you like.

So as Moses puts it, a person’s belief was not something private, but something that referred to and effected “all of life”. Now it may be suggested that Moses was an Old Testament leader dealing with Israel as a theocracy, where the whole nation was seen as God’s people. Does it apply to the New Testament church? Well, Jesus made it clear that the Old Testament principles still applied when He gave the summary of the law: “To Love the Lord with all your heart, soul, mind (note ‘mind’ is now included to show the total person) and strength.” And Paul writes in Colossians 3:17 : “Whatever you do, in word or deed, do it all in the Name of our Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through Him.”

For many Christians the approach advocated here is different to what they have come to understand. The tendency in our communities is to say that one’s faith is private, and should remain so. The problem in our culture is that we divide life in two – the religious and the rest. So we think religion has to do with “faith”, and the rest, such as science and technology, politics and business has to do with logic, dealing “neutrally with facts”. But the truth is “all of life is religion”, because we approach everything we do from our faith perspective, either from a heart that is for God, or against God.

To be able to appreciate the last idea, and to understand how our Christian faith can apply in the work place or other activities in life, not just in terms of evangelism and good moral behaviour, but to the activity itself, to the thinking involved in our studies, or for the job at hand, we need to come to terms with the concept of “world views”.

What is a world view? Perhaps we can best explain it with an illustration. Imagine one person wears blue glasses, and another wears red glasses. They are both asked to look at a yellow sheet of paper. What colour would each person see? Well, obviously the person with blue glasses will see a green sheet, and the person with red glasses will see an orange sheet. Why do they see different colours? Because they look through different glasses.

All human beings look through a set of “coloured glasses” which are different depending on the culture they are in or the religion they hold to. Some Reformed writers have made the following descriptions of world views. Albert Wolters says “World views deal with our basic beliefs about things. They have to do with ultimate questions.” James Sire describes a world view as “a set of presuppositions (or assumptions) which we hold (consciously or sub-consciously) about the basic makeup of the world.” And Francis Schaeffer says “People are unique in the inner life of the mind – what they are in their thought world determines how they act.

….People have presuppositions… by (which) we mean the basic way an individual looks at life…, the grid through which he sees the world. Presuppositions rest upon that which a person considers to be the truth of what exists.”

So our world view has to do with our basic beliefs about all that exists. Whenever we think about something we do so on the basis of what we presuppose life is all about. For example, a Christian sees an interesting rock formation and praises God for his wonder in creating. A non Christian might marvel at the sight for the power of the evolutionary forces it shows. The two “see” things differently because what they presuppose about how the world began is different. We can not say that one is more scientific than the other. Both views come by faith. That is, the Christian by faith accepts that God created. The non Christian, by his faith, simply presupposes that there is no God, that it all began by evolutionary forces. Neither view can be proven scientifically – that is by observation and repeated experimentation. To be able to think about anything we need to start on the basis of things we presuppose. But our different presuppositions lead to different conclusions.

A world view is a set of beliefs that helps us see how all of life hangs together. A world view answers four basic questions: 1. Who am I?  2 Where am I?, 3. What is wrong? 4. What is the remedy?”  So for example, to illustrate how these four questions work to make up a world view, as Christians we believe we are creatures of God, made in his image, in the world He created. The world is a mess because of sin, but in Jesus there is salvation and the hope of restoration. But, in contrast, a modern view (existentialist) says we are chance products of evolution in a chaotic world. Our problem is our lack of control over the forces surrounding us, and the best we can do is to find as much meaning in life as we can, each to his own. 

A world view acts as a guide to our life, like a compass or a road map. It orientates us in the world and gives us a sense of what is right and what is wrong. Whenever one of us thinks about anything, casually or profoundly we do so from a world view. Many people would not have an answer when asked what their world view is, yet their basic beliefs emerge quickly enough when they are faced with emergencies and tragedy or convictions that clash with their own. These trigger a response that provide indications of what a person really believes.

World views never belong to just one individual. World views are always shared. Indeed true community is possible only when people are bound together by a common way of life that comes from a shared belief. Political activities, economic activities, marriage, family and child-rearing practices are all expressions of the common world view(s). These practices will themselves socialise the children to live in terms of that view of life. So most people gain their presuppositions, their beliefs, from their family and surrounding society.

Now where there are several prevailing world views in a society, that can generate a kind of spiritual schizophrenia, in which one part of life is led by one view and another by a different set of beliefs. This is the split life, or dualism, that many Christians live with, as they struggle in a culture that is basically secular and has no time for God, while they themselves believe He is creator of all. This dualism has led to the problem mentioned earlier of keeping religion private. We often feel that we are worlds apart from other people, or that someone seems to live in a different world from us. And often that is precisely the case. Another person’s world view is a different world and the various beliefs are like a map to that world. That is why it is often so difficult for people of different beliefs to understand each other. They really are in different worlds and cannot penetrate each other’s world. For a person to change from one world view to another is like a conversion experience, a totally different way of life. That is what happens when we believe in the Lord Jesus. We are converted by the Spirit through the Word. In our repentance we are completely turned around and live and think and act differently. We change from one world view to another. Our calling as Christians, through our sanctification, is to have all we think and say and do, done for God’s glory. To do that we need to develop our world view, to consider a consistently Christian approach to all of life. That is what we will consider in the coming months, to look at a Reformational world view, under the three main headings of “Creation, Fall, Redemption”.

Rev. Leo Douma

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

Living In The Light Of Easter

Rev. John Westendorp. Trowel & Sword. April 2000

Preamble: Once again Christians are preparing to celebrate Easter. In churches around the world the Easter story will be told in detail perhaps starting with the triumphal entry into Jerusalem, the last supper, the betrayal, the trials of Jesus, Peter’s denial, the crucifixion, the burial, the resurrection, the empty tomb and the meeting on the road to Emmaus. All these are well known. In this article John takes us beyond the Easter story and asks, what does it mean for us and how has it changed for us and for our lifestyle? Or has it?

Living In The Light Of Easter

Lifestyle

Have you noticed lately that new car advertisements on the television are telling you less and less about the motor vehicle being touted as the latest and greatest? Instead of details about the V6 engine and the computerised braking system we are treated to images of high-speed travel down an airport runway – this car really flies. Instead of being told how many litres per hundred kilometres you can expect to get from this machine, you are given glorious vistas of wide open countryside – this car will take you places. The reason for this new look in advertising …? The promoters do not want you to think that you are merely purchasing a motorcar. They want you to believe that you are buying a lifestyle.

The same is true of many other products as well. Chuck Colson, founder of Prison Fellowship, recently drew attention to the fact that when you click onto the homepage of Benetton you don’t immediately get images of the latest sportswear draped around sports heroes. Instead you get the ‘mug shots’ of three criminals on death row. You can then download interviews and information about these prison inmates. The thrust is that we must reprieve these people whom the courts have judged as having forfeited the right to live. The reason for this strange introduction to Benetton …? They don’t merely want to sell you sports gear. They want to leave you with the impression, not only that they are a caring, compassionate company but also that the ‘united colours of Benetton’ link you to the same compassionate cause. They are selling you a lifestyle.

It’s a strange and worrying trend. Advertisers and corporate executives are increasingly linking their products to lifestyles. At the same time our Western society is increasingly relegating something far more profound and far more important than cars and sportswear to some little corner, removed from real life? I’m talking, of course, about the Christian faith.

The advertisement for the latest hair shampoo promotes a lifestyle of freedom and happiness with more than just a hint of glamour and sexual attraction. That sort of lifestyle message is trumpeted from a million television sets across our nation. But try saying something in public about the freedom and happiness that comes from knowing Jesus Christ and you’ll be silenced very quickly. Those sorts of things are private matters. That’s religion. And religion, as we all know is something that should be kept for church and for home Bible reading. The Christian faith doesn’t really have much to do with lifestyle. At least, that’s what society would have us believe.

That issue became even more pronounced for me some years ago. The statistics had just come out about the growth of the Muslim population in Australia. A daily newspaper took the opportunity to tell its readers something about the Islamic religion. One comment in the introductory article stood out for me. The writer pointed out: Islam is not just a religion … it is a lifestyle! That author didn’t say it but the implication was clear – other religions (including Christianity) are not lifestyles, they are merely religions that have little to do with the nitty-gritty of real life.

Easter Victory

It’s appropriate for us to address the issue of the Christian lifestyle in this the Easter issue of T&S – and then for two reasons. First because the Easter season not only draws our attention to Calvary and the saving work of Jesus but it especially brings to our minds the empty tomb and the victory of our Lord Jesus Christ over sin, Satan and death. That victory earned Jesus the role and title of Lord. One could argue of course that Jesus always was Lord by virtue of Him being God. We often think of Jesus, during the three years of His public ministry, demonstrating His divine power by His miracles. The disciples already recognised Him as Lord before Easter morning.

Nevertheless it was especially the Easter victory that gave Jesus the title of Lord and the rights of Lordship. Paul tells us repeatedly that Jesus was declared Lord because of what He did. In Romans 1 Paul says, Jesus was declared Lord by His resurrection from the dead. In other words – by completing His work of saving us. Jesus became Lord because He achieved the great miracle of our salvation.

But we have a problem at this point that the word ‘lord’ doesn’t mean much anymore in our day and age. So we need to get back behind the meaning of the word.

England today still has a House of Lords and the lords who occupy that are people with titles of nobility. But those titles go back to an age of lords and peasants when the ‘lord of the Manor’ controlled the surrounding lands and the peasants were under the control of the Lord and owed him their total allegiance.

We see what it means to be Lord most clearly in an age of slavery. If you had been a servant or slave at the time of Jesus you would have no doubt about what it meant to be lord. Your lord was your master who owned you. You were not merely his employee but his possession, called to be at his beck and call twenty-four hours of every day. So ‘lord’ speaks to us of a master-servant relationship – one of total subservience and one that was very common in the ancient world.

You may wonder what all this has to do with lifestyle – the subject that this article is concerned about. That’s a good question and many a Christian has not yet grasped the relationship between Jesus being Lord and our lifestyle. Paul tells us in Philippians 2 that every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus is Lord. But what does that mean? At a large ecumenical gathering last year, green and gold balloons were released that had on them the words, “Jesus is Lord”. That was obviously a confession of Jesus as Lord. But it would be a sad reflection on the Christian Church if our acknowledgement of the Lordship of Jesus were limited to slogans on balloons. Sadly, for some people there will not be much more to it than that.

We need to revisit that ancient master-slave relationship. If Jesus is our Lord then the whole of our lives for twenty-four hours of every day are totally at His disposal. The whole of our life is to be lived under His rule with His will directing our every step. If we take that seriously then there is no way we will ever be able to limit that to some private area of our life such as prayers and devotions. Living under the Lordship of Christ is a lifestyle, not just a religion.

Changed Lives

But there is a second reason why it is appropriate to speak of lifestyle issues in this season of Easter. The Christian teaching is that whatever happened to Jesus also happened to us. We are in Christ. He took our place. That means that when Jesus died we died with Him. But it also means that when Jesus arose we arose with Him. We were buried with Christ and we were raised with Him too.

This amazing concept comes out in numerous ways in the Scriptures. Jesus spoke about ‘being born again’. Paul, in his letters, talks about the ‘new self’. When a person becomes a Christian she is no longer the person she once was. How can that not affect her lifestyle?

The difference is actually so great that Scripture calls us ‘the children of light’ while those who are not yet believers are spoken of as living in darkness. It is inconceivable that this will not become evident in a different lifestyle.

Today we are living in a society that insists on privatising religion. You are free to worship God as long as you don’t bring your faith into the public arena. For those who have the new life of Christ in them that is an impossibility.

There are too many indications in Scripture that Christians are to live their regenerated lives under the Lordship of Christ – also when under the public eye. We are the salt of the earth. We are the light of the world. That means that the Christian teacher is going to teach differently to a non-Christian teacher. The Christian businessman is going to run his business in a different way to the non-Christian businessman because he knows that Christ is Lord of all of life – also of his business.

It’s a sad thing that so often we allow society to seduce us into privatising our faith. If the ‘united colours of Benetton’ are associated with a lifestyle and if the latest motor vehicle is advertised in terms of a lifestyle, then how much more is not the new life in Christ, flowing out of the Easter victory of Jesus Christ, a radically different lifestyle?

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

Leave a comment

The Whole Is The Sum Of Its Parts

Rev. Dirk van Garderen. Trowel & Sword, September 1995

Preamble: What do ants have to do with the Bible; or the Amazon river; or university; or sport; or the temple; or Christian Schools; or love? In this post Rev. van Garderen takes us on a wide-ranging journey of discovery and ties it all together to form a true picture of how to live for Jesus.

The Whole Is The Sum Of Its Parts

At the beginning of this year my daughter was appointed a teacher at a Christian school. The whole family watched with awe as she frantically set up a whole term’s teaching programme in a matter of few days. She eventually got things arranged and included in her programme a study of ants.

‘Dad what is the distinctly Christian perspective on ants? How do you teach Grade 2 pupils about ants as a Christian? What does the Bible say about ants?”

I confessed to knowing only one reference to ants in the Bible off the top of my head. It was also a text that I could use to get her off my back and do her own research. You know the verse?

“Go to the ant you sluggard; consider its ways and be wise!” (Proverbs 6:6)

Whether by design, coincidence or as a punishment, ants have once again featured prominently in family life since then. They seem to pick certain evenings on which they choose to raid anything left on the kitchen bench, the pantry and even the fridge Thousands of them! After such a raid we inevitably call out the heavy artillery – that infamous brown bottle with its liquid ant-poison and pour Its contents into various jam-jar lids. Placed strategically, the ants swarm to it like bees to honey! Next morning out comes the dish-cloth to wipe up and dispose of the victims that were drowned and/or overcome in the poison – hundreds of them.

It is at that point that any student of ants should pause for a closer look and see something that is intriguing and challenging. The hundreds of dead ants strewn all around the lid and floating in their fluid grave do not stop countless hundreds of others from going about their business in collecting more food for the colony. The callous little beasts stomp all over their dead mates with what appears to be complete lack of concern and feeling. Strange really!

Stranger still is that individual ants seem to be so ready to sacrifice their own lives. I came across a reference to an ant colony that was moving from one spot to another. There was a small stream in the way small by human standards but like the Amazon river through ant eyes. At any rate, the way the ants crossed it was absolutely fascinating. The moving column never stopped at the water’s edge. They just kept on moving. The first ants drowned and simply became an ever growing bridge of dead bodies over which the rest of the colony proceeded to march! Thousands of individual casualties – but the colony as a whole, though temporarily reduced in numbers, survived the crossing.

A lesson? A challenge?

I was reminded of a series of lectures I once attended at university. The topic was intriguingly entitled, ‘social psychology’ and drew attention to how human beings act and interact with each other. At one point the lecturer raised a question. He asked us, “Is the whole simply the sum of its parts or is the whole different from its individual parts?”

The whole class stared at the lecturer in amazement. What a dumb question! Surely everyone knows that the whole – namely state, society or family – is simply the sum of its parts. The lecturer rubbed his hands together with glee. ‘Are you quite sure of that?” he asked. “Think about this carefully. The consequences of what you believe about this are, in a word, enormous.”

The challenge is: ‘Go to the ant, you sluggard, consider its ways and be wise.’

Contemporary Individualism

Would you agree with me that contemporary Western society is ‘I’ or ‘me’ centred to the point of obsession? Ours is an age of ‘self-ism where I, me, my feelings, my needs are at centre stage. We idealise the rugged individualist’ and make personal achievement, success, being top-dog, the best, the most excellent, first, most clever, most beautiful, most athletic, etc., the goal of life. The underlying belief or assumption here is simple enough: Maximise the ability and potential of the individual, then put all these maximised individuals together as a group and the society you create will be the best you can hope for.

Home, school, sports clubs, the state and the church all subscribe to this truth. John and Jane must achieve! Maximise their potential. Be the best. Get rewarded for being number one. Build yourself up. Although we do not say it too loudly, the push is forever to compete with, compare yourself with others and, whenever and by whatever way, outsmart and conquer the competition. At the centre of our society is the individual – the self! Just how frustrating, damaging and even damning this can be is evident wherever you turn.

* The vast majority of today’s society complains bitterly of problems with low self-esteem or self-regard. Those who do not say they have the problem mostly think it!

* We are all told and buy into the idea that you have simply got to learn to ‘sell yourself’ when it comes to the job market. Just page your way through the CV’s which are an absolute must for today’s job seekers to see what I mean.

* The most successful and attractive form of religion among middle-class people is so-called New Age-ism with all its spiritual aerobics courses helping hapless individuals get in touch with their inner, divine omnipotent self.

And the casualties of selfism mount in their thousands – teen suicides, drug takers, drop-outs, a growing army of unemployables, depressed peoples, cynics – you name it. Failures!

All of them individuals who have stepped over the line into the land of despair into permanent disrepair.

And the rest of us? Why, we are far too busy with ourselves! Remember? The prevailing philosophy is I before all! Me, my and mine are paramount. If ‘I’ don’t, no one else will. They, like me, are expected to be too busy with their  ‘I’. We have been told that if the individual would look after himself/herself, the whole of society will be fine.

If the ant colony, in coming to the edge of that stream, had been like a bunch of western individualists, can you guess what would have happened at the water’s edge? Somehow those ants, individually alive as they may be, live out the reality that the whole is not the same as the sum of its individual parts. Ants ‘think’ from the perspective of the whole colony rather than the perspective of themselves. ‘Go to the ant you sluggard, consider its ways and be wise.’

From a Bible Perspective

You know what gets me most of all in today’s climate? The idea that this pre-occupation with ‘I’, this idealising of the individual is fundamentally a Christian doctrine. In ‘Listener’ staff writer, Gordon Campbell, (Listener, 5-11 March, 1994, pg.17) wrote an article on Mrs Jenny Shipley as a future prime minister of NZ – a sort of ‘shock! horror!’ event. His favourite criticism of her, repeated several times, is that she is a true daughter of the Presbyterian manse and that she displays the Presbyterian ethic of individualism.’

Whether Campbell is right or not, individualism is not a concept or teaching that is in harmony with Biblical teaching. True, the Bible certainly highlights the infinite value of the individual.

* How often didn’t the Lord Jesus highlight this by setting a child before his disciples and calling them to become like children?

* You will also know that the first shall be last and the last shall be first.

* Did not Paul’s way of describing the church or congregation as a body highlight how our more presentable parts need no special treatment and how God has given greater honour to the parts that lacked it?

* The value of the oppressed, the poor, the widow and the orphan cannot be underestimated or put aside.

But, the Bible goes further. The essence of Christian life is servant-hood. We were saved to serve. Servant-hood in terms of slavery – ‘slaves of God’ and ‘slaves of righteousness’ as Paul describes it in Romans 6. That slavery is not only to Jesus as Lord (the vertical dimension) but also one another (the horizontal direction). This horizontal dimension is at least as important as the vertical.

Take the body picture of I Corinthians 12. Each Corinthian Christian has a personal, living relationship with the Lord. Each Christian is uniquely different by God’s own choosing, design and gifting (so Ephesians 4!). One is an eye; another mouth, a hand, foot, tummy, belly-button or whatever. Eyes not attached to a body are useless. So are hands and feet. BUT, put the individual parts together and you form a whole able to be and do what none of the parts can do individually.

Other pictures include the building/temple described in Ephesians 2. It is only when the individual stones are brought together in fellowship, cemented together by Jesus, that they become a temple!

See now what Romans 12 is all about. In Christ we who are many form one body. Individual life and existence is real only as part of the whole. I can only be a mouth, you can only be an ear, or whatever, we can only express and use the spiritual gifts we have received as a part of the whole! By yourself you cannot be what God in Christ has called you to be! In and as a part of the whole you become and accomplish what you could never be as an individual. When the ‘I’ is submerged in and becomes a servant of the ‘we’, in the true sense of the word, then and then only is there a beginning of true obedience. Listen to Romans 12:4,5 once more:

Just as each of us has one body with many members, and these members do not have the same function, so in Christ we who are many form one body, and each member belongs to all the others.’

In ant society, the colony’s well-being is more important than the individual ant! The ant’s industriousness is not ‘me’ centred but we’ centred. Indeed, go to the ant!’

Challenge to Christian Education

The foregoing observations have everything to do with Christian education; with a Christian school’s distinctives, priorities and goals. In Christian schools it is easy, even satisfying to demand academic excellence, to be ‘better’ than secular, state schools, to get top students with ‘A’s on their reports, to have the neatest, most disciplined, best behaved, best mannered and most industrious students in the whole city.

No, I am not wanting to toss these things or rubbish them. But what I do believe is that there is more to Christian education than that – a whole lot more. Teach them servanthood to Jesus and to each other. But, and now for the key – teach them above and before all else DEPENDENCE, INTERDEPENDENCE and DEPENDABILITY rather than IN-DEPENDENCE.

* Teach and demonstrate to them that they cannot really function unless and until they see, acknowledge and experience their dependence on others.

* You cannot experience servant-hood until you serve.

* You cannot learn humility until you are served.

* You cannot learn the real meaning of love unless you interact, live with and get utterly frustrated by the other parts of the body!

* We cannot demonstrate any virtue to the world, unless we have each other.

When your children and mine catch on to the reality that God’s way is body – community – family centred and not self-centred, then and then only will the real distinctive of living for Jesus be taught – and caught!

Dirk van Garderen

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

Feedback From Last Week (A Non-Apology From A Student Of Theology)

Reading Peter Kosters post about the need for theology I was reminded of a recent discussion. This was between a member of our church and a young bloke who had left our church a number of years ago to start a church in another town. He was asked what he did and said he was part time pastoring. When asked where he had studied he said he hadn’t but just preached on what was in the bible. Sadly I suspect that this is all to common. Most years I have the privilege if having some involvement with the NTE conference run by AFES to train up uni students from all over Australia. Over 5 days they get to do one subject of theology. I wish that everyone had the chance to join in this. It certainly stretches the students. Last December they were blessed with Murray leading part of this. Thank you again for sharing T&S.

Leave a comment

A Non-Apology From A Student Of Theology

Rev. Peter Koster. Trowel & Sword, August 1975

An Important Message From Bert & Pieter.

“For the edification and Defence of the Reformed Presbyterian Faith and Life in Australia and New Zealand.”

Why Revisit Trowel & Sword? The above statement, which appeared in every issue of T&S, clearly outlined the purpose of this magazine. Through it individuals and churches communicated with one another, were kept informed about the issues of the day and were able to compare their thoughts and beliefs with those of other “Reformed” Christians. What we have discovered is that many of the issues that the Reformed Church members of yesteryear wrestled with are still with us today and many of the insights expounded in the pages of Trowel & Sword would greatly benefit the current narrative. We raise this because we recently learned that a reader had decided to unsubscribe from TSR because she felt she didn’t have the time to read the articles. Given that the average time needed to read each article is about 10 minutes this seemed strange to us. If on the other hand one’s purpose in subscribing to TSR as simple to embark on a trip down “Memory Lane”, then perhaps that 10 minutes could well be better spent. We are not trying to discourage subscribers, but rather to encourage our readers, and the church, to see these articles as an important part of our growth, both in faith and in our engagement with world that we live in – something that perhaps even some of our current pastors and/or ministers have not fully appreciated. This is what we mean when we talk about “MOVING FORWARD BY LOOKING BACK”. After all, if we can still learn from the Scriptures, which were written 2000+ years ago, surely we can also learn from the wisdom of the men who helped establish the Reformed Churches in Australia and New Zealand a mere 70 odd years ago.

Preamble: During the years of its publication, the editors of T&S would, from time to time receive comments or complaints about the content of the magazine. Foe example, it was a magazine by ministers for ministers, too much advertising, not enough human interest articles, not enough for kids or teenagers, too much of this, not enough of that, and above all, too much theology. Perhaps that was the reason behind this next article by Peter Koster. One senses a deep air of frustration, perhaps even annoyance that in his eyes people often prefer to be fed on milk rather than meat.

A Non-Apology From A Student Of Theology

I’m not sorry.

A lot of people either expect me to be sorry or try to make me feel sorry for what I am, but I’m not. Nor should any student of theology be sorry for what he is, because the truth is a glorious thing.

A lot of people that I have met at various times do not like theology. The Church would be better off without theologians who spend their lives just digging up one thing after another to fight about and to split the Church with and to divide faithful and loving members of the Universal Church of Christ. If they didn’t go into things so deeply there would be no schisms rending the Church asunder. We should forget all about our complex doctrines (which the person in the pew doesn’t understand anyway) and concentrate simply on living a loving Christian life, serving God and our fellow men with a child-like faith. I’ve even heard it said that candidates for the ministry of our Reformed Churches should receive a maximum of one year’s training, and that even that training was to consist entirely of practical aspects such as counselling and teaching methods. No Hebrew or Greek and especially no theology, please.

This position needs a careful examination. It appears that people who think this way, while they may have their heart in the right place, are somewhat misinformed (which is not surprising, considering their anti-educationism). Peace between brothers in Christ is the ultimate objective of this school of thought, and as doctrine and dogma issuing from the mouths of theologians not only stand in the way of peace and unity but actually causes much of the disunity in the first place, it is obvious that by removing theology altogether, unity would not be far away. We could summarise their thought pattern in this way –

Peace is our objective. Theology stands in the way. Therefore: get rid of theology.

But this nice, simple little logical deduction has a lot of basic questions to answer. To begin with, we must ask why it is that God has seen fit to ensure that we in the twentieth century should have His word in our keeping, a word which consists not merely of “love God and your neighbour”, but of 66 books written over a time span of hundreds of years, and containing over eleven hundred chapters, with more than thirty-one thousand verses. Why so much? And all of it speaks about God, about what He has done and will do, and about us and what we have done. It is full of theology. Take Paul’s letters as the most obvious example. Why did he write those heavy works like Romans and Galatians? Surely he, and God, wants us to know something. He didn’t write those epistles for the sake of getting his name in the Bible or for any other reason than that he wanted us to read and understand what he wrote.

And nobody has to take just my humble word for it, because Paul himself said so. He wrote to his friend Timothy that all scripture is profitable for teaching (II Tim 3:16). Paul was very ardent for the truth. He himself was a good scholar who missed his books and parchments and wanted Timothy to bring them to him (11 Tim.4:13). He had no doubts about what he wanted Christians to do with what he wrote: “Think over what I say” (11 Tim. 2:7). He was very concerned that there should be those who could teach sound doctrine (Titus 2:1) so that we, as faithful followers of Christ, would praise God the more.

The more we read of Paul’s second letter to Timothy, the more we begin to realise that today is not the first time that an anti-theology movement has been found among Christians, and a careful reading of that letter soon gives us a different answer to the whole problem of theology and unity. He does not subscribe to the opinion that the solution for false doctrine is to throw out doctrine altogether, but declares that we must resist false doctrine with true doctrine. It seems that some men, Hymenacus and Philetus by name, were teaching that the resurrection was already past. Paul tells Timothy to avoid this swerving from the truth by handling the word of God rightly (II Tim. 2:14-19).

Paul does warn against disputing about words, which he calls “godless chatter”, and we read in 2:23-26 that Timothy is to have nothing to do with stupid, senseless controversies. But, that he does not mean that all disputes concerning the truth are stupid and senseless is obvious from what follows. The Lord’s servant is to be, among other things, an apt teacher, correcting his opponents with gentleness. Right doctrine is important, and it must be defended against wrong doctrines. The way to oppose wrong doctrine is to match it with right doctrine, not to meet it with no doctrine. Those who are holding on to false teachings, says Paul, are in the snare of the devil (V.26) and it is our task to rescue them with a right knowledge of the truth.

No-one will deny that theology must be conducted with faith and in a spirit of gentleness, which has not always been the case, but the fact that it must be conducted is incontrovertible. To say that we do not need theology if we have a child-like faith is to miss the point altogether. When Jesus said that we must be as children He spoke about our attitude to and our relationship with God our Father, not about the content of our faith. It is impossible to believe nothing; it is all too possible to believe the wrong thing, and we must continue to strive for the truth so that one day all people may worship God in Spirit and in truth.

PETER KOSTER

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

Trowel & Sword Revisited is posted every Monday morning at 6:00am. If you do not receive your copy please first check the following: You could be blocked from receiving emails for a number of reasons, including an incorrect email address, your email bounced due to a blocked domain, you the subscriber paused all email notifications, or you may have inadvertently previously marked new post emails as spam. If this doesn’t solve your problem do not hesitate to get in touch with us. We are already working on helping some subscribers who have not been receiving their posts. B&P

One Thing Very Necessary

Prof. George van Groningen. Trowel & Sword, March 1968

Preamble: Prof. van Groningen (and his wife) were passionate about christian education. In this article he backed up his convictions by citing statistics from a report on the beliefs held by young people in the UK, and by extension, also in Australia and New Zealand. Christian education in the primary and secondary sectors has come a long way since this article was written. Unfortunately Christian tertiary/university education via RTC has seen little progress in the past 60+ years; a situation that no doubt would have been a great disappointment for the van Groningens.

One Thing Very Necessary

Do you know that young people between the ages of thirteen and seventeen are open to and ready to receive religious instruction and guidance?

Do you know that most young people by the time they matriculate, that is, by the time they are eighteen – nineteen years old have made their religious decision for life?

Do you know that in England, and it is properly assumed that in Australia it is no different, only one eighteen year old out of one hundred is prepared to say that he/she will accept the teachings of the Scripture in toto?

If you wish to learn more about what sixth form students believe, then order and study the book: SIXTH FORM RELIGION by Edwin Cox. Published SCM Press Ltd. This book is a report sponsored by the Christian Education Movement in the United Kingdom.

I’d like to refer to a few other facts that this report presents. Over 2500 sixth form students were asked to express what they thought and believed. They were not to express what they had been taught or what they thought they were expected to believe. In answer to the question:”Do you believe in the existence of God?” one out of five boys, two out of five girls said they were completely confident that God exists. About three out of ten -boys and girls alike – were fairly sure that God exists. One out of five girls and one out of ten boys were either fairly sure or completely confident that God does not exist.

So, about three out of five are ready to express some or complete certainty that God exists. But, when one reads what the conceptions of God are concerning the God that is believed to exist, only one out of a hundred will accept the Biblical teaching in toto. Many students indicated that they had been thoroughly confused or misled by the teachings in the science class rooms. In other words, they felt they could believe in the existence of God if ideas of God were determined in harmony with modern scientific ideas concerning the origin of the world, the nature of man, the characteristics of natural law and other such ideas.

Incidentally, I might add that one out of five thought of God as some kind of loving friendly Father. Only one out of twenty five thought of God as a guide who personally guides students through life. The reporter writes that very few students would accept many of the orthodox Biblical teachings about the nature of God.

Concerning Jesus Christ we find that the students expressed their opinions along similar lines to that about God. About two out of five boys had some confidence that Jesus was the Son of God who became man. Seven out of ten girls had some degree of confidence. The remainder of the boys and girls were either uncertain with varying degrees or completely confident that Jesus was not the son of God.

Other questions concerning which the students were asked to express their opinion dealt with the religious beliefs in the home, belief in life after death, attitudes to the Bible, religious habits such as church attendance, private prayer and Bible reading, (those who do the latter two are very few) moral judgments on drinking, smoking, sex, race, war, stealing, lying, gambling, suicide, capital punishment and the use of nuclear weapons. The types of answers to these questions were surprisingly similar to the ideas held concerning God, Jesus Christ and the Bible. Beyond a doubt, belief in God, Jesus and the proper attitude to the Bible does influence a young person’s ideas about life here on earth, its character, value, purpose and goal. Another factor that becomes evident is that the education received in home, church and school is in a recognisable proportion to the percentage of students who expressed faith and confidence in Biblical teachings.

There is one more item of information that this report gives that I wish to pass on to the readers. The percentage of young people who believe in Jesus Christ as Saviour is tabulated according to the denominations of which they are a member. Baptists rate highest, three out of ten; Roman Catholic, a few more than one out of ten, Church of England, about one out of twenty. Methodists, one out of twelve; Presbyterians and Congregationalists, ONE out of FIFTY; other denominations, one out of four. – It was quite a shock to me to learn that young people who are members of so-called Reformed Calvinistic churches – our so-called sister churches – are overwhelmingly in the majority among those who reject Jesus Christ as the Saviour from sin!

Well, Australian and New Zealand parents, from this report we can gain quite an accurate picture of the educational environment in which our children live, study and develop. I am reminded now of what a minister in our churches wrote to me in a personal letter; he said he was grieved by the lack of interest and general indifference to religious truth and life on the part of many older young people who were members of his congregation. It seems quite evident that the young people educated in Australia are indeed effected by their environment and education.

What can we learn from the report before us? Quite a number of things. I will list just a few:

1. That young people up to the age of sixteen-seventeen are open to sound Biblical teaching. An all out effort must be made for them before they are twenty years old.

2. That young people must have a Christian education that is thoroughly Biblical and Christ-centred. A general secular education leads to spiritual uncertainty and confusion.

3. That young people must have their education and training in the sciences in a Biblical and Christian setting. Science and the Bible are not opposed to each other. Science must be taught in the light of Scripture.

4. That the home, church and school must unitedly join hands in the instruction of our young people. True, the home is basic, the church is very important, but the school can uproot what the home and church teach.

5. That an all out endeavour be made to assist our young people between the ages of twelve and older who attend state institutions of learning. I would suggest that one hour a week in catechism class and some time in a youth club is not enough for the proper instruction in the truth and refutation of error. A weekly Bible study class on Sunday, led by the minister or a devoted educated leader in the church, in addition to catechism and youth club may be a possible solution.

6. That continued endeavour must be made to develop a Christian education programme that will include all three levels of education: the primary school, the high school and the university. Thank God we have beginnings in two of these levels.

(1) Primary – three schools are operating, another is to open soon, various local Christian education societies and a national union exist. These I say are beginnings; 

(2) University – the Association for Higher Education has a Christian university in mind. Presently the faculty of the Reformed Theological College is endeavouring to help young people who are not studying for the ministry through the correspondence course (B.T.C.), evangelism training course (E.T.C.) and the preparatory year for theological students. However, the crucial area which this report covers, the teenage span of life, the high school level, is to date not receiving hardly any attention at all. It should increasingly receive attention for it covers a critical stage in young people’s lives.

Summing up, a study of a report such as we have before us indicates so forcefully that one thing most necessary for us in Australia and New Zealand is Christian Education – Biblically oriented, Christ-centred, presented unitedly by home, church and school for our youth in all three levels of education. For this let us pray! For this let us work. For this let us give! And all the while let us in faith and obedience follow the guidance of the Holy Spirit who alone leads into all truth.

G. VAN GRONINGEN.

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

Leave a comment