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

Pastor Or Reverend?

J.A. Schep. Trowel & Sword, October 1961

Preamble: From our vantage point it seems rather amusing to see two Dutchmen having a spat over the correct use of the English language. One could well ask, “Why did they take such small matters so seriously?” With apologies to any Dutchman reading this post, perhaps it says something about the nature of Dutchmen (of which I am one).

Pastor Or Reverend?

In  the  August number of  “Immanuel”, the monthly paper  of Classis Wellington, New Zealand,  the Rev. A. de Graaf started substituting the word “Pastor” for  the usual “Reverend”, as far  as the title for ministers is con­cerned.

In the September number the Rev. de Graaf tells his readers what he thinks is wrong with the title “Reverend”.  The word “reverend”, he writes, occurs only once in  the  Bible,  viz.  in Psalm 111:9,  where it is said of God that His Name is holy and reverend.   The word “reverend” in  this connection means “to be feared,  to be reverenced” and, therefore, it is a title which, according to  the Rev. de Graaf, “no man should bear:  God will give His glory to no man”.  Quite different from the word “Reverend” is the title “Pastor”, which does not denote “Dignity but  . ..  the job this man has to do”.  

Some members of the New Zealand churches have raised objections to the change, in particular because it makes the New Zealand churches different again from the Reformed sister churches and creates another barrier “to divide us from the Australian churches which all  use the ·word ‘Reverend’.

While replying to these objections the Rev. de Graaf invites our churches and their papers (“Trowel and Sword” included) “to react openly, either with approval or disapproval”.

I am gladly prepared to comply with this request and to state the reasons why I  cannot agree with the standpoint  of the Rev  de Graaf.  They are the following:

  1. The fact that in Scripture the word “reverend” is used with regard to God alone, does not imply that it  may not  be used in connection with man. The word “holy” is  also used for God in the same Psalm, in one breath with “reverend”,  but everywhere in  Scripture the believers also are called holy. This implies that the word “reverend” may be used for  men as  well. Of course, a man will  be  “reverend” in a different way than God.  But this applies for  the denotation “holy“ too.
  2. As every English Dictionary tells us the word “reverend” used of men, (especially of clergymen) means:  “worthy of high esteem”:  just as the Dutch word “weleerwarde”. According to 1 Tim. 5: 17, faithful elders,  especially those that labour in  the Word and  in  doctrine, are “worthy of double honour”. That means:  they are reverend (“worthy of high esteem”). In the light of this text one cannot possibly maintain that calling a minister “Reverend” means giving to man what  belongs to God alone,  or that it  is unscriptural.
  3. It is  possible to argue that the word “Reverend” as a title has something against it,  and I would agree there.   But if we have to abandon all words that have something against them,  the end is  not  to be seen. The Dutch word “Domine” really means: Master,  Lord. Ever heard a less suitable name for a minister  who is a servant of Christ, and a servant  of the Church for Christ’s sake?  But who will undertake  to abandon the title Ds. (dominus = Master, Lord) for  this reason?   One might also object to the term”Covenant of works” to denote God’s Covenant of love in Paradise before the Fall. There are many words and expressions, that are very inadequate.

But there is a Latin proverb that contains much wisdom:  ”Verba valent usu”, i.e. “Words derive their value from the use that is made of  them”. That means, as far as the word “Reverend” is  concerned:  whatever the original and exact meaning of the word may be, it is used just as a title, or part of a title for a minister of the gospel. When we use it in connection with the name of a minister, we do not ever think of the original meaning. The word has its value as  title, or part of a title, and as such it has every right of existence.

  1. For various reasons it would have been better if the matter of substituting “Pastor” for “Reverend” had been submitted for discussion to the ministers and the Churches in Australasia before any actual change-over had taken place.  The question of the title concerns all the ministers  and even all the Churches.  Nobody has the right to change a generally adopted and recognised title overnight and on his own.

This is the more true as according to the Rev. de Graaf using the title “Reverend” means to give to man what belongs to God.  On the basis of this principle, it would be sinful to use this word in writing and speaking to (or about) ministers of other denominations, too.

Will most of them not be rightly indignant and feel offended, when their official title “Reverend” is denied them and replaced, against their will, by the title “Pastor”, which they think inferior?  Will our ministers and churches not be blamed for it and branded “foreign” and “self-conceited”?

5. The Rev. de Graaf appeals also to the fact that the Lutheran Church uses the title ‘Pastor’ This is true, but it is only part of the truth. A prominent Lutheran minister, who for some years served a New Zealand congregation, told me all the facts:

  1. The custom to speak of “Pastor” was brought from Germany.  There is no principle involved.
  2. “Pastor” is used only in unofficial daily conversation; the official title is “Reverend”, which is used in all official announcements, in addressing a minister at public meetings, in writing to him, etc.
  3. The Lutheran ministers do not like the word “Pastor” at all, because in the English speaking world this word is commonly used to denote unordained preachers, or ministers who never received proper theological training.

It is obvious that the appeal to the Lutheran custom fails completely. The facts lead to the opposite conclusion!  

6. I do hope that the Rev. de Graaf and whoever of his colleagues may have agreed with him in this matter, may soon return to our normal way of denoting the ministers of the Word.  Apart from the reasons mentioned above, there is also the fact that another stumbling block has been put on the road to uniting the Reformed Churches in Australasia into one denomination.  If in all possible things the two groups go different ways, follow different customs, have different affiliations – what can be the use of forming one denomination?  I am not against unification, though in certain respects I wonder whether it ·will be wise to unite.  But what I do wish is this, that those who ask for union at least guard against creating new and unnecessary differences that cannot but make the desired union more difficult to obtain.

J.A. Schep.

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

Growth

Rev. J.W. Deenick. Trowel & Sword. May 1973

Preamble: (Taking Stock) It had been 22 years since the establishment of the CRC in Australasia. A lot had happened in that short space of time and the growth of the denomination would seem to be indicative of God’s blessing on this work. This begs the question: What of the 52 years since then? Has growth continued or are we now in decline? Whatever the answer, how do we account for it? These questions were also asked by Bill Deenick in his article below. So now perhaps we should ask ourselves: Where to from here? We do not look provide answers. That is the task of every member of the CRCA and CRCNZ. We, along with J.W. and many other contributors of T&S over the years merely ask the questions.

Growth

The 1973 yearbook for the Australian and New Zealand Reformed Churches has arrived, very nicely in time and very capably edited. The Rev. W.F. VanBrussel in a survey on the events of 1972 reports on many encouraging and some not so encouraging aspects of Reformed church-life in this part of the world.

From an organisational point of view the churches seem to be doing well. There are at present 34 churches in A. and 15 in NZ., that is if we count Canberra, Gosford and Wainui-o-mata as independent churches, which officially they are not (yet). In A. these churches are served by 30 ministers, one minister for evangelism and one overseas missionary; in NZ they are served by 11 ministers and one overseas missionary, the Rev. Stephen Feng, whose name unfortunately is missing; this ought to be rectified in next year’s edition. There are two emeritus ministers, one in A. and one in NZ. and two ministers serve as theological professors at the RTC.

In Australia 31 of the congregations have their own building, usually with some additional accommodation for youth work; one congregation has two church buildings. Four churches meet for worship at two different places, one at three places. In New Zealand 12 or 13 (I am not sure) of the congregations have their own building and one church meets for worship at two different places.

All churches have a session clerk, most have next to their elders one or more deacons. In the majority of the congregations there are Sunday schools and youth clubs: many have a cadet and a calvinette club (clearly a growing movement); women’s guilds, bible-circles and choirs are well represented; there are a good number of Christian day school associations, five of which have their own school; but men societies are a dying institution. From all this it appears that most local Reformed Churches are well organised bodies properly cared for by elders, deacons and ministers and with a stable membership. In A. and NZ together there is a membership of close to eleven thousand members.

Is it a growing membership? This question comes up immediately. We are pre-occupied with growth. Numbers are there to show increase. Statistics are there to indicate success in extension and growth.

There is at this stage no significant growth in numbers. In his NZ news the Rev. Harry L. Hoving asks for a justification (if there is any) for this lack of growth. I have no answer to that. The Reformed Churches have to struggle, no doubt, with the same problems as with which in a secularising society all the Christian Church is faced; and apart from that there are a few problems that are peculiar to the situation in which in this part of the world the Reformed Church finds itself, i.e. concentration in the main urban centres (through which members departing to country areas and provincial centres are often lost) and identification with a predominantly migrant membership.

Taking into account the “natural” growth through births and baptisms the churches have not grown in numbers. This has not been because people joined other churches or the sects. Relatively very few did; and in fact those who came over from other churches were more in number than those who left. Nor has it been because of (church-wise) mixed marriages. The great majority of marriages performed have been between two Reformed partners.

There are, however, two disturbing figures in the statistics. In 1972, we notice, 73 members in A and 17 in NZ (i.e including the baptised children) withdrew from the church without any church destination. That means they did not merely leave the Reformed Church, they left the Christian Church as a whole. They followed the trend of the time and joined the vast, spiritually colourless masses of those who no longer worship regularly (if at all) in any Christian Church. Notwithstanding all our preaching and the pastoral work of elders and ministers they were possibly never really converted and as Demas they preferred after all to live in the world.

The second disturbing figure is that of gains through evangelism. In Australia 22 members have been won through evangelism, in NZ 5 members. That is both in A and NZ about one soul per two churches or per two ministers. Even when we point out that evangelism does not aim at increasing the membership of the Reformed Church and that we have evidence that through our efforts in public evangelism (Back to God Hour, World Home Bible League, Vacation Bible Schools etc.) both adults and children have been won for the Lord Jesus Christ, we have not really given an explanation, far less a justification, for this figure.

Is it personal evangelism that is lacking both among members and ministers? And if it is, why is this so? Do we not really love the Saviour as much as we claim in our creeds?

BILL DEENICK

********************************************

There has been quite a bit of interest in receiving a copy of “Letters to Keith” by Rev. J.W. Deenick. Some have requested electronic copies which have been emailed to them. Printed copies will take a little longer. If you still wish to receive a free copy it is not too late. Send a request in the comments box below. Please specify printed or electronic copy. (The TSR team)

********************************************

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

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

Letters To Keith (Introduction)

Rev. J.W. Deenick. April, 1992

Preamble: Even after retirement Bill Deenick was not one to let the grass grow under his feet. Over a twelve month period he wrote a series of “letters” on Renewal and Worship to a fictional person whom he called Keith. Although it had been suggested that he publish the letters in Trowel & Sword he gives his reasons for not doing so in his introduction below. It would appear that he did have a mailing list who received each letter through the post as it was completed. Likewise, we will not print the entire work in TSR as it runs for some seventy pages, however if after reading the introduction you would like to read more, send a request through the “Contact us” box below and we will send a copy of the complete work, as shown above, through the mail.

Letters To Keith

Dear friends.

A few words of introduction.

1. In my letters on Renewal and Worship I will address myself to ‘Keith’. I have many friends of that name within the Reformed Church ministry and outside of it, but none of these will I have in mind specifically. The Keith of these letters exists in these letters alone. Even in my own imagination he has not fully come to life yet, except that he is not a member of a Reformed Church, although he wants to be Reformed in his faith and in his theology. I suspect that he is a bit of a pragmatist and that he wants things to work well and be spiritually effective, both for himself and for others. He may even have an orientation towards success on the religious marketplace. But we will see. As this correspondence develops he may well change his mind and become interested in liturgical renewal. There is always hope.

I could be accused of sexism of course. Why Keith? Why not his female counterpart? I have considered that, but in the end decided against it. Later on, the exchange of insights in this correspondence may become a little heated and even somewhat gladiatorial. In that case I would feel more at ease confronting Keith.

2. I expect that in these letters many current issues and trends will come up for discussion, but if that happens we will not forget that current affairs have historical and spiritual roots, and we will dig them up. These underground connections may be of a theological or cultural nature, but they need to be brought to light if we are to make any real progress towards renewal.

3. My friends constantly warn me against being too provocative and tell me to reign in the combative side of my nature, especially when writing. I will keep their advice in mind, but I do not believe that in Jesus’ church we should always shy away from confrontation. In the context of our spiritual battle we should teach each other to think clearly and critically and my hope is that these letters will be of some help to that end.

On the other hand, I am well aware that the future of Christian worship among Evangelicals in this country and in the Reformed Church does not depend on whatever letters I write. We may trust the Lord himself for the future of his church. He rules and provides, while in history trends and issues come and go.

4. Some of my friends are worried that letters like these may cause polarisation to increase. We have enough of that already, they feel. I am not as worried as they are. I am more afraid of dullness and ignorance. Moreover, I sometimes suspect that their call for peace is inspired by a certain apprehension about their own side of the argument being in for a hard time.

It would not worry me that much if some find it hard to love me. It may be a useful test of their Christian character. After all, no one is forced to read these letters which, if they are not worth serious attention, will soon be forgotten.

5. I have been asked whether it would not be better to seek publication in Trowel and Sword. It would widen the circle of readers. That may be true, but I did not think that it was fair on the editor of Trowel and Sword to ask him for the publication of letters that are likely to displease, and provoke to indignation. a proportion of its readers. Furthermore, I do not want to be limited in my freedom to be as frank and forthright as may seem to be required.

On other matters I hope to continue offering material to Trowel and Sword. It is a long-time habit that is not easily given up.

6. Those who have read C.S. Lewis’ Letters to Malcolm, about prayer, will notice that I follow his model. It is a long time ago that I read these letters and I cannot find my copy back among the Lewis books I still have; but at the time I much enjoyed that book and for the purpose I have in mind Lewis’ letters seem a good model to follow, even though I am well aware of my limitations. As far as these letters are concerned I have no higher hopes and ambitions than that they may be readable. As literature they will only be of negative value. Nor will there be a desk-editor for the correction and the streamlining of the English.

7. Some have asked whether I can manage financially. So far in my life I have been able to, be it at times only just. With my wonderful wife no longer there to keep an eye on things, the situation has not improved.

To be honest, I have not given that aspect of this undertaking any thought yet. I do not expect it to give any problem to anyone. I have received some kind donations for which I am truly thankful. We will see how we go. I will keep you posted. For the time being I am in no trouble.

Thank you for your moral support and prayers

Yours in Christ. 

J.W.Deenick

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

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

To The Barricades

Rev. Bill Deenick. Trowel & Sword. May 1973

Preamble: Bill Deenick was intelligent, wise and softly spoken, among other things. Not what you would call a radical. To read his suggestion that Christians should man picket lines and barricades would seem somewhat out of character for this man of God. That is, until you realise that he was also passionate about his beliefs. I remember many years ago reading a feature article in a Melbourne newspaper highlighting his role in the Dutch underground, rescuing Jews from the Nazis during WW2. Above all, Bill was a man of action. Knowing that, it comes as no surprise that he urged Christians into action in another holocaust – the killing of the unborn in the place where they should have been safest. In their mothers’ wombs. A battle which today, sadly, barring a miracle, has been largely lost.

To The Barricades

The Christian community in Australia may well have to go to the picket line and the barricade if they desire to have any say at all in the determination of a number of urgent moral and legal issues at stake at the moment. It will no longer be good enough to leave it to the archbishop and the cardinal to give expression to the Christian opinion. Politicians today do not seem to believe that the church has a following or that Christian people have a conviction unless we are willing to fight for it publicly in not overly peaceful demonstrations.

The first instance on which this may be necessary is abortion law reform. Things have happened as they were expected to: a few private members of the House of Representatives have moved a bill under which abortion would be available on demand in the district for which the Federal Government is responsible i.e. the A.C.T. The prime minister (ie. Whitlam) has already indicated that he favours the bill; and since the main political parties have no policy on the matter they have decided that their members in parliament are free to vote as they see fit.

The matter itself is very clear. If the bill becomes law it will be legally permissible for an expectant mother to have her pregnancy terminated if she so desires. This, we are told, is her right. If there are reasons why she thinks that the new human life conceived in her should never become a living child it is up to her and to no one else to make that decision.

I do not propose to re-open the discussion on every aspect of the abortion debate. Legally the matter is complicated by the fact that in a State like Victoria the law as it is has practically become a dead letter since in a recent case no jury could be found prepared to convict a doctor who had practiced abortions for some considerable time. From that angle it could be argued that the proposed bill if it were to become law would only sanction the situation as it already exists, and for this reason many politicians will find it politically safer to leave things as they are. If the present law cannot be upheld because it is in practice “un-policeable” what more do abortionists want? In that respect the supporters of law reform are at least more honest. But for the Christian community the pressing question remains whether under the pressures available to the media for public communication (where Christian thought has very little influence) life and legislation in Australia should be allowed to be further de-christianised.

It may be helpful to have a closer look at some of the more popular arguments advanced in favour of law reform, since many people are confused by the seemingly humanitarian concern of the reformists. One argument used constantly is that the pregnant woman herself alone has the right to determine what is to happen to the life that she carries. Her womb is her own and the life that she carries is hers. She can do with it what she believes to be best. It is her future and her happiness that is at stake, and no one else but she has the right to determine what she has to do for her own wellbeing. The church certainly has nothing to do with it, and even the man who fathered the life that she carries has little voice in the matter, if any,

This argument has its roots in the individualistic philosophy of existentialism. In that philosophy only one question is really meaningful, i.e. what does in my opinion favour my personal happiness as I see it. I have no obligation but to myself alone and I have no ambition but to remain absolutely free to be happy in my own way. It is clear that in that context I cannot accept any commitment to the happiness of others. For a man like Jean Paul Sartre the neighbour represents hell. He robs me of my liberty. He threatens my individual happiness. He will always try to make me do things that benefit him but burden me. In her novel “She Came To Stay” Simone de Beauvoir rationalises the murder of the girl who unwelcome yet came to stay. In that climate of thinking the pregnant woman, who experiences the life growing in her as a threat to her individual liberty and happiness, has no option but to dispose of it. That is her prerogative.

In the light of the teaching of Christ this philosophy represents the old lie with which man turned away from his original destiny in the service of God. The liberty which he then sought he never found; nor will he find it today. If our (supposed) self-interest is to be the one and only standard by which we desire to live we are left in the bondage of a most arbitrary, and often cruel master and society is heading for anarchy.

In the N.T. the fellow man does not represent hell but heaven; he does not threaten my liberty but he calls me to a meaningful encounter in the service of God. In fact in him we meet God. What you do to him, says Jesus, you do to me. There is no return to personal happiness but through the recognition of our commitment to the happiness of others and in a broken world like ours this always means sacrifice. In the case of a pregnant woman this means that she cannot deny personal responsibility for the life which grows in her to be child and a person. She cannot deny a growing I/you relationship between herself and what is to be her child. It is not a living person yet; it is still in a way part of herself but it is in the process of becoming an individual human person. She has no right to interfere with that process simply because the final authority over her body is not hers. Paul already maintains in Cor. 7 that the wife does not rule over her own body but the husband does; likewise the husband does not rule over his own body but the wife does. And in Paul’s thinking they know together that the final authority over their bodies, as temples of the Holy Spirit, is not theirs but God’s. If anyone destroys God’s temple God will destroy him.

To Sartre and others all this may seem to be hell; for the Christian it is the kingdom of heaven in which people are in love mutually concerned for each other’s body. From the moment of conception there is (in the process of growing) another body meant to become by the grace of God a temple of the Holy Spirit; and in the relationship between husband and wife it means that a third life has come into the picture which comes with lawful demands. Admittedly outside marriage things become immediately more difficult, but not principally different. The unmarried mother has no final authority over her own body either, nor can she escape responsibility over against God for the child growing in her. She must protect it and make it welcome. A true understanding of what personal happiness means will lead her to the conclusion that individual personal wellbeing is served best by the acceptance of divinely ordained responsibility and by obedience to the law of Christ.

In that law we are called to care with sacrificial love and concern for human life (our own and everybody else’s). There are no shortcuts to personal happiness as suggested by those who favour abortion on demand. A return to true happiness is found only when all concerned are prepared to bring the sacrifices needed.

This has not always been properly understood in Christian circles, nor has it always been practiced. Not always have Christian families been able to deal with the problem of a sixteen year of old pregnant daughter in a manner that restored personal and family happiness. Yet, by the grace of God there have been such Christian homes, and Christ’s church continues to have a great task here. First of all we must see that within the church all children are welcome, those born to the single mother as well. But also outside the Christian community the church has a tremendous field of work for the restoration of happiness in the way of sacrificial and loving concern. It is not in its legislation against abortion but in its condemnatory attitude and in its lack of a loving concern for the restoration of life that the Christian world has fallen short in many disastrous and hypocritical ways. Therefore the law reform that we need is not that abortion be made legal. That is a no exit road. If it leads to anything it is to the depreciation of human life and the deepening loneliness and unhappiness. The law reform needed must be found in the direction of an enlightened legislation towards the care for and the protection of the pregnant woman (within or outside marriage) and of every child born. This will cost the community infinitely more than abortion law reform, which to be sure is the cheap and easy way out. To follow Christ in community life is more expensive; but it is worth it. Justice to the born and the unborn exalts a nation.

One more point. In order to make things attractive to naive souls the hard realities of existentialist (im)morality have been sugarcoated with humanitarian phrases. It is argued that the real motive behind abortion law reform is concern for the future of the pregnant teenager and of the child born out of wedlock. The poor girl who cannot pay for a proper but expensive abortion by a qualified surgeon (expensive because it is illegal) has to turn to the backyard abortionist for help.

If abortion is legalised we eliminate the back yarder.

This sounds very humanitarian and people who are easily persuaded by what looks like a defence of the socially less privileged may fall for this kind of argument. The procedure is simple enough. The first thing to do is to point to an obvious social evil from which the socially weak suffer most; and the next thing is to suggest that your solution is the only and the quickest way to right that wrong. It is true, is it not, that the child born out of wedlock has less of a chance in life than other children? It is true, is it not, that fewer children should be born out of wedlock? It is true, is it not, that the poor pregnant girl must be kept out of the hands of the back yarder? Yes, all that is true. But it is not true that abortion law reform is the answer. It is not true that the pregnant teenager is really helped when her child is not given a chance to live. Her loneliness and unhappiness will only deepen. The aborting doctor does not merely cut a living thing out of her womb. He cuts love away out of her heart. In a very drastic manner he confirms her in a way of life in which in crucial moments love and responsibility are sacrificed to what seems to be personal interest. And as far as the back yarder is concerned, abortion law reform will merely give him status and a safer financial return.

Are protestant Christians today prepared to go to the picket line and the barricade in defence of the law of Christ and for the protection of human life? In Melbourne the prime minister met with a stormy protest and in London the picket lines were waiting for him. I sincerely hope that this is only the beginning of a vigorous nationwide opposition not only to the proposed bill but to the whole of the philosophy behind it.

As far as I am concerned: if cardinal Knox goes to the barricades I will be happy to join him. But do we need to wait for him?

What the Christian Church has to offer is both ethically and intellectually infinitely superior to the short cut solutions of the law reform enthusiasts.

Why then should this not be trumpeted from the rooftops?

BILL DEENICK

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