A Survey To Make You Think

Dr. K. Runia. Trowel & Sword, November 1961

Preamble: The following are the results of a survey conducted it a Presbyterian Church in 1961 and published in “Presbyterian Life”. Dr. Runia asks a very pertinent question. If this survey had been conducted in a Reformed Church back then, would the results have been any different? If this survey was conducted today, again, would the results be any different?

A Survey To Make You Think

Under this heading “Presbyterian Life”, the official organ of the Presbyterian Church of Victoria, published the results of a poll held among 100 communicant members of an outer suburban Church in Melbourne. All these members received a questionnaire and were kindly requested to answer a long set of questions. The congregation includes both new and old established families, city workers and some engaged in rural occupations, and it is, therefore, regarded as a fairly representative congregation of the Presbyterian Church.

Reading this article we admired the honesty of the Presbyterian Church in publishing these figures. In some ways they are really shocking. They clearly show that in many respects, especially in regard to private and family devotions, this Church is at a very low ebb.

However, we do not quote these figures to throw stones at the Presbyterian Church. Also as a Church we have to remember the word of Jesus spoken to the Pharisees(!) who brought the adulterous woman to Him: “let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her”.(John 8:7) The only reason why we publish these figures in our magazine is that we are of the opinion that they can serve as a mirror for our own Church! What would be the result if such a poll were held in our congregation? Perhaps one of our Churches would be willing to do it. If this is so, they can write to Geelong and get the complete set of questions.

An open and honest self-criticism of another should not make us proud but humble. And it should lead us to self-criticism too! We were of the opinion that we could not join the Presbyterian Church or any other of the existing Churches in Australia and New Zealand. I, for one, still believe that this is true. Everyone among us, who is in doubt, should read and re-read Rev. Deenik’s booklet about Presbyterianism in New Zealand.

BUT WHAT DID WE MAKE OF OUR OWN CHURCHES? ARE THEY LIVING CONGREGATIONS? ARE WE LIVING MEMBERS OF THESE CONGREGATIONS? ARE OUR FAMILIES TRULY CHRISTIAN FAMILIES? These questions come to us when we read the questions and answers of this poll.

In the rest of this article we will give some of the results of the poll without any comment. The answers and figures speak for themselves. For completeness we add that of the 100  members interrogated 38 were men and 62 women, 42 were under 30,   36 between 30  and 50,  and 22 over 50.

Let us study these questions. Let us study the answers. Let us answer the questions for ourselves. Where do we stand?·

And, then, add the all-important questions, which unfortunately were missing in the questionnaire: Who is Jesus Christ for you? And who are you for Him?

K. Runia

Which of the following statements best describes your usual practice?

During the last 6 months I have attended Church:

About once a week 40

About once a fortnight 28

On average once a month 25

Once or twice only 7

During the past six months I have prayed:

Daily 30

Frequently 28

Occasionally 38

Not at all 4

No answer –

During the past six months I have read my Bible:

Daily 6

Frequently 25

Occasionally 42

Not at all 27

No answer –

Do you feel that regular worship is:

Necessary for your life 78

Helpful but not necessary 20

Rather boring –

 No answer  2

Of the story of Jesus Christ in the New Testament, which aspect would you say ·was most important for your daily life?

His teaching and commandments 72

His claim to be the Son of God 11

Both 8

Don’t know 4

No answer 5

Do you really believe Jesus Christ rose from the dead?

Yes 93

No –

Doubtful 6

If Yes – would you say this fact was:

The primary basis of 

Christianity 83

An incidental fact of the story 4

Don’t know 6

No answer 6

Do you feel that your religious beliefs mark you off from people who do not share them?

Yes 17

No 69

Doubtful 9

No answer 5

Do you say grace before meals in your family?

Yes 28

No 34

Sometimes 37

Does your family read the Bible and pray together?

Yes  2

No 81

Sometimes 14

No answer 3

If you had to choose your minister would you choose 

A brilliant organiser –

A man of great human understanding 77

An outstanding preacher –

A really spiritual man 9

All qualifications 5

Various combinations 9

Do you think your faith is something you should 

Discuss with your family 39

Discuss with other members of the congregation 10

Purely a personal and private matter 27

Both family and congregation 18

Varied answers 4

No answer 2

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

Is It Really So Important To Go To Church Every Sunday?

K. Runia. Trowel & Sword. October 1961.

Preamble: Prof. Runia begins this article by quoting statistics on the church attendance of all Australians in 1961. If these numbers were repeated in 2024 churches would be packed to overflowing and we would be living in a very different country today. Sadly, this is not the case and Prof. Runia points to diminishing church attendance as one of the main reasons for declining faith in this country. Now some may argue that this is a chicken and egg situation. Ie. Which come first. Declining faith or declining church attendance. Does it really matter? Ultimately both are true so the question should really be, “How can this decline be arrested?

Is It Really So Important To Go To Church Every Sunday?

STATISTICS

Although we should not over-estimate the value of statistics, but be careful in drawing conclusions (in particular with regard to spiritual matters), yet statistics can be quite revealing. In June of this year, people in all States of Australia were asked by a Gallup Poll to answer questions on their church attendance. The results indicate the following: Of all Australians only 27% attend church weekly, 48% occasionally and 25% never. For the major denominations the figures were: Roman Catholic: 54% (weekly), 32% (occasionally), 14% never.  Methodist 31,  45, 14. Presbyterian: 14, 55, 31.  Church of England: 13, 58, 29.

These figures are revealing, indeed!  It is striking, that even among the Roman Catholics the figures of weekly attendance are decreasing.  Even this Church seems to lose its firm hold on many of its members.  We would not be surprised if the 32% “occasionally” and the 14% “never” were mainly found  among the many Roman Catholic migrants who in the new country miss the moral support of the community of which they were part in their homeland.

Another striking and very sad feature is that the Presbyterian Church has almost equalled the Church of England in the number of occasional church – goers and even outnumbered this Church in nominal membership.  

Is it any wonder that in our day we see unbelief growing at such a rapid speed?  For there is a very close connection between Church attendance and unbelief.

HEIDELBERG CATECHISM

For proof of this thesis we would point to Lord’s Day 25 of the Heidelberg Catechism. In Question 65 we read: “Since, then, we are made partakers of Christ and all His benefits by faith only, whence comes this faith?”

In the preceding Lord’s Days the Catechism has time and again mentioned the word faith.  In Lord’s Day 7 it dealt  with the question: What is true faith?  In the Lord’s Days 8 – 22 it dealt with the contents of faith.  In Lord’s Day 23it taught the Pauline doctrine of justification by faith alone. In Lord’s Day 24 it said that true sanctification is only possible in a life of faith.

But – whence comes this faith?

Answer: From the Holy Spirit, who works it in our heart BY THE PREACHING OF THE HOLY GOSPEL.

Faith is God’s work!  It is not a human achievement, but a precious gift of God the Holy Spirit (Eph. 2:3).  But the Holy Spirit does not give it us immediately, but mediately – namely, by the preaching of the Gospel. A very clear illustration of this is found in the story of LYDIA (Acts 16: 11-15). In verse 14 we read: “The Lord opened her heart to give heed to what was said by Paul”.

There you clearly see the connection between preaching and the origin of faith.  During the preaching of the Gospel the Spirit opens her heart and she embraces the message given by the Apostle.     

In this connection we have to emphasise the word “PREACHING”.  Many people say: We need not go to Church, we can just as well read the BIBLE AT HOME.  Now we do not deny at all that the same miracle can happen by reading the Bible. The Bible is also preaching; it is the written preaching of the prophets and apostles, which is the basis of all other preaching.  Indeed, many people have come to faith in Christ by reading this written preaching. In many prisons or concentration camps of the last war men and women have found Jesus Christ as their Saviour by reading the Bible (sometimes even a few leaves from a Bible!) in the solitude of their cell.

Yet God has given His Gospel first of all to be preached by the living voices of His servants. “Go into all the world and PREACH THE GOSPEL to the whole creation (Mark 16:15).  “Go therefore and make disciple of all nations, baptising them, TEACHING them …“ (Matt. 28:19, 20). ”You are WITNESSES of these things.” (Luke 24:48).   “You shall be my WITNESSES in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.” (Acts 1:8).  “Preach the word, be instant in season and out of season … ” (II Tim. 4:2). ETC.

Where do we find this preaching first of all today?  IN THE CHURCH SERVICES on Sunday!  There the word is preached.  There the glorious Gospel is proclaimed!, There salvation is offered to sinners!  There the Holy Spirit performs the miracle of opening hearts!

If we want OUR CHILDREN to be true believers, where should we bring them? To the services on Sunday!  It is not enough to have our children baptised.  We have to bring them also to that mighty means of grace: the proclamation of the Gospel. In fact, baptism is nothing else than a sign and seal to that Gospel!

If WE OURSELVES are not sure of our own faith, if we are seeking for the miracle of the Spirit to happen to us, let us go to the place where we may expect it!  If Lydia (I speak from the human point of view) had not come to the regular place of worship, the miracle would not have happened to her!

Once again, is it any wonder that UNBELIEF is SO RAPIDLY GROWING in our country?  People do not come to the place, where the Holy Spirit may be expected to open their hearts.  They do not bring their children there, and although these children have perhaps been baptised they grow up as unbelievers.  For baptism alone cannot save a child.  Baptism itself does not produce faith.  Baptism is sign and seal of the promise of the Covenant which is proclaimed in the preaching and has to be accepted in faith.

SPIRITUAL FOOD

But not only for the beginning of faith we have to go to church, but also for the feeding of our faith.  Faith is not like a jewel, which, once given, retains its shine and value, whether you use it regularly or hide it in a jewel-box in a safe.  Faith is like a plant.  It is a living organism. It needs light and heat and moisture, otherwise it will die. Faith can only thrive, when it is regularly fed with the living water of the Gospel, when the sun of God’s favour as proclaimed in the Gospel shines on it.

If we do not attend the church services regularly, our faith will necessarily suffer and wither.  For we are sinning against one of the primary laws set by the heavenly Husbandman. We neglect the most important means ordained by Him

READING SERVICES

It is  perhaps a good opportunity here to insert a few  words ,about reading  services.   They do occur quite often in our Churches.   Now we all agree of course, that weprefer  a service conducted by a  minister!   We also agree, that the one elder  may be  a better “reader” than  the  other (just  as the one minister may be a “better” preacher  than the other).

But  is  this sufficient reason to stay away from reading services?   Why actually do we go  to  Church?   To hear a man OR to  hear the ‘Word of  God? Do you in ordinary life refuse to eat because the cook is  not as good as you are used to?   I think your body could not stand that too often.  But your soul cannot either!!

Usually  the main trouble  is  that  we go  to  Church in  the  WRONG SPIRIT. We do not expect much.   And, of course, we do not  get  much!   If we get anything at all!   Sometimes people say:  When I  left  the Church I  was  just as cold as when I  entered it.    By these words they mean to  blame  the preacher or reader.   In actual fact, however, they blame  THEMSELVES! For they confess: I went in  the wrong spirit! I went without prayer, without expectation.   I went with  a  cold instead of a yearning heart.

THE FUTURE OF OUR REFORMED CHURCHES

Sometimes the question is asked:  Will  our Churches have a future in Australia and New Zealand?   The final answer is,  of course:  we do not know.   God alone knows.

Yet we may say:  If we, on our side, are FAITHFUL in  the  use  of  the  means of grace, GOD WILL BLESS US. He is  also faithful! We have His promise: “Where two or  three are gathered together in my name,  there am I in  the midst of them.” (Matt. 18:20).   This promise stands and will stand till the last day.   If we and our  children remain faithful in our church attendance, then the Lord will do His miracles in our midst.  He will open hearts, hearts of children and grownups,  and He will feed hungry souls, which come to Him for  their spiritual food.

K. Runia.

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

My Culture – Right Or Wrong

Henk DeWaard. Trowel & Sword. June 1979.

Preamble: When we think “missionary” we tend to think of men and women going off to far away places like Africa, Asia or perhaps the Pacific region to spread the gospel message to people who may have never heard it before. When Henk Points out that, “Most mission work is done in sprawling cities – Tokyo, Jakarta, Nairobi, Sao Paulo,” it is telling that places like Melbourne, Sydney or Brisbane do not rate a mention. Have we ever thought about sending a missionary to Alice Springs? Henk does an excellent job in outlining the difficulties faced by overseas missionaries in adjusting to different cultures but perhaps it is also time we started thinking about the many needs closer to home. While it is true that there is a shortage of ministers in both Australia and New Zealand it could as well be argued that there is an absolute dearth of CRCA&NZ missionaries working in our respective countries.

My Culture – Right Or Wrong

“What would it take to be a missionary?” That’s the question I was asked to speak on to a church group, and perhaps I could use this question to give you a better picture of what the missionary task involves. For mission work is probably different from what you think; just as that real holiday is different from what the advertisements say. Too much information about mission is little more than ‘propaganda’ aimed at obtaining support rather than conveying accurate information.

The word ‘mission’ conjures up all sorts of pictures in your mind. The white missionary (did you know that there are many black and coloured missionaries?) is pictured as making his way through jungles and mountains, preaching the gospel to the natives as he goes along. No doubt, some missionaries are working in these frontier situations. The majority are not. Most mission work is done in sprawling cities – Tokyo, Jakarta, Nairobi, Sao Paulo. That is where many hidden, unreached peoples are. There is no great romance attached to working in a chaotic, smog filled city.

So, what would it take to be a missionary? Great faith? No doubt. But does it not take great faith to live as a Christian anywhere? It takes more than faith to be a missionary.

Self-denial at a deep level…

I would single out self-denial as a prime requirement. Look at Corinthians 9. Paul speaks about his rights as an apostle:

– the right to bodily comforts (v.4).

– the right to family life (v.5) 

– the right to free time (v.6) 

– the right to an adequate salary (v.7)

Paul was prepared to give up all these rights. (Most missionaries today do not have to give up any of these ‘rights’). But Paul went even further, to a deeper level. He was prepared to give up his cultural identity as a Jew. (v.21 ff). For the sake of the Gospel, Paul would be prepared to give up his Jewishness, which he prized so much. And he did give up some of his Jewishness as he crossed into the Gentile world.

Crossing boundaries….

A missionary is one who crosses cultural boundaries and not just geographical ones. A tourist does the same, but he has a return ticket. The missionary has to settle down and work…. that is, if he can get adjusted to a new culture. For all of a sudden, everything he has always taken for granted does not apply. He is almost like a child. He can’t say anything. And when he tries to speak, people will laugh. How do you eat here? And how do you use the bathroom? And why don’t people keep their promise? He said ‘besok’ and the dictionary says that means tomorrow.. but nothing happens! What strange people and weird customs!

Ethnocentrism….

The missionary is judging and evaluating every new experience on the basis of his own culture. We all do that. From the minute we are born, we learn a particular culture pattern and as we grow up we consider our way of doing things right and all other ways are weird, strange, untrue or bad. This attitude: My culture is right!, is deeply in-grained in every one of us. We call this attitude ethnocentrism. Let me give a few examples.

(a) When the European powers around 1500 A.D. discovered sea routes to Africa, America and the Far East, they discovered many new peoples. One of the big questions was: Do these people have a soul? They were so unlike European people that our forebears did not know what to think of these people. At one stage the Pope in Rome had to rule that the Pygmies in Central Africa do have a soul! But labels like ‘savage, ‘primitive’, ‘underdeveloped’, ‘childish’ continued to be used by Europeans to characterise these new peoples. Because they were different, Europeans considered them inferior.

(b) The theory of sickness held by these newly discovered peoples was called backward and superstitious. Their medicine man was called a witchdoctor. They believed that sickness was due to evil spirits. We know better! One missionary wanted to prove to the natives that disease was due to germs, bacteria and parasites. So he prepared a slide of a drop of blood from someone having malaria. A blue stain which the malarial parasites absorbed, made them visible among the blood cells. The missionary wrote:

“To me it was obvious that once one saw the germs under the microscope it would be clear that sickness is caused by germs. The Indian seeing them through the microscope looked at his friends in surprise: ‘Come here and look. I didn’t know that those spirits were that small and that they were blue at that’ “

Apparently, we see what we look for! However, today many writers are saying that the witchdoctor performs essentially the same function as a psychiatrist in western society and with an even greater degree of success!

(c) It is to the credit of missionaries that they generally protected newly discovered peoples from the greed and exploitation of traders and colonists. The missionaries opposed slavery and championed the rights of native peoples. Even so, missionaries were also ethnocentric. They could only think of the church in a western sense, according to a western pattern, structure and liturgy. There were notable exceptions but many held that ‘you must civilise before you can evangelise!’ The natives were thought to be incapable of understanding the gospel and therefore needed education. Many missionaries could not conceive how non-western culture could become the vehicle through which God would communicate with these peoples. There was an unspoken feeling that God was against these non-western cultures and that there was nothing worthy of being incorporated into the service of Christ.

(d) Today we speak about aiding underdeveloped countries of the Third World. The assumption is that these countries should imitate the West, for our ways are the best. We think we know what people need and we will help them improve their lot. I could give many more examples. But the point is clear. The attitude: ‘my culture is best, is contrary to the law of love.

Love your neighbour….

To love one’s neighbour is to respect him/her for what he/she is, and not try to make the other person in our image.

To be a missionary is to deny that my way of doing things is the only right way. It is to deny many habits and attitudes that were instilled from childhood. Love demands the appreciation of another’s personhood. Love demands the willingness to learn, to adapt and to understand another culture.

Generally we judge other cultures on the basis of our own strength, that is, technological advance. Western countries are more advanced technologically, but socially we may not come out so favourably. We can learn much from other cultures and ethnic minorities in our midst. We ought to appreciate the variety in God’s creation and the many and varied ways in which people try to meet their common needs. I am not saying that everything is ultimately relative and that there are no absolute truths. Naturally, when a people accepts Christ as Lord, changes must and will occur in their world view and life-style. But that is not the point here. What I am referring to here is that cultures AS A WHOLE are attempts by societies to come to terms with basic, felt-needs. All cultures do a reasonably good job at that. We need not all become the same. When the Kingdom of God comes in its fullness, people from all nations, peoples, tribes and tongues will come in. (Rev.7:9).

Simpler life-style….

Part of the self-denial is the willingness to adopt a simpler life-style. This should not be too difficult and may be a blessing, for we are increasingly becoming aware that the western lifestyle has serious drawbacks. We suffer from obesity, heart disease, lung cancer, at least in part due to our eating habits and life-style. And surely there must be something wrong with a society, where per year more is being spent on chewing gum than on mission?

The missionary (whoever he is and wherever) has a deeper motivation in denying himself.

“That I might by all means save some.” I. Cor.9:22.

Henk DeWaard.

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 Impact Of Television

Rev. John Westendorp. Trowel & Sword, June 1996

Preamble: At the time this article was written, television was at the peak of its powers. Today that power is on the wane – to a large extent superseded by newer technologies and the advent of “social media”. However the issues raised by John remain. The difference is that whereas television could then be found in almost every home, today social media can be found in almost every hand, regardless of the age of that hand, and its effect on the lives of individuals, as well as the national psyche cannot be over estimated. By substituting “television” with “social media” the problems outlined by John not only remain but are multiplied.

The Impact Of Television

A Pervasive Influence.

One would be hard pressed to overstate the influence television has had on Western Society. The statistics tell a sobering story. Few households in New Zealand or Australia are now without a television set – about 5% of the population. In the average household the ‘telly’ will be on for about 7 hours each day. Actual viewing time peaks at age 11 or 12 when some 26 hours of television are watched every week. If that amount of viewing was carried through consistently until 70 years of age, then one would have watched television for a full 10 years of ones life. The mind boggles to think that if this is the average where does that put those on the upper end of the scale. Television’s pervasive influence is felt in other ways too. The design of the average family’s living area when I grew up was a semi-circle of couches and chairs around an open hearth or wood heater. Today the furniture is arranged to give everyone an unimpeded view of the television. Perhaps its impact is noticed most in family schedules – now too often controlled by ‘the box’. At best it’s “Let’s hurry up and eat so Dad can watch the news”. At worst family meal times have been replaced by what Andrew Kuyvenhoven once called “snacking and grazing” where a properly balanced meal is replaced by takeaways and where family conversation and family devotions lapse altogether except for some hasty consultations during commercial breaks.

I was struck by the controlling influence of TV some years ago on a visit to the local blood bank one evening. I commented to the sister-in-charge that the place was unusually quiet. She commented ‘A Country Practice’ isn’t finished yet – just wait another 20 minutes and we’ll be swamped with donors.” She was right!

TV and Behaviour.

At this point one could do a separate study on the pervasive way TV has shaped behaviour. Television (im)morality is a concern for many Christians. Repeatedly we have cried ‘foul’ at excessive violence or explicit sex aired during prime-time viewing. However it is not only the excesses that are a concern. Ordinary morality was once shaped by church, school and family – now it is largely shaped by ‘the box’ That is hardly a new phenomenon. More that a decade ago people on the ‘Love Boat’ (or was it the ‘Lust Boat?) gave the impression that climbing into bed with someone of the opposite sex was as socially acceptable as shaking hands. Today it’s ‘Home and Away” that gives younger people their moral cues but often in such a way that they would be more honest if they called the program ‘Home and Astray’.

In programming and advertising, television exercises a kind of universal peer pressure. All of this has been glaringly obvious to most Christians for some time. Wiser parents therefore ensure that these negative effects of TV do a minimum of damage to their children – by controlling what is watched and by discussing these issues frequently.

What is less obvious but more disturbing is that TV has not only affected our behaviour but it has reshaped the modern mind in the very way it operates. Recently several Christian writers have expressed immense concern about this issue. Let me come at the problem from a personal angle.

Subjective Christianity

I have noticed for some time a move in Christian circles away from basing things on objective realities and instead grounding them subjectively in one’s own experiences and feelings. I am not a social analyst and found it difficult to assess what I thought was a trend – so I decided to keep a small file of clippings until such a time as I could get a handle on things. Let me share just a few of these.

Stephen Lawhead is recognised as a Christian writer of fiction. His book ‘Dream Thief’ portrays the powers of evil over against the power of God. People meet others who are Christians and eventually their contact leads to conversions. But what struck me was that Lawhead never once made a single reference to the Bible. I found that odd and just to make sure didn’t miss it I read the book a second time. I have since read some other Christian novels which show the same trend toward mysticism – where, for example, conversion is not based on an objective record of the gospel (Sola Scriptura?) but rather on shared experiences of Christ.

Along the same lines I have noticed recently that in some Christian magazines there is even a change in the way people speak of conversion. In a number of biographical stories people spoke about their conversion (or someone else’s conversion) as “experiencing Jesus”. Now I certainly don’t want to begrudge anyone an experience of Jesus… but it comes across as a little odd to my ears, for I have always understood conversion as a faith response to the objective claims of the gospel.

Admittedly, subjectivism in the church is nothing new. Thirty years ago I already met people who made decisions about work and marriage on the basis that in some mystical way God had told them so. It just seems to me that this subjective trend is becoming more common among Christians of all stripes. Of course it’s easy at this point to quote some extreme examples. In the US someone actually started a church for nudists (good grief -what next!). When questioned about the rationale for such a church the founder was quoted as saying “God told me to do it”. That sort of answer puts a very effective end to all further discussion.

I could extend this list, ad infinitum. The cartoon which said that prayer is not just speaking to God, it is also listening. Or the naive comment from a pastor: Jesus didn’t teach theology, He just taught us to love each other.

Looking for Reasons.

Why is there this growing emphasis on the experiential, the emotive and the subjective? Some people have given answers to those questions in terms of this being post modernist culture – where the objective truth has been replaced by truth based on how we feel about things. But that still doesn’t answer ‘Why such a development?’.

It is not my intention in raising these questions to belittle experience nor to deny that our emotions are a part of us. This is not a plea for a sterile intellectualism where Christians have the head crammed full of knowledge but with cold hearts. The point is that these days the starting point increasingly lies in our experiences and emotions – also in Christian circles. A spate of books on the subject by authors, such as J.M. Boice, M.Dawn, J. MacArthur, D. Wells and others, have sounded the alarm to the Christian church about this matter.

It would hardly be fair to blame all of this on television. Other factors such as secularisation and the technology (of which TV is just a part) have also contributed. So has a faster pace of life which gives us less time to pause and reflect deeply. Yet one is forced to admit that there is some damming evidence that points to television as one of the main culprits.

Not All Bad!

Dawn, in her book ‘Reaching Out Without Dumming Down’, quotes from studies by Jane Healy, a trainer of educators who “cites overwhelming evidence to convince us that many children in contemporary society actually are less intelligent and less capable of learning than their forbearers.” The research by Healy’s team uncovered evidence that children who watch a lot of television actually have smaller brains.

I don’t have access to Healy’s data so I have no answer to the question of whether Healy is right or whether it is simply that children with smaller brains are more disposed to television watching. Nevertheless Healy’s claims ought to make all Christian parents extremely cautious about the amount of time their children watch ‘the box’.

One could also argue that not all the changes wrought upon our inner world have been necessarily bad. I sometimes reflect on how different life is for my children than it was for my wife and I when we were their age. They are the product of the video era – we are still the product of the age of typography (the written word). There is no doubt about it that through the medium of television their experience of the external world has been far broader than mine. At least, it has often seemed that my children possessed a kind of knowledge about life that I cannot remember having at that age – I think that in many respects I was much more naive. Because of what they were confronted with on TV they had to grapple with issues and take a stand on matters which at their age I didn’t even know existed.

One could debate whether this is good or bad. In one way we are robbing our children of their innocence and not allowing them to be children. On the other hand am convinced that my children are able to think through and articulate a wider range of thoughts and feelings than I could at their age.

At this point I take the issue with those who speak as if television has robbed us of our ability to think. Boice for example argues “that the chief cause of mindlessness is television” and that “television forms our way of thinking, or more accurately, not thinking”. Wells too has very little that is positive to say about the way that television has shaped our mind. In some way the total negativity of these writers is a little surprising especially when we know better today just why television has changed the way we think (rather than stopping us from thinking).

Changing The Way We Think.

Scientists have researched the different functions of the two hemispheres of the brain. Already 17 years ago Paul Borgman wrote a book, ‘TV – Friend or Foe?’ He pointed out that in a pre-TV age, thinking for most of us developed by relying more on the left-hand side of the brain…. the side that controls analysis and logic; it’s the side propositional thought (sic). In contrast, television appeals to the right-hand side of the brain… the hemisphere that controls our ability to think artistically and emotionally.

If that is so then the way TV has changed our inner world is not necessarily all bad. It may well be that the sometimes stark logical thought of an older generation may be more balanced by being in tune with ones emotions in the younger generation. Sometimes I think I see that difference between my generation and younger Christians growing up in our churches. It may also explain why in a former generation churches often split over doctrine whereas today it seems they are more likely to split over issues of worship.

I do not want to turn this into a blanket defence of TV either. The big issue is still that too many of us watch too much television. Here at least I do share much of the concern of the writers mentioned.I also see in too many younger Christians what seems to be less ability to handle the logical thought and reflection that already made theology exciting for me and my peers when we attended our first Bible Study Camp at the age of 18. Even worse…! Too often the hunger for the emotional and experiential is no longer balanced by reasoned Biblical thinking.

Much more could and should be written about this subject but perhaps others, more experienced in this field, might care to put pen to paper. In the meantime, we who need to bring every thought captive to Christ must also do that with regard to television.

J. 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 Read Your Bible Club

Mrs. Irene Reid. Trowel & Sword. August 1977

Preamble: The preamble to this weeks article may well be longer than the actual article but both are worth your undivided attention. Generally speaking comments about our articles have been few and far between, which is somewhat disappointing as feedback from readers gives us some idea of whether the articles chosen have hit their mark. We were therefore very happy to receive the following comments from “Linda”. “I have read many of the articles in T&S Revisited with great interest. I love church history but am personally not a great fan of Theological discussion. Trowel and Sword offered much more than this. I know this interests many and do not want the editors to stop these items, but could we possibly see other items too? Some were regarding Youth and Women’s Ministries, and also poetry, etc. This would possibly attract a wider audience to T&S Revisited.”

I confess the sentiments expressed by Linda closely mirrored my own in the time I spent studying at RTC in the early 1970’s. It was always a great joy listening to Prof. Barkley’s ‘lectures’ on church history; he had a way of making history come alive. But Linda’s point is well taken. As it happens, this week’s post was written by Mrs. Irene Reid for the children of the “Read Your Bible Club”. As with many of our articles it’s message is just as relevant today as it was then. We hope you share it with your children and grandchildren as well as taking its message into your own hearts. Sometimes we do need a reminder of the simpler messages of the Gospel.

The Read Your Bible Club

Hi there members!

When we are kept busy time really goes quickly doesn’t it? I’m sure you always keep yourselves very busy, with different activities, there always seems to be something to do.

I would like to welcome two new Members to the Club, Daniella and Diana Heatherich, congratulations to both of you from all of us.

I would like to tell you about our little son who is getting to the stage now where we must tell him NO to many things and pull him away from anything that may be dangerous, he grizzles if he can’t have or do what he wants but a few minutes later he smiles and has forgotten.

Unfortunately, as we get older and punished for wrong or even abused or made fun of by others, we at times find it very hard to forgive and forget and sometimes if we let it go on too long our hearts can become bitter. This is very wrong and Boys and Girls, I do hope that you will always be able to forgive, as our Father in Heaven also forgives us. Keep your heart a heart of love.

The Lord be with you in all you do.

Bye for now,

Mrs. Irene Reid, Anakie Road, Lovely Banks, via Geelong, Vic. 3221.

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 Reformed Church And The Future

John VanderBom. Trowel & Sword, April 1977

Preamble: In this article John VanderBom looks over a period of fifty years – 25 into the past and 25 into the future. In the process he asks many searching questions about the Reformed church and the people who make up its numbers. It is almost another fifty years since then and still many of those same questions remain. Tellingly he states: “I am writing this article to impress upon all of our readers, our young readers in particular, that the tomorrow of the Reformed Church is largely in your hands,” at the same time acknowledging that ultimately, we are all in God’s hands.

The Reformed Church And The Future

The Reformed Churches of Australia have celebrated their twenty-five years of existence in four Eastern States.

An anecdote: when we were on holidays in New Zealand a young man spoke to me: “Aren’t you going to Sydney next week? And doesn’t the Church in Sydney celebrate its eh- 100th anniversary?”

You can guess my answer: “I am not Moses…….’

No, for all our struggles, we cannot say that we have spent forty years in the wilderness. We haven’t even been involved in an eighty years war for the faith.

For me, the anecdote was another reminder that the history of our Reformed Churches is a very short history. The main reason for our celebrations has been to thank the Lord (while the older generation is still with us) for the miraculous way in which He has blessed us. And it went so fast.

I have written about the enthusiasm, the conviction, the determination and the obedience. We began in the spirit of being “unprofitable servants, who have only done the things which they ought to do”. Yet I wonder if our people with all their affluence would have achieved so much and give themselves so willingly if they were in the same situation again.

Within three years’ time Reformed Churches were an established fact in every State of Australia. When the Rev. Jan Schep opened the Synod of Sydney, he spoke of the tears of the sower (Psalm 126.) In the prayer service before the Synod of Ulverstone, 1954, I took my text from the parable of the Mustard Seed and the tree in which the birds could sit down to rest.

But now it is the time to look at the future.

Is there a future for the Reformed Church?

The future always poses intriguing questions for us. A whole new science, futurology, deals with these interesting possibilities, also concerning the Christian Church.

I remember a Readers Digest article. When RD had the 25th anniversary of its Australian edition, it published two fascinating articles: one on the 25 years that had passed, and that on the 25 years to come.

The second article made it very plain that we, all of us, are the makers of the future. As people of the present generation, we are the planners for tomorrow. Readers Digest mentioned a few practical things, like the planning for roads and traffic, planning for new centres of population, and more and better roads. We all seem to assume that over the next 25 years we will still be going faster and faster, on and on, just like we did in the past. Programs for education of larger numbers of students are planned. Today we are making the world for the next 25 years.

But then? Readers Digest closed with a very down-to-earth remark: What will happen in the year 2000 is very important. And all our calculations could fail because there is the unknown factor of the human nature. RD says: The Wilsons’ wondrous To-morrow is very much in the hands of the Wilsons’ themselves!

I am writing this article to impress upon all of our readers, our young readers in particular, that the tomorrow of the Reformed Church is largely in your hands. What will the Church of the year 2000 be like? It is in your (and my)-praying-hands. God has laid it there!

Now I know that with such a statement I am in for all sorts of reactions. Some people will say: The Church is safe, it is in God’s hands! Many others have told me already that in 2000 the Church shall not be there any more! They say, that the world is in such a rut, in such turmoil… Many Christians will tell you that for our “late great planet earth” there is no hope any longer; or: no other hope than that the Lord Himself may come very quickly.

Yet we know there is the other side. As Reformed Christians we know that the Lord has entrusted us with talents, responsibilities. We are here not only to pray and win souls, but to do something. Until the Lord returns we’ll have to work with our talents and pounds. It is a tremendous challenge, so demanding that it ought to bring us on our knees. Yet, this challenge is a God-given talent.

We can well understand people speaking like this. On seeing so much trouble today, I say this myself: Lord Jesus, come quickly!

This means that as Christians we not only know that there is a crying world with the crying needs of crying people. We also know that there is the Good News. The Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ is the answer. And the Church is here to make that Gospel known.

The apostle Paul declared that the whole creation waits for the revelation of God’s children. It all waits for God’s children to be visible.

Today we must face the question: are the children of God revealed, is the Church a visible Church? 

The Church can be in hiding, invisible. The Church can be dull, asleep, divided. The Church can be like the Church in Russia in the days of the Revolution. The Church had been there for ages, but the children of God were hardly visible.

We also are living in days of revolution.

We are still free to preach the gospel. It is easy to stand on a platform and say or shout: Jesus is the Answer! And then to go home in peace, and say that we are so happy.

Now, I do realise that the preaching of the Word of God is still the Church’s main task. The opening of God’s Word brings light. So many Australians who over the years have joined the Reformed Churches have told me how much they have appreciated the teaching of the Reformed Church. Stuart Fowler has written that one of the contributions which our Churches have made is the preaching of the Kingship of our Lord Jesus Christ. It has led to a growing, strong movement for Christian Schools in many places.

Yet we must aim at greater things. The Reformed Church stands for more than for the pure preaching of the Word. Far too often we have been preaching to ourselves in our isolated corner. We have even left it to the minister. In so many cases, it looks like our congregations stand, or fall, with the good, or less competent minister.

As congregations we must know that together we have received the Word of God. And: we have got it, to get it out! (T.L. Wilkinson) 

Michael Griffiths (Cinderella with Amnesia) reminds us (from Ephesians 4) that the beauty of the Church must become visible, not so much in the person of the preacher, but in the body-life of the Christian community.

For 1977, to obey the Gospel means something very practical. We must learn to be distinct. The crying needs of the world around us call us to become visible in a new and simple Christian life-style. We all know that the present world as it exists cannot continue. The production wheels are moving faster and faster; we are bound to have things bigger and bigger. Who can stop the wheel? A young mother who was concerned about her children said to me: I wish that somebody could stop that big wheel, I wish could get out of this.

No, we cannot go on. We cannot continue to produce more cars, with the consumption of more oil, more food, more entertainment, robbing the other half of mankind.

They who have read bishop John V. Taylor’s Enough is Enough (SCM; recommended in Trowel and Sword, September) know I what mean. And many of our young people know what I mean. Some of our youth have chosen to live a simple life-style, and a few have even built their own community-life. They remember the words of Scripture: By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another. And: we know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brethren.

We must become very serious on the question of how to present our Christian faith on the Monday, in society, in our business, on holiday. We must have the courage to tell our children and ourselves: Enough is enough! We must become visible, and be known in the community as people of tomorrow, who are the first-fruits of God’s new creation.

Do you know that the monastic movement and the religious orders of the Middle Ages had their origin as a protest movement, a cry for a new lifestyle?

We say that our age is getting darker and darker. Are we being absorbed in the darkness, or is our light getting brighter and brighter? Are we a light on the hill, or does the Church only leave a passing shadow?

We have got it to get it out!

When we are filled with the compassion of Christ, then we’ll begin to see the other and to speak of him, not as a far-away object for an evangelisation campaign, but as a neighbour whom we wish to know at the nitty-gritty level of his daily pleasures and worries.

To be filled with the Holy Spirit means to be filled with the compassion of Jesus for the lost. And: “he who is not with Me, is against Me.”

If in the Reformed Church you asked for a show of hands, nobody would be against Jesus. But the Lord had more to say: “He who is not with Me, is against Me; and he who does not scatter with me, scatters”! Jesus’ job was to gather sheep, stubborn and dirty sheep. We are here too to gather them in, and so to be “with Jesus”. If we are not with Him, then we are working against Him. If we do not win, then we are losing and scattering.

Paul said: I do not account my life of any value nor as precious to myself, IF ONLY I may accomplish my course and the ministry which I received from the Lord, to testify to the Gospel of the grace of God! And: it is MORE BLESSED TO GIVE than to receive! (Acts 20:24, 28).

Shall we make this our Bible verse for the coming 25 years?

JOHN VANDERBOM

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

News Concerning Our Churches

Author Unknown. Possibly J VanderBom or J.W. Deenick. Trowel & Sword, November, 1955

Preamble: The following is the church news from November 1955. We would love to hear what strikes you about these reports. On the one hand we read of an amazing dynamism that has gripped the churches. There is growth and the calling of ministers. There are pastoral issues and church education to consider as well as more parochial issues around smoking and drinking and its impact on relationships between denominations. We also draw your attention to point 4 of the Blacktown report. T&S was seen as an important tool for sharing information between the churches. This has not changed. We will continue to urge the leadership of the CRCA to find a way to re-establish this most important and invaluable form of communication between the churches and its members. We note that in the six years from 2014 to 2020, the total membership of the CRCA has gone from 8649 to 7671; a drop of nearly 1000 members. Surely this is cause for concern, if not alarm. While acknowledging that this cannot be attributed to the demise of Trowel & Sword, perhaps the loss of T&S is a symptom of a cultural malaise that does exist within the CRCA which has replaced the “amazing dynamism” spoken of earlier.

News Concerning Our Churches

BLACKTOWN. (New South Wales)

September 24 was an important day for N.S.W. The Presbytery (Classis) of this Australian State came together under the chairmanship of Rev van der Bom (sic). He specially welcomed delegates from Newcastle (for the first time officially present); Rev. van Brussel (for the first time attending Presbytery meeting since arrival in Australia) and candidate D.C. Bouma, American  born Theological student who came to Australia in an answer to a call from the Ref. Church of Blacktown.

Here are briefly a few items which were discussed.

1. After the opening, Cand. Bouma, having passed his verbal examination on Gen. 15:1 is officially admitted to the Ref. Church of Australia as minister in full status.

{A brief report on this important item will be given elsewhere or, if space does not allow it  to be printed in this issue of T .& S., in the next).

2. Sydney will be calling Church for synod 1956·.

3. A suggestion to appoint a third lecturer at our Theological College will be laid before this Synod.

4. Trowel & Sword should be more widely read. Some difficulties in connection with the distribution will be taken up with the people concerned.

5. School-Sunday will be held on 30th October. This Sunday a collection will be held and the monies received donated to the various School Committees.

6. Every fortnight, the church of Orange will have a “life” sermon conducted by one of the ministers. This decision was prompted in order to come to a more regular Catechism class and to promote more regular church going.

7. Church visitations can now properly be organised as there are now four ministers in N.S.W. Two ministers plus one elder will visit the churches once every two years.

8. At AUSTRALIA DAY a CONGRESS will be held (last Monday in Jan 1956) in which all congregations of Reformed New South Wales will participate. The preceding Sunday, Holy Communion will be administered to all scattered members.

9. BLACKTOWN invites members of the other churches to be present when Rev. Bouma will preach his ‘Maiden’ sermon on Oct. 8. Rev. van Brussel will represent Presbytery.

10. Once a month, 2GZ will broadcast a short religious program in English prepared by the Ref. Church.

11. Presbytery will meet again D.V. February 4, 1956.

MOE. (Victoria)

One of the fast-growing towns in Victoria. Moe sent a call to the Rev. J.A. Boumeester. (Heerjansdam, Holland). Rev. Bouwmeester has accepted this call.

PERTH.  (West Australia)

This city called Rev. P.van der Schaaf, (Vlissingen, Hoiland) who also accepted the call to Australia.

ADELAIDE. A Manse was purchased for Rev. J .J. van Wageningen at 48 Thomas Street, Hyde Park., South Australia.

LAUNCESTON. (Tasmania)

A call has been sent to Rev. K. Kramer (Barendrecht, Holland).

PENGUIN-ULVERSTON. (Tasmania)

Rev. van Wilgenburg arrived in Tasmania from Perth on Sept. 17. The next day, Sunday, was the official installation service. Rev. van Wilgenburg has now the pastoral care for Penguin and Ulverston and all those Ref. people that live in the North West Coast region.

NEW ZEALAND.

We are very happy and thankful being able to state that Rev J.A. Scarrow and his people of the Howick Presbyterian-Reformed Church have decided to remain within the fellowship of the Ref. Church of New Zealand.

·We all know that at the last Synod in Auckland, the issue: smoking and drinking made them very uncertain as to the possibility to remain in close fellowship with us. As we were told a few days ago, their session has now decided that this should not be a cause for such a grave step and consequently resolved to continue the warm fellowship we all desire.

Again, has God shown that He does not leave the Work He started.

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

On Bridges To Sons – A Cadet Counsellor Speaks Up

Bill Peet. Trowel and Sword, January/February 1977

Preamble: What is our greatest wish for our sons and daughters? Undoubtedly it is for them to grow into Christian men and women who love and serve the Lord. But this doesn’t happen by us just wishing it, or praying for it, or taking them to church when they are young, or sending them to a Christian school; although these things all help. It requires an investment of our time and effort. In this article Bill Peet give some sound advice to parents on how to help sons, and daughters, grow in the Lord. Advice which, by the way, is equally valid for grandparents.

On Bridges To Sons

As a boy matures he is constantly struggling with some very basic questions: “Who am I?”, trying to identify himself; “why am here?”, searching for a purpose in life; “what is it like to be an adult?”, early awareness of his future responsibilities.

Apart from these, the boy growing up in a Christian environment will ask himself further questions: “Why do my parents believe?”, a reason for their faith; “who is God?”, need to identify this influence on his parents; “What is God to me?”, a growing awareness of the need for a personal relationship with God.

The answers to these questions come from many sources. The way in which they will be answered will partly depend upon the way that other people have influenced the boy. Any person who comes into contact with the boy will leave an impression on him, parents, teachers, the football coach or even parents of friends; and, we hope, the Cadet counsellor.

In Christian circles we pray that with all these different factors placed before the boy he will be aware that he will not only have to answer life’s questions, but he will also have to answer THE question of life; and observing the actions of adults will help shape the mind of the enquiring boy. If parents are slack in their church attendance how often will the young one attend? If they misuse their God given talents, how can they expect their young one to be a responsible individual? If they practice Christianity on Sunday only, why should they expect him to grow up with a continual awareness of the presence of Christ?

“When some special skill or characteristic is noted in both parent and child it is likely that the potentiality for the skill or the characteristic was transmitted to the child and that a favourable environment and opportunities such as watching his parents, or playing alongside them produces the ‘Phenotype'”; Observance characteristics, from “An Introduction to Human Development” by K. Lovell, Macmillan Press.

There is also another extreme. of which we are not aware viz. that often as active Christians we are over-active, and leave no time for the children at home. How often do we tell the children that we love Jesus? From working amongst the lads we often get the feeling that the usual activities of Bible reading and prayer are carried out formally, but ask how often their parents relate to them of their personal faith, and the answer is a big “NEVER” or maybe “ONCE A MONTH”.

But it is not only in the Christian home that the personal relationship between parent and child is neglected.

Upon reading an editorial in the Sydney “Daily Telegraph” some time ago, it struck me how right the editor was:

“It is an opportune time (school holidays) for every mum and dad, every son and daughter to take stock. Australia’s greatest resource is its children, and its wealth lies in a meaningful, responsible relationship between parents and offspring. It is a sad legacy of today’s mounting economic pressures that many parents, either by choice or necessity, have defaulted their basic responsibilities to leave their children to shape their lives around pop records and television crackle. Rarely does mother or father in the hurly burly of today’s world sit on the edge of the child’s bed and any say these three beautiful words “I love you”. (Or, how often do we say God loves you, B.P.) Love between parent and child is taken for granted, and therein lies the tragedy of the so-called generation gap. Children have to be assured, they take nothing for granted. If they are brushed aside by parents too selfish or tired to be bothered, it is only natural that they will turn elsewhere.”

Over 2000 years ago Socrates complained about a generation gap. He was disturbed by youth’s rebelliousness, theio disregard for conventions and manners, the way they dressed, and the way they “tyrannised” their parents. It makes one wonder, have there always been walls of misunderstanding between youth and adults? Is our difficulty in communicating with the young people today simply the normal, more or less necessary, reflection of the way things “have always been”.

In a sense each new generation is a fresh one. Growing up in a culture it inherited rather shaped, critical and demanding as it struggles with the responsibility maturity must bring. in that sense Solomon’s weary reflection that there is “nothing new under the sun”, (Ecc. 1:9), is very true.

As this gap then seems to exist, should Christian parents forget their God given responsibility, and just fail to communicate? Or should they continually strive to build bridges across the gap s that, when that son or daughter wants or needs to communicate, the bridge has already been established.

To help parents to build bridges to their boys more effectively, the Christian Cadet Corps publishes a top quality periodical. “Cadet Journal” is written for boys aged 9 to 14. Six times a year this magazine goes into a boy’s home, carrying the message you want him to hear in a variety of ways. But some T & S readers may know other boys that need this kind of Christian influence. Why not send them a gift subscription of the Cadet Journal? This magazine can become an effective tool for you in developing new bridges as you talk with, work with, and play with boys you know.

In ‘Understanding And Reaching Boys’, a new Cadet Counsellor aid, time is spent on this very subject. Here is a quote: “Nearly fourteen years ago I asked a man, whose Biblical ministry I had admired: ‘What advice do you have for me, a young man just getting started in the pastorate? Deliberately and in a tone betraying his sorrow, he replied ‘Spend time with your son’. The sense of failure to his son overshadowed all the expressions of gratitude from those benefiting from his ministry. “I was so busy seeking to succeed as a minister that I failed as a father”.

What can a Christian father do with his sons? Firstly, he can pray with each son. Each child needs its father in a special way. You may have other children, but he has only one father. Recognise him as an individual. Pray with him and for him about things that interest him. He needs to know and feel you are with him. Mention his name when you pray, and sometimes ask him to pray for his Dad. This may do more for you than for him, but you both need it. Do not take love for granted.

Secondly, invite him to do things with you. You may say “but that is the key issue, I am away such a lot and just do not have enough time”. How much is enough? Begin with the time you do have. Doing things with him, not necessarily for him, is the answer.

Further, establish priorities with him. Discuss his ideas and needs. These change as he matures. Going camping with his father may be one of his greatest ambitions.

Also; be open and honest with your son; be real; be yourself; admit failure. If you have wronged your son, ask for his forgiveness. He does not need a father who does no wrong, he needs a father who deals squarely with his weaknesses. Encourage your son. Seek to develop a positive attitude toward him. Say something complimentary to him each day. The one thing in ten he does wrong usually receives more recognition that the nine he does right. Praise promotes wholesome personality development, while criticism leads to a loss of self esteem.

Then, discipline him when he disobeys. You have no choice in this if you are obedient to the Lord. Both parents are responsible to God to teach him obedience.

And surely you are to share Jesus Christ with him. Ask him directly about his relationship to Jesus. Do not take his salvation for granted. Be alert for opportunities to read the Bible and discuss spiritual things together, just the two of you. Be a father, not just his mother’s husband. Since you are away at work much of the time he spends more time with his mother; and when you are all together be all there. Finally, be the man you want him to become. You have no right to expect God to make your son something you do not have the faith to believe He can make you. Your spiritual leadership in the home, love and respect for your wife, and concern for each child, will be the greatest heritage you give him.

Can we, along with Paul, in his letter to the Corinthians say: “Be imitators of me, as am in Christ”, (1 Cor. 11:1)? Could you as a father ask your son to “join in following my example, and observe those who walk according to the pattern you have in us”? (Phillip 3:17)  Can you honestly ask your son to “put into practice all you learned from me and saw me doing”‘, (Phillip. 4:9)?

I remember quite clearly a sign that was placed on the back of a bakery, facing the railway tracks. I travelled that journey to Sydney for over five years, yet nearly every day that sign caught my attention. “What you eat today, walks and talks tomorrow”. Is that not just “spot on”? What we feed our sons today, walks and talks tomorrow.

BILL PEET

Want to know more? A recently published book titled “The Manual – Getting Masculinity Right” by Al Stewart is an excellent read for fathers, (and mothers) wanting their sons (and daughters) to grow into mature, Christian young men and women.

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 RTC And Its Theological Climate

Rev. J.W. Deenick. Trowel & Sword, July 1977.

Preamble: From time to time one of the criticisms of T&S was that it tended to be a magazine written by ministers for ministers. Some would say that the following article is an example of that and to some degree they would be correct. But it is also true that what is taught at RTC eventually affects in some way every member of the Reformed Churches of Australia and New Zealand. What is equally important for the health of RTC and by extension the Churches is that there is a constant appraisal being carried out by competent, experienced and qualified “independent” assessors to ensure that the college does not stray from its core values. Just as “bracket creep” can cause increased taxation by stealth, “theology creep” can result in a gradual decline in theological standards if careful vigilance is not exercised.

The RTC and its Theological Climate

For some time now and from close quarters I have been an interested and sympathetic observer of the work done and the theological instruction given at the RTC; and I am not sure that I am altogether happy with what I see. Since the association which maintains the college seeks and receives the most loyal support of many T&S readers as association members, and since the Reformed Churches are vitally interested in the kind of training for the ministry that the RTC offers it seems proper, and very much in the interest of the College itself, that this matter becomes a subject of public discussion.

The question could be raised (and quite legitimately, I think) whether in a time like ours, in which we are confronted with so many issues of much greater importance, the theological direction of a small college like the RTC is worth quarrelling about. Yet, if it is worth having the College and supporting it with many sacrifices it must have some value to think about the theological climate prevailing there.

THE PROBLEM 

The main problem, as I see it, is that the theological faculty at the RTC is moving away distinctly from the theological climate of what I would like to call the continental Reformed Church and is moving much more exclusively in the direction of orthodox presbyterianism; and I deplore that.

I realise that I have to explain what I mean with that distinction and I will try to do that.

With orthodox presbyterianism I do not refer to any particular church or to any particular theological seminary. My interest is theologies, not people. With orthodox presbyterianism then I have in mind that section of the Presbyterian Church that desires to be loyal to the Westminster confessional statements and that for its (systematic) theology has leaned rather heavily on men like A.A. Hodge and B.B. Warfield, and more recently on men like John Murray and E.J. Young.

When, in distinction of – not in contrast to – orthodox presbyterianism, I refer to continental Reformed theology I have in mind that section of Reformed protestantism particularly in Europe and the USA that in loyalty to the confessional standards of the Reformation looked upon Herman Bavinck as its systematic theologian and that in later years has been influenced theologically by men like S.G. deGraaf, K. Schilder, Herman Ridderbos and G.C. Berkouwer (even if not all his later publications were welcomed with equal and undivided enthusiasm); and in matters of philosophy by men like Vollenhoven and Zuidema.

Ever since I came to New Zealand in 1952 I have observed orthodox presbyterianism with considerable and sympathetic interest and have compared it with what I had experienced until then (and later) in the continental Reformed tradition. I have always felt that while the two traditions were in agreement on the basic issues there was still a marked difference in theological approach. I have always considered a man like E.J. Young to differ distinctly from Herman Ridderbos. I found John Murray’s Principles of Conduct to have very little in common with e.g. A. Troost’s propositions on Christian ethics, and I feel that the theological climate in which men like C. Veenhof, Calvin Seerveld and R.H. Bremmer live differs markedly from that in which Jay E. Adams and John Frame move. 

Where I precisely see the difference is another question, and I hope to come back to that, but I doubt whether anyone could deny the difference. A simple comparison of e.g. G.I. Williamson’s treatment of the Westminster Confession in study lessons with e.g. Gordon J. Spykman’s Christian Faith in Focus could illustrate that further; as could a comparison of Jack Postma’s meditations in T&S with certain sermons in Word of Salvation.

All of this may not be so immediately obvious to the average Reformed and Presbyterian churchgoer, but a somewhat closer observation over a longer period of time usually makes it much clearer. It is not a matter of orthodoxy or of confessional loyalty. That does not really come into it. Both in the Presbyterian and in the Reformed community we have had (and we still have) our problems on that score. But that is not what am referring to. Since the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands (GKN) allow for more doctrinal liberty in their circle and since the Christian Reformed Church in the USA has left a number of questions (round the doctrines of Holy Scripture, the Church and Election/Reprobation) unclarified, things have naturally become somewhat more complicated church wise; but the Presbyterian world has not been free from such problems either and a more careful analysis of orthodox presbyterian church life in Scotland, Ireland and the USA leads to its own surprises.

In our own circle the cases of Dr. J.A. Schep and of Dr. S. Woudstra naturally come to mind in this context. Both Dr. Schep and Dr. Woudstra believed that in their case one could speak only of a difference in theological approach within the confessional and orthodox framework. Classis Victoria (very much in the firing line) supported Dr. Woudstra in this, but not Dr. Schep; while others, among whom the RTC authorities and this commentator, believed that also in Dr. Woudstra’s case the confessional integrity of the College was at stake. But we do not have to go into this now. Dr. Schep has gone to be with the Lord and Dr. Woudstra will soon leave us and return to the USA. We hope that never such problems will arise for him again.

But there is a lesson to be learned from Dr. Woudstra’s welcome within the Reformed community. When controversial issues were avoided Dr. Woudstra obviously represented a spiritual climate, an atmosphere in church-life, in preaching and in teaching with which many Reformed people in Australia and New Zealand could easily identify. His New Zealand tour at the time was a decided success and in Australia as well as in New Zealand his contact with many of the rank and file was natural and cordial.

This, of course, works both ways. The man of orthodox presbyterian convictions will find a more natural and easy welcome in congenious (sic) surroundings. But one thing I have noticed both in the church and at the College is that the continental Reformed climate has been much more open to the orthodox presbyterian contribution than the other way round. Reformed Church pulpits and the Reformed Church ministry have not only welcomed but have actively sought the assistance of orthodox presbyterian men. Yet, not many Reformed men without orthodox presbyterian credentials made the grade of being invited to the pulpits of the orthodox presbyterianism. But more about this later.

THE DIFFERENCE 

Coming to what see as the difference between the two approaches I would like to single out a few areas of difference that have interested me more particularly.

a). First of all I have found orthodox presbyterianism generally much more traditional in its orthodoxy, and much less imaginative in its systematic theology. Historically this is quite understandable. Orthodox presbyterianism had to concentrate on holding the fort of the traditional biblical truths; and particularly in the USA they often did that in unison with fundamentalist theologians. But this has hindered orthodox presbyterianism in critically examining its own theological heritage and in developing new ways of presenting the orthodox truth systematically. The fact that Louis Berkhof’s Systematic Theology (already dated when it was first published in 1938; like in the Netherlands A.G. Honig’s Manual of Reformed Dogmatics, also published in 1938) had to be reprinted so many times (Honig’s was never reprinted) reflects unfavourably on orthodox presbyterianism in the English speaking world.

In comparison with what I saw happen in Reformed circles at the time I have found orthodox presbyterianism unimaginative in its systematic theology. I refer to the penetrating questioning to which K. Schilder subjected all the dignified scholastic distinctions that Reformed theology had borrowed from the Roman Catholic past; to his crusade against subjectivism in Reformed theology; to S.G. deGraaf’s masterly renewal of the doctrine of the Covenant of Grace and to the way he used this insight in his sermons and in his “Verbondsgeschiedenis” (sic); to Vollenhoven’s critical examination of the philosophical background of certain theological positions that until then had been unquestionably accepted.

I hope that I am not unfair when in distinction I compare orthodox presbyterian theology with a stately old mansion kept in perfect condition with all the antique furniture still in place and neatly polished but not really so very functional anymore. In orthodox presbyterianism all the old (pre-reformational) theological distinctions (between the natural versus the supra-natural; the common versus the particular; the external versus the internal; the communicable versus the incommunicable) still seem to be important.

b). Another point at which I have found orthodox presbyterianism to differ markedly from the continental tradition is in its use of Holy Scripture; I mean the use of Holy Scripture to prove a point of doctrine or of morality, and the way in which Holy Scripture is introduced to give answers to present day problems. For every problem there seems to be a text.

A somewhat frightening example of this is Jay E. Adams. His appeal to James 5:14 (in Competent to Counsel: 105ff) could serve as an example. He does there what biblicism in the past used to do; he introduces James for the purpose of answering a few typically twentieth century questions. He finds in that text that “James clearly recognises two sources of sickness, one organic and one non-organic” and “if the cause (of the sickness) is otherwise unknown – and perhaps even in the case of some known causes – James directed that when the patient discusses his sickness with the elders and prayer is made the possibility of sickness as the result of sin ought to be discussed”. Doctors and parsons take note. James has it all worked out for you. The first thing to be done in the case of the next illness in your church is to make a divinely ordained distinction between organic and non-organic sicknesses; and if the cause has been found to be non-organic the doctor departs and the counsellor takes over. This manner of appeal to Scripture is foreign to the Reformed theology that I have learned to love.

Another example of this we found in a recent issue of T&S in a letter to the editor, March ’77. In it Dr. Noel Weeks introduces Job 38:33 for the purpose of answering once again a typically twentieth century question. The question was: do we come to know any of God’s laws (by which He in His providence governs the creation) from the study of nature? Is it possible for a Christian scientist to discover (through his scientific research) any of the laws that God has “built in” in the creation? To answer that question Dr. Weeks appeals to what God said to Job: “Do you know the ordinances of the heavens?” Job’s answer is: No. Job did not know the ordinances of the heavens. Q.e.d. (sic) God Himself says that we cannot know his laws and ordinances. The creation reveals God’s character, not His laws. And so a scholastic distinction between the knowledge of God’s character (which is possible) and the knowledge of God’s laws (which is impossible) has received divine sanction. What interests me at present is not so much the distinction itself (which I cannot accept as correct, but hope to come back to that) but the use of Scripture to sanction it. Schilder and Berkouwer, I would have hoped, could have taught us that only after the most careful analysis of Scripture may we trust to have a “proof text”.

One more example. G.I. Williamson in his treatment of the issue of marriage and divorce uses 1 Cor. 7:15 in an interesting way; The Westminster Confession of Faith, for study classes, 185f. As Williamson sees it the NT permits divorce only on the ground of adultery; except that Paul permits divorce in case an unbelieving party wilfully deserts a believing party. What interests me here Williamson’s implied criticism of the Westminster Confession with the help of a “proof text”. The Westminster fathers obviously allow for the possibility of divorce in case of wilful and irreparable desertion, irrespective of the parties being believing or unbelieving. But Williamson can not agree with that. He has no text for it. He has a text only for the case of an unbelieving party deserting a believing party, I Cor. 7:15. And so we find another distinction (between two kinds of desertion) divinely sanctioned. The difficulty in the courts of the church and the state will be to give conclusive evidence concerning the parties being believing or unbelieving. The Westminster theologians avoided that dilemma.

In my experience this manner of using the Word of God could no longer pass as valid in Reformed circles.

c). There are, however, several other points at which I believe to have observed a marked difference between the two traditions. Very briefly I mention two more. One is the approach to the sermon.

The redemptive historical approach to the sermon never seems to have made a noticeable impact among orthodox presbyterians. From my reading of sermons I learn that there continues to be a decided tendency to be doctrinal in the exposition and, what I would call, moralistic, sometimes subjectivistic, in the application. I am not disputing that many excellent sermons are preached in orthodox presbyterian circles. We all know that there are. But there is a different approach. Often this is already obvious from the choice of the text; and the road from the text to the application is an uncomplicated one. In fact often the text seems to have been chosen for the very purpose of providing a direct answer to a present day problem, be it a moral or a doctrinal one.

It is not untypical that in 1958 Charles Hodge’s Princeton Sermons have been republished, introduced by John Murray. I find Hodge’s sermons a disturbing example of how one should not use a text. Since the RTC is there also to train preachers it seems to me to be a point of considerable importance to the churches that the continental Reformed contribution to homiletics be represented on the theological faculty.

d). One final point. Orthodox presbyterianism seems to have been so involved in the defence of its doctrinal heritage that its interest (and involvement) in the great social and political issues of the day has been extremely limited. In fact it seems as if the liberal wing of presbyterianism has been more alert to maintaining this aspect of the great presbyterian past than the conservatives have. At this point too, the continental Reformed climate has been markedly different.

CONCLUSION

1). But I must come to my conclusions. In the above I have referred to a few individual authors to make my point, but the issue is not persons or nationalities. Theologies are the issue.

11). Since the retirement of Dr. J.A. Schep and the departure of Dr. G. VanGroningen and Dr. K. Runia the balance in the theological climate at the RTC has changed distinctly. At the time others in their position and responsibility and this commentator as synodical deputy repeatedly expressed their concern about this to the principal and the other faculty members. We never seem to have been understood. And so today I am more concerned about the future appointment policy at the College than I have been before.

111). I am being told now that the distinction I have made above is no longer valid; that we have passed that stage and that since we all are now reading the same books we have come to the point that largely we all present the same theology.

I do not believe a word of it. Nor would I want it to be true. The men appointed at the theological faculty of the RTC have been appointed as the men they were with the theology they had, and no one expected them to change their views. Every one is expected to make his own contribution. But what I express my concern about is that at present the voice of the continental Reformed theology that I love and for which I see a great future is not really represented on the faculty.

IV). Since Dr. Van Groningen and Dr. Runia left, the faculty has often been frightfully weak in manpower. Yet never at any time has the Reformed ministry been called upon to assist at the College in a meaningful way.

I think of two possibilities in particular which as synodical deputy I repeatedly urged upon the remaining members of the faculty. The Rev. J.F.H. vanderBom whose outstanding qualifications and experience in the field of homiletics and pastoral work have no peer at the RTC has never been invited to a meaningful participation in the training program at the College. There would have been a variety of ways in which this could have been done.

The same is true about the Rev. A.I. deGraaf whose theological talent and enthusiasm would have been (and still would be) a much needed inspiration at the College, but who never seemed to qualify for a worthwhile part in the program.

V). The thing for which I am pleading is that in the appointments policy at the theological faculty of the RTC the theology which has its roots in the Netherlands (mainly) be accorded the same courtesy as which it offered. Orthodox presbyterianism has been given a royal place at the College, and no one ever complained about it. That courtesy should be returned.

For the welfare of the Australian Reformed Churches, for its preaching, its evangelism and its involvement in the issues of the day I believe this to be essential. I do not believe that the RTC constituency, or for that matter the Australian Reformed Churches, will be satisfied with any less.

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

Leave a comment

Why Should I Give Money To The Church?

Unknown – Possibly J.VanderBom or J.W. Deenick. Trowel & Sword, April/May 1955. 

Preamble: The question of giving to the church is never far from the minds of church leaders, and particularly treasurers in their efforts to balance budgets. Rather than looking at this in purely fiscal terms, the author of this article looks more closely at the mindset behind giving. (Think of the woman who gave all that she had – a penny). When it comes to “cheque-book Christianity” mentioned below, this has in recent times been replaced by electronic transfers; particularly since the forced closure of churches during the Covid pandemic. Many have continued that practice after the churches reopened. So the question remains, is the offering like any other bill requiring payment, either weekly, monthly or even annually or do we still differentiate between paying a bill and giving back to the Lord what He has given us? 

Why Should I Give Money To The Church?

The Rev. Arnold Brink, writing in “the Banner” under the heading “Not Yours But You”, gives the following answer; Probably the first answer that springs to mind is, “That is the only way the Church and schools and other Christian institutions can operate.” Although the answer is true enough, it does not establish a very good spirit for real stewardship. Our eyes range often too close to the horizon and then we see the Church too much in terms of its faulty human representatives. We become critical of those human leaders and of those imperfect institutions and it becomes easy to conclude that they are not worthy of our support. Or, although we may not feel critical towards the Church, our giving then may become a matter of a quite loveless obligation.

In that spirit, a conversation like the following may ensue when Church members meet the Church treasurer on the street on Saturday night. The member asks: “What am I owing to the Church budget?” The treasurer does a bit of rapid calculation and says, “Well, on the basis of so-and-so much per family, your share is so much.” “All right,” says the Church member, “I’m paying bills anyway, I’ll pay that one too.”

You see what is happening. The “support of the Church”  becomes one of the financial obligations of life, like paying the rent or the food bill. Paul sets giving on a higher level when, in 2 Corinthians 8:5, he commends the Churches of Macedonia, that “first they gave their own selves to the Lord, and to us through the will of God.” This rests stewardship squarely upon Christian consecration. Giving then is a matter of loving obedience to the Lord.

Of course, we believe we are justified by faith. But that is the faith of a living, active human being. It is therefore a faith that expresses itself in works. Therefore our life of gratitude cannot be separated from our knowledge of sin and of the way of salvation. But we are still naturally selfish and find it hard to part with that which we have come to think of as “our own”.

The Bible recognises that spiritual problem. It is claimed that one word of every seven in the New Testament deals with material things. The spiritual must come to practical expression in material terms.

We are beset with a “get all you can” type of thinking. Its object is money and social position. With such motives gripping church members as well as those outside, the need of the hour is not so much for more money for the church but a new appreciation of the joyous, worshipful spirit that ought to be behind and interwoven into our giving. Then it becomes, not “cheque-book” Christianity, but real Christian Stewardship!

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

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