Spiritual Effects Of Rock Music

Bill van Schie. Trowel & Sword. April 1975

Preamble: Has there ever been a more contentious topic of discussion between parents and and their offspring than music? As a general rule each generation has a preference for the music that they grew up with. The advent of Rock and Roll in the second half of the twentieth century produced many a lively discussion of the various styles of music being played at the time. But was it ever any different? Just as music differs from one generation to the next, so it also differs from one culture to the next; each having its own distinct sound. In this article Bill attempts to draw a distinction between between what he regards as “good” music and “bad” music by comparing “Rock” to Christian music. He also attempts to define what constitutes “good music”. He’s a brave man. We would particularly love to receive some thought and comments on whether you think he succeeded.

Spiritual Effects Of Rock Music

When talking to young people about this subject the first reaction I always receive is, “You take rock music too seriously. More seriously than we take it. Yes, we like the sound of it, we like to dance to it but we don’t take this religious nonsense of the Stones and the others seriously at all. We only listen to it as a means of entertainment. Mum and Dad have Beethoven, Mozart and Bach; well, I like the Stones, Bob Dylan and Frank Zappa. It is just a matter of taste in entertainment.”

When young people talk like this I am worried. It reminds me of the illustration that Frank Garlock uses to describe many teenagers in the church today. There was a man who had a Mercedes Benz. He didn’t have his own house, he didn’t have much money in the bank but his pride and joy was his Mercedes. He made out his will and stated that when he died he would like to be buried sitting behind the steering wheel of his Mercedes. One day he died and the funeral directors saw to it that his last wish was carried out. They dug big hole, lifted the Mercedes by crane and put the dead man’s body behind the steering wheel. As they lowered the Mercedes into the great grave one of the dead man’s friends standing by watching said to another friend, “Boy that is really living”. Although the man was dead this was classed as really living.

Many young people could be doing and saying the same thing today: Look at those Rock groups with their free and easy style. Look at the groupies, their followers who can let go and be free. Look at the young people who go to their concerts and do what they want to do without inhibitions. Boy, that is really living.

Rock is Dead 

But Rock and what it has to offer is dead. The whole Rock culture, the drug culture is dead. It may give a few kicks, but it is dead. Rock may encourage young people to let their bodies move to the impulse of Rock’s beat, but Rock is dead. Rock may encourage young people to blow their minds and think as the groups think, but Rock is dead. Rock may claim to have religious answers and spiritual experiences, but Rock is dead, it is satanic, anti-Christian and of this world; and the things of this world will pass away. Yes, it looks attractive to young people, the whole life style looks attractive; but those in it are washouts and spiritually dead. Only the saving power of the Lord Jesus Christ can save them from their deadness. Our young people should not be asking: How far can I go with Rock? Where is the border-line and I will live right on it. Young people should be encouraged to seek the things of Christ.

In Christ Alive

In Ecclesiasties 12:1 it says, “Remember your Creator in the days of your youth.” Religion is not only for when you settle down and get married. Remember your Creator in the days of your youth. With your studies, with your boyfriend and girlfriend, with your social life and with your music; remember your Creator in the days of your youth.

In 2 Cor.6:14-17 the Bible commands Christians, which includes the covenant youth, to be separate and not unequally yoked to unbelievers. This applies to marriage, to business, to friendships and whereever yoking (binding) would mean that we would have to bend our principles. This also applies to our music and social life. Young people are not to be involved in, or committed to, a style of music that is anti-Christian in meaning and direction. Instead young people should be free to serve the Lord with all their heart, bursting with song.

In 2 Tim. 2:22 Christians are encouraged to aim not at the things that defile and stain with sin. But to aim at righteousness, holiness and purity; the things of God. Instead of dabbling in Rock and seeing how far they can go, our young people should be aiming at what is righteous, holy and pure and as young people they will lead happier and more satisfying lives in Christ.

In Cor.10:31 Christians are encouraged to do all things to the Glory of God. This means that also with their music our young people need to glorify God. Can this be done with groups, songs and music that preach free sex and rebellion; that worship evil and personify the devil himself; by dabbling in the occult? No, must be the answer. For what has light to do with darkness and the kingdom of heaven with that of the evil one? The break must be a clean and complete one.

The Alternatives

We must not overlook that for young people Rock music is not only a means of entertainment but also a means of social expression. It is theirs and it is what distinguishes them as individuals. The social importance of Rock Music may be of more importance to young people than we may realise. So if we are to encourage young people to make a clean break with Rock then we must also help them find an alternative. What kind of music can be a satisfactory alternative?

We must be careful here that we do not fall into the trap of recommending to the young people what we may find is suitable according to our tastes. Some may like the more classical type of Beethoven and Mozart. Others may like the popular types of Bacharach and Kostelanetz, while yet others may like the country and western types such as Johnny Cash or the Carpenters. Rather than say one type of music is better than another or that one piece of music is better than another, it is better to teach the PRINCIPLES OF GOOD MUSIC. Remember what Dr. H. Hanson said about music, “Music is made up of many ingredients and, according to the proportions of these components it has powers for evil as well as good.” The question is which proportions of musical components make up a good piece of music?

Principles of Good Music 

Frank Garlock in his book “The Big Beat” lists three major characteristics to be found in good music.

1. Good music must have beauty of design and coherence of form.

2. A good composer must have discipline, consistency, originality, subtlety, variety, dignity and a comprehensive detailed knowledge of the tools of composition.

3. The composer must show an innate sense of balance between the intellectual and the emotional elements and an impeccable sense of relation between tension and relaxation, contraction and release, dissonance and consonance, motion and response.

Testing Music

Besides these major characteristics there are other tests that can be applied to see if a piece of music or a style of music is sick or not. The listener should ask the following questions:

1. Is there a variety of volume changes in the music? A good piece of music changes its volume from loud to soft or soft to loud as part of the constant pattern.

2. Are there tempo changes in the music? A good piece of music changes its speed quite often and very soon after it has begun.

3. Are there rhythmic changes in the music? The rhythm is normally found in the background and with the help of pauses it changes throughout the piece of good music.

4. Does the melody fluctuate? In a well balanced piece of music we have normally four stages. There is the introduction which leads into the well developed melody which builds up to a climax after which the music slows down to a rest.

5. Is there variety in the music? The key to all good music is variety. In volume, tempo, rhythm and melody there must be variety. Variety is important to maintain the balance of the music. The balance between tension and relaxation. Music that is all tension with little relaxation is sick music, as is music that is all relaxation and no tension. There must be a balance between tension and relaxation. Rock music is all tension with little relaxation.

Alternatives Available 

Are there alternatives available for our young people? Music that is exciting, thrilling and also well balanced? Is there good Christian music available so that they can sing out their hearts to the praise of God?

Yes, there is. Recently some very good material has become available. Groups like the Proclaimers, the Medical Mission Sisters, Nigel Brook Singers, Young World Singers and people like Ralph Carmichael are producing music that is an acceptable alternative to Rock. These are only a few of the many groups and composers writing good music today.

Our Aim

Christian parents have vowed to bring up their children in the fear of the Lord. This includes education in the powerful sphere of music. Do we train our children in everything except in the way they must distinguish good music from bad? Christian parents must train their young people to distinguish what is right and wrong in music. Too often it is left to the young person to work this out all by him or herself. Yet, with the increasing deterioration of the values and morals of society Christian parents must be aware of the deterioration of the music that is an expression of the values and morals of our society. Let it be our aim to equip our youth with the ability to judge what is pleasing to God in the sphere of music.

Johann Sebastian Bach once said:

“The aim and final end of all music should be nothing but the glory of God, and the refreshment of the spirit”.

Bill Van Schie.

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

Should We Still Commemorate October 31?

Is Rome Really Changing?

Dr. K. Runia. Trowel & Sword, October 1964

Preamble: Is Reformation day still remembered and celebrated by your local church? In our church, Reformation day was always celebrated with a combined service with the Presbyterian and Reformed Presbyterian churches. Then came the covid lockdowns and the service had to be cancelled. To this day it has not yet been revived. In this article Dr. Runia gives a concise outline of the reasons for the Reformation and the differences in theology between the Church of Rome and the Reformation churches. While at one time there were hopes held that reunification might be a possibility, this possibility, even today, seems unlikely. His closing paragraphs also sound a warning for churches faithful to the teachings of the reformation in 1964, (and even more so today); to beware of churches “who call themselves Protestants, but they are not”. He writes, “we do not want to glorify history. But we want thankfully to commemorate that great re-discovery of the Gospel.

Should We Still Commemorate October 31?

At the end of this month we shall again commemorate Reformation day. Usually we take October 31, 1517 as the starting point of the Reformation. To a certain degree this is correct, for on that day an action was performed, which was to be of decisive importance for the whole Christian Church. At the same time we must remember that at that time no one, not even Luther himself, was aware of the tremendous significance of this action. At that moment Luther definitely did not envisage a break with the Church of Rome, his own Church. As someone has said: “It had never been Luther’s aim either to found a new Church, or even within the historically existing Church to carry out any elaborately pre-arranged form of organisation”.

And yet it was bound to come! For Luther had made the greatest discovery of his day, of much greater importance even than the discovery of the new world by Columbus. Luther had re-discovered the original Gospel, the Gospel of Jesus Christ as the only Saviour, the Gospel of justification by faith in this Saviour, as expounded by Paul and all the other writers of the New Testament. This re-discovery was not a thing that could take place ‘in isolation’. It could not but break the old ecclesiastical structure, which had been erected on the basis of an entirely different understanding of the Gospel. And so it happened. After a few years only, there was a new Church, the Church of the Reformation.

It cannot be denied that the old Church, too, did some cleaning up. Rather soon after the Reformation a council was convened, the famous Reformed Council of Trent (1545-1563). This council did some good work. Some of the worst and most conspicuous abuses were removed. Yet on the whole, this council was one loud and strong confirmation and perpetuation of the old understanding of the Gospel and of the ecclesiastical structure based on it. The council consciously and intentionally took a position which was in direct opposition to the Reformation. At this council the theology of the Counter-Reformation was doctrinally formulated and fixed. And as such it has been decisive for the Roman Church and it’s theology. The decisions of the First Vatical Council (1870), which defined the infallibility of the Pope, were an immediate continuation of the theology of Trent. The doctrinal decisions regarding the Mariology (1854: the immaculate conception of Mary herself; 1950: the ascension of Mary) were another manifestation of the same theology.

In our day one hears many voices which say that the situation has completely changed, for Rome is in the process of a new reformation. They point to the new interest in the study of the Bible in Roman Catholic circles, to the new attitude of openness towards the Protestants (John XXIII), to recent changes in Church polity (the mass may be said in the vernacular, etc.), and other matters. Some observers are so optimistic that they do believe in possible union of the Roman Church and the various Protestant Churches. Of course, no one expects it in the near future, but there is such a fundamental change in the Roman Catholic Church that such a union does not belong to the impossibilities any longer.

But – is Rome really changing?

Of course, the above mentioned things are true. There are certain changes in Church polity (although they do not go very far), There is a different attitude to believers of other churches. What has never happened before, has happened in our day: we Protestants are called ‘separated brethren’ (although one does not notice much of it in Australia). There is indeed a growing and gladdening interest in the Bible. In some countries of Europe (e.g. Germany and The Netherlands) all members of the Church are encouraged to read and study their Bibles daily. Roman Catholic scholars are studying’ the Bible as never before and many valuable commentaries are being produced by them, The present Vatican Council has rejected the theory of the two sources of revelation: the Bible AND the tradition as being on a par.

But does all this mean a real change? Can we expect much for the future?

Viewing the situation as it is today we doubt it very much. Why? For the simple reason that we see nothing of a NEW UNDERSTANDING OF THE GOSPEL! This was the secret of the Reformation of Luther and Calvin and the other Reformers. In their case there was the re-discovery of the original Gospel and THEREFORE they became the Reformers of the Church.

At this moment there is no trace whatsoever of such a new understanding of the Gospel in the Church of Rome. On the contrary. On all sides we are assured, even by the most prominent representatives of the new, ‘open! attitude, that the dogma of the Roman Church (that is, Rome’s old, unscriptural understanding of the Gospel) is and remains infallible. We give some examples.

Professor Hans Kueng, one of the younger and leading theologians, brilliant spokesman of the ‘new theologie’ (the so-called ‘theologie nouvelle’), wrote a book in 1961 entitled “The Council and Reunion”. In this book he shows his openness towards the Churches of the Reformation and expresses his hopes that his own Church in this council may pave the way to a better understanding and, if possible, a future reunion. Here and there he makes amazing statements, but on page 163 he tells us : “Dogmatic definitions express the truth with infallible accuracy and are in this sense unalterable”.

Cardinal Auguste Bea, president of the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity and the uncrowned leader of the new movement in the Roman Catholic Church, has more than once expressly stated that re-union, as far as his church is concerned, can only take place, when the other churches submit in matters of doctrine and discipline under “the Supreme Pastor the successor of St. Peter, the bishop of Rome”.

The new ‘Catholic Dictionary of Theology’, now being produced, declares that reunion always means acceptance of “the supremacy of the Holy See and the doctrinal definitions of 1854, 1870 and 1950, together with those of the Council of Trent”.

In a recently published volume of essays on ‘The Church’, written by the present Pope, when he was still a cardinal, we read among others: “The Church’s present juridicial structure certainly does need a few touches, though it cannot be substantially changed”. Of the Papacy he writes: “It is in the Pope that the Church centres its unity. The raising of the Pope, not only to the centre but to the summit as well, both moves and intoxicates the Church. His titles… do not signify that the Pope derives his functions from the Church, but rather that he sums up in his person the full powers of the whole Church. The Pope can act with full authority and efficacy without a council”.

From these few quotations it is more than clear that Rome continues to maintain its theology, that is, it’s old understanding of the Gospel. In my opinion this means that, humanly speaking, we cannot expect any real reformation. It remains a matter of reform, not of reformation. And therefore we have every reason still to commemorate the great Reformation of the 16th century. Yes, particularly in our day we should do this. For this is a day of utter confusion. Many Protestants seem to have lost every sense of discernment. They are so much caught up in their own ecumenical desires that they do not realise any more that between Rome and us (and also between us and many who call themselves Protestants, but they are not) the understanding of the only and true Gospel of grace in Jesus Christ is at stake.

No, we do not want to glorify history. But we want thankfully to commemorate that great re-discovery of the Gospel. This Gospel can be summarised in a few expressions: SOLA GRATIA-by grace alone; SOLUS CHRISTUS – Christ alone; SOLA FIDE – by faith alone; SOLA SCRIPTURA Scripture alone.

These are four different expressions, but they all say the same thing; there is but one Gospel, the Gospel of God’s grace in Jesus Christ, revealed to us in Scripture and to be accepted by us in true faith. There is no other Gospel, and we dare to say with the apostle Paul: “Even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed, (‘ Anathema sit’). As we have said before, so now I say again: If any one is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed (‘Anathema sit’).! (Gal. 1:8,9). 

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

Leave a comment

At home With One Another In The Church

Rev. John Westerdorp. Trowel & Sword, April 1996

Preamble: On reading this article from John Westendorp the thought struck me, have we learned anything in the last thirty years? Worse still, are we going backwards? Have you come across any Reformed recluses lately; or Reformed church surfers, looking for that perfect church just as a surfer might spend a lifetime looking for that perfect wave; or members making judgements base on emotion rather than objective truth? Nearly thirty years ago John issued a challenge to the church and to the people who make up the church. In effect he is saying, unity is life but division leads to destruction.

At Home With One Another In The Church

Lessons From A Talk Show

The orthodontist’s waiting room was empty, the receptionist filling in her time watching a lunch-time talk show from the U.S. of A. In response to my greeting and a comment about the unusual emptiness of the waiting room she reminded me that holidays were over and all the kids back at school. Just then the phone rang. While the young lady dealt with the caller I tried to figure out what issue was being debated on the talk show. It seemed two young women (single mums) had been sharing a flat but had fallen out with one-another. I picked up enough of the story to know that there had been some arguments over a boyfriend and the kids. What struck me was the abuse they were hurtling at one another. Here were two very angry young women. Apparently each had been trying to get the other kicked out of the flat but both regarded it as their home. Despite attempts by others to intervene they were at a stalemate. So here they were venting their spleen on (inter-) national television. When the receptionist got off the phone I asked her, “Are these two for real or is it just an act they’re putting on for the talk-show audience?” With a sigh, she replied, “It’s for real!”

Driving home I reflected on that brief scenario. Of course two Christian people would never get into a situation like that. They would resolve that kind of difficulty in the light of the gospel of Christ. And if they could not work it out then one would be willing to be the least and let the other have her way. Maybe, if the worst came to the worst, the pastor or the Elders might have to do a little mediating but surely the matter would be satisfactorily resolved before too long. One certainly wouldn’t see the anger or hear the vitriolic language that was evident in that lunch-time talk show.

As a pastor I know better than to day-dream like that. Ideally, that is indeed how it ought to be in the community of God’s people. The reality is far different. I think of two brothers who had a run-in over a business venture that went sour some eight years ago. The Session tried to mediate and saw fault on both sides. Today they cannot be together at the same family celebration nor worship in the same church. And because Session did not decide in their favour, their view of the Elders is nothing if not hostile. 

Or I think of the man and the woman who went through a bitter divorce. They both faithfully attend church and claim to believe that Jesus came to make all things new. But they both try, in unsubtle ways, to turn their children against the other parent. The divorce was ten years ago but the anger and hatred come out every time I raise the subject with either of them.

The relationship breakdown on that talk-show is typical of relationships gone sour in a fallen and broken world. And the sad part is that these relationships can break to such a degree that it seems even the gospel of Christ can’t mend them again. That is not a reflection on the powerlessness of the gospel of Jesus but on the hardness of sin. As a pastor it is especially these situations that make me sigh with the receptionist: this is for real! Except that I go one step further and long for the return of Jesus. Today we still live in a world in which all too often we can’t be at home with one another…  only the coming of the Saviour on the clouds will usher in that time when we can live with one another again in peace and harmony.

My reflections on the way home from the orthodontist also took another turn. Here was a parable of what we have seen too often in the Christian church also in recent times. Division occurs within the local church community. Maybe over the person of the pastor, perhaps over worship, or maybe over some decisions made by Session. That division grows to the point where one faction tries to get the other faction out of the church. And like those two young Mums, neither faction wants to go because both regard this church as their home. Others try to mediate but over a period of many months the alienation only grows and increases until the inevitable happens. All this is often accompanied by bitterness and anger that is openly aired before a watching world. In the last twelve months or so several congregations in our denominations on either side of the Tasman have been traumatised because some of us could no longer find ourselves at home with others in the church.

Lessons From A Reformed Hermit

It would be interesting to attempt an analysis as to why such breakdowns have occurred in congregations in New Zealand and Australia. Were there common factors that led up to the breakdown in each instance? What role did the personality and the priorities of the pastor play in the whole affair? I suspect that such an analysis would be frightfully complex and someone highly skilled would be needed to give a full and correct assessment of each situation. I won’t even begin to attempt to do that in these pages of T&S.

What I do want to do is mention one point that has cropped up again and again in several of these churches that have gone through a crisis. There have been some who have said categorically that the issue was one of being faithful to the Reformed faith.

I read a story recently about a man of Reformed convictions. Every Sunday he would call his family together for worship. They would sit together in the family lounge – the father, the mother and the five children. Father would then lead in a family worship – he prayed, selected the psalms that were sung, and read a sermon from an old book of sermons written many years ago when people still knew what it was to be Reformed. The problem was that the man had become critical of the church he had grown up in when there had been a change of ministers. It came to the point where he could no longer consider that church his spiritual home. He took his family off to another Reformed church but there they occasionally allowed females to read the Scriptures. In yet another church he found he couldn’t handle the singing of ‘Scripture songs’. Trying yet a third church he had a run in with the preacher over some finer points of theology. One church where he felt they could fit in belonged to a denomination that was “too liberal’. The upshot was that the family now worshipped at home. He found, however, that as his children grew up they didn’t want to be part of this family ‘church’ and when his wife died he really did become a Reformed recluse. Lonely and isolated… but at least he had kept the faith. Thankfully the story ended on a more positive note as God in grace dealt with this man.

I am most certainly not an advocate for unity at the expense of truth. Genuine unity is always a unity in the truth. Furthermore, I am alarmed that today truth counts for so little. This has been highlighted by several Christian writers recently. Over the holidays I read John MacArthur’s “Ashamed of the Gospel” and David Wells’ “No Place for Truth”. These and other writers are highlighting their concern that the church at large is becoming “theologically illiterate” (Wells). We are more and more in danger of substituting principles from the business world for Biblical directives. Today we too often make our judgments based, not on objective truth but on emotions. It is hardly surprising then, if the standard for feeling at home in the church is not because this is where the truth of God is proclaimed but because this is where we get plenty of nice warm fuzzies. Small wonder too that when the flow of ‘fuzzies’ is then interrupted for one reason or another that we claim we no longer feel at home in the church and look for a new church home elsewhere.

Having said that, it also needs to be added that it is possible to go to the other extreme too where truth gets divorced from relationships. Dry orthodoxy that rides roughshod over people’s feelings is inexcusable. The Reformed hermit reminds me how easy it is to draw the boundaries of the Reformed faith ever tighter. The result will be an ever decreasing number of people with whom we can agree and with whom we feel ourselves to be at home. Smaller and small churches of people who agree on less and less.

Preserving a Balance

In this post modern society where objective truth is sacrificed to pragmatism (does it work?) and emotionalism (does it make me feel good?), it is going to be increasingly difficult for us to hold on to one another in the church.

The challenge for us in the years ahead will be to remain theologically literate, faithful to revealed truth. That becomes increasingly difficult in a world where our feelings about things are too often seen as the decisive factor and where the pragmatism reigns supreme. But that is only the first half of the challenge. The other part is to hold on to one another in love whenever the differences and difficulties surface. This is not a case of ‘either-or’, rather, ‘at homeness’ in the church will be at its healthiest where both these challenges are taken seriously.

Rev. John Westerdorp

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 ages past.

To view previous posts visit our website at www.tsrevisited.com

Leave a comment

Living By Faith

Rev. Don Baird, Trowel & Sword, April 1996

Preamble: This short article by Don Baird would seem to be stating the obvious to a Reformed Christian. Salvation is by faith alone. This seems straight forward enough, but Don takes it one step further. Faith in what? Faith in God? Read on to see where Don takes us in answering these questions.

Living By Faith

Last Sunday we celebrated the Lord’s Supper again. May I ask you: What do you think about when you come to the table? I mean: After you have found your seat and taken in who you are sitting with, what do you focus your thoughts on?

Maybe the words of the minister will determine that. You may hear him say, “That we, then, may be nourished with Christ, the true bread from heaven. Let us lift up our hearts to heaven, where he is; our Mediator, at the right hand of the Father.” Or, at least, you would hear him say that if he was using form 1 or 2 from the RCA Book of Liturgical Forms. Otherwise it would be simply, “Lift up your hearts! Look to your Lord in faith!” But anyway, your thoughts are being directed to Christ in heaven. From there he sends his Spirit so we may commune with him in a living way.

On the other hand, you may just sit there looking at the bread and the wine before you on the table. And, when it is passed around, eating and drinking those elements. At the same time we hear the familiar words, “Take, eat, remember and believe that the body of our Lord Jesus Christ was given for a complete forgiveness of all our sins.” Which leads our thoughts to focus on the historical event of the cross and what happened there. The bread is a sign and seal of his body given there; the wine of his blood poured out there. So we remember him in his death.

The way we focus our thoughts – and our faith – at the table portrays how we are to focus our thoughts – and our faith every day. Each day we want to commune with our Lord. We think of him reigning in heaven at the right hand of the Father. From there he has spoken his word, and from there he has sent out his Spirit so we may believe that word. But the more we hear of that word, and the more we trust in it, the more we realise its central message is the same as the Supper: the historical event of the cross and what happened there. The central focus of our faith is to be that event.

Recently we attended a funeral in another church. The service included the Geoff Bullock song, “Have Faith in God”. The verses speak of “the power of the presence of God” and the chorus continues,

“Have faith in God 
Let your hope rest on 
The faith He has placed in your heart; 
Never give up 
Never let go of the 
Faith He has placed in your heart.

Very disappointing. If we are to continue in faith, as the song encourages us to do, we would do well to focus our faith on what God has accomplished in Christ at the cross, and not so much on what he is doing in our hearts.

We can do no better than imitate the confession of Christ’s apostle:

“the life I live in the body I live by faith in the Son of God who loved me and gave himself for me. (Gal 2:20)

 It is by faith that we are to live. But not so much in the Son of God who loves me and is now at work in my life, although that is wonderfully true. We may rejoice at what the Lord is doing in our lives, but the focus of our faith is to be on the objective fact that Christ loved me so much that he gave himself for me on the cross.

That is the focus of God’s word; that is the focus of the Supper; because the cross is the ground of our redemption and the source of everything God graciously gives us. It is tempting to try to short-circuit God’s way. To become engrossed in what the Lord seems to be doing in us and with us. After all, that seems immediate and relevant. And it takes precious time to come to grips with the apostolic teaching on how we are involved in the cross. And yet faith is the Lord’s way. Faith in the Son of God who loved me and gave himself for me.

Don Baird

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 ages past.

To view previous posts visit our website at www.tsrevisited.com

Leave a comment

Calvinism And 1959

Prof. K. Runia. Trowel & Sword, April 1959

Preamble: It seems somewhat ironic that while we worship an unchanging and unchangeable God, Christians, including Reformed Christians, are constantly trying to change the church and themselves on the pretext of “keeping up with the times”. Last week our post looked at whether we should be calling ourselves “Calvinists” or “Christians”. This week’s article by Prof. Klaas Runia, written 16 years earlier, takes for granted that we are Calvinists and urges 1959 be a year of commemoration of John Calvin’s birthday (450 years) and 400 years since the publishing of his “Institutes”. Today Calvin and Calvinism hardly rates a mention; and these days, when (or if) we still celebrate Reformation day, it is more likely to be a celebration of Martin Luther than John Calvin.

Calvinism and 1959

Perhaps some of our readers ask themselves the question: why this combination of Calvinism and the year 1959 in the heading of this article?

The answer is very simple. 1959 is a year of commemoration for the Calvinists all over the world. And that in two regards. First it will be 450 years ago that the great Reformer John Calvin was born in Noyon, France.

Secondly it will be 400 years ago that the final edition of his masterpiece, the Institutes of the Christian Religion, was published by Calvin himself.

Are these two facts not worth to be commemorated by the Calvinists of today? The answer can only be: Yes, of course. And therefore in many countries preparations are made to celebrate these facts by special conferences, lectures, publications, etc.

–   –   –   –   –   –

At the same time, however, these same two facts call us to reflection upon the situation of present-day Calvinism. Is Calvinism of our day still the Calvinism of John Calvin? Or, to put it in a more personal way: Are we, who call ourselves Calvinists, indeed Calvinists? Or is it only a name?

In the Banner of January 2, 1959, the Editor, the Rev. John Vander Ploeg, tells a story about the inaugural address given by a Dr. John Newton Thomas, when he was installed in the chair of Systematic Theology at Union Theological Seminary.

“In the opening paragraphs the speaker introduced an imaginary Martian visitor who asks: What is the cardinal principle of your theology in the Reformed Churches? When he is told it is the sovereignty of God, he sets out to visit a representative group of Southern Presbyterian Churches to hear their ministers preach.

“Later he returns, and reports that he does not understand, seeing he has been visiting Southern Presbyterian Churches for six months or more and has yet to hear the first sermon on the sovereignty of God. He doubts whether it is true that this is the cardinal doctrine, the distinctive principle of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.

The person addressed then settles the argument by drawing & small, dust covered black book from his shelf containing the Confession of Faith (the Westminster Confession), which he hand’s to the imaginary visitor from Mars.

‘After studying it for a moment, the telling, not to say the crushing reply is made ‘Yes, here it is. But in my judgement, sir, if I may be permitted to say so, the convictions which are vital, the doctrines which are real, are the truths your prophets herald from the pulpit, the counsels your pastors whisper at the bedside of the sick and dying. I care nothing for a doctrine which reposes cadaverously in your Confession, however beautifully embalmed or perfect its state of preservation. I am interested, not in the dead, but in the living!”

–   –   –   –   –   –

I am interested, not in the dead, but in the living!

Rev. Vander Ploeg applies this to his readers from the Christian Reformed Church. But have not we to do the same here in Australia?

O no, it will not be as bad as it is pictured by Dr. Thomas, when he speaks of his church. When I glance through the sermons of our ministers which are published in the “Word of Salvation” I find sound Reformed preaching.

But what about us personally? Are we real Calvinists? Do we personally live out of the basic principle of Calvin’s teaching: the sovereignty of God, revealed in Jesus Christ?

To quote Rev. Vander Ploeg again (with some slight variations): “Are we really believing it? God is sovereign means that He is supreme in power and authority. His sovereignty is gracious, just, and also absolute. Of Him and through Him and unto Him are all things. Everything revolves about Him even as all the planets in our solar system revolve about the sun. Either God is sovereign or else He is not”.

Would a visitor from Mars be able to detect this if he visited the Reformed Churches of Australia and New Zealand? Would Paul, Augustine and Calvin recognise us as their spiritual sons in this, if they could return to Earth, and be with us for the next six months?

Are we true Calvinists?

I think we had better alter the question. For Calvinism wants only to be the expression of the Biblical revelation, the revelation in Christ.

Are we true Christians?

Paul and Augustine and Calvin will not come to visit us this year. But One will be present, in our congregations, in our families, in our personal life. Always and everywhere. Jesus Christ, the Lord of Calvin will be there. He is our Lord too,

The best commemoration of John Calvin will be a life of total obedience and trust in Jesus Christ. Then we are true spiritual sons and daughters of John Calvin.

–  –   –   –   –   –

It is, however, also fitting to give special attention to the life and work of Calvin in this year’s issues of our magazine. We will not do that to glorify Calvin. He himself did not like that at all. In one of his letters he once wrote that he did not want his followers to be called Calvinists. Not the servant is important, but the Master. Soli Deo gloria”.

But is it not the honour of God, if we give proof to appreciate his gifts to his Church? John Calvin was such a gift: One of the greatest gifts. And in commemorating John Calvin we want to thank the Lord for his goodness towards his Church.

Here then follow a few of our plans for this year.

In the May issue we will give some information about commemorations in various parts of the world. This survey will certainly help us to see again that Calvinism is a true world-movement.

In June we plan to publish a joint article of the Rev. R. Swanton ( Presb.), Dr. Leon Morris (Anglo) and myself on the Status and Prospect of Calvinism in Australia”.

For July Prof. Barkley will write an article on the Life of Calvin, followed in August by an article from the pen of Prof. Schep on Calvin as the author of Commentaries.

–   –   –   –   –   –

Finally I would give an advice in the form of a request.

I would advise all our sessions to set aside one special Sunday to observe the two facts that mark this year as a year of commemoration for all Calvinists. Probably the best date would be the Sunday preceding 10 July, the birthday of Calvin. That would mean Sunday, the 5th of July. I would like all the sessions to ask their minister to have a special sermon of commemoration.

And may I request the editors of the “Word of Salvation” to ask one of the ministers to provide for this occasion a special sermon, that will be published before July 5, so that these facts can be commemorated also in the reading services?

We, who received such a rich inheritance, owe much gratitude to God, who blessed us so abundantly in giving us this inheritance!

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 ages past. To view previous posts visit our website at www.tsrevisited.com

Leave a comment

“Calvinist” or “Christian”

Rev. Ray O. Zorn. Trowel & Sword, March 1975

Preamble: What’s in a name? This could well be considered a subtitle to this week’s post. In the early days of the Reformed Church, its leaders went to great lengths to proclaim to its members and indeed to the world that here was a church which unashamedly followed the teachings of John Calvin. This was reflected in the naming of many of its groups, particularly its youth groups. For example, we had Calvinettes, the Calvinist Cadet Corp and also the Federation of Calvinist Youthclubs of Australia. Some twenty-five years later the mood started to change. Some wanted to become more closely associated with Christians of other denominations, hence the push to drop the “label” Calvinist and replace it with “Christian”, while others argued for the distinction to be retained. The following article by Rev. Zorn was part of that debate.

“Calvinist” or “Christian”

The Editorial Secretary has asked me to respond to certain questions which have arisen in connection with the change of the name of the Calvinist Cadet Corps to the Christian Cadet Corps. Mrs. J.F. Schouten in the August issue of Trowel and Sword wrote a letter expressing her “dissatisfaction and unhappiness with the change as it waters down the principles for which we stand”. (p.25).

Mr. J.W. Bonker in the October issue wrote a letter in defence of the name change, “for we are followers or disciples of Christ (as e.g. Luther and Calvin were) and therefore we and our associations are called after Christ and not after certain men”. (p.25).

Mr. W. de Vries then wrote in the December issue that he thought it would be better to keep the old name, since “The Reformed Church stands for the teachings of John Calvin and so does the Cadet movement. It is not Lutheran or Baptist. Let it then be so and do not change the name because you are confusing others and maybe yourself too.” (p.26).

In the meantime another letter was received by the Editorial Secretary which raised the question whether the majority of Reformed Church members are indeed Calvinistic or merely Christian? For, the letter-writer alleges, aren’t the ordinary members simply bound to the Twelve Articles of our catholic and undoubted Christian faith? However, he admits that the office bearers must subscribe to the Three Forms of Unity (e.g. the Belgic Confession, the Heidelberg Catechism, and the Canons of Dort) before taking office. The letter-writer concludes by saying, “I confess that Calvinists are also Christians and that all Christians are not Calvinists, but to say that the Reformed Church – as a whole! – stands for the teachings of Calvin … that is not true!”

Without going into the issue of whether the Cadet Corps was right in changing its name from Calvinist to Christian, it seems to me that the above correspondence deals with two basic questions which need clarification.

The first is, what does the word Calvinist express? The answer to this is really quite simple. For the word stands for a movement of reform in the Christian Church of which John Calvin was a leading exponent, as over against another movement of reform of which Martin Luther was the initiator and leading exponent. Calvin’s movement followed Luther’s and was more thoroughly biblical as can be seen, for example, by the principle he advocated in the worship of God; namely, what is not commanded by God is forbidden (reflected also in the answer to Question 96 in the Heidelberg Catechism). Luther’s more mediating principle was, what is not forbidden by God is allowed.

Just as Luther’s movement of reform came to be known as Lutheran, Calvin’s came to be known by the terms Reformed, or Calvinistic. Therefore, though none of the creedal standards of the Reformed Churches of Australia were written by Calvin, they are nevertheless a part of the Reformed, or Calvinistic, movement. So also are the Westminster Confession and Catechisms, even though they were written some 100 years after Calvin’s time.

A Calvinist is therefore a Christian in the Reformed tradition. Hence, it would at any rate seem that the Cadet Corps by changing its name now wishes to identify itself more broadly with the mainstream of Christianity rather than with the narrower Reformed movement that gave it its birth. Whether this is an improvement or not we leave to the judgement of others.

The second question arising out of the above correspondence is, how Reformed (or Calvinistic) are the Reformed Churches and their members?

It is not hard to establish the fact that the official position of the Reformed Churches is a wholehearted commitment to the Reformed (or Calvinistic) faith. For the office bearers at their ordination are required to give their assent to the question, “Do you believe the Old and the New Testament to be the only Word of God and the doctrinal standards of this church to be in harmony therewith?” (Psalter Hymnal, p.106): which in the provisionally adopted new Liturgical Forms booklet is, if anything, put even more strongly, “Do you believe that the Old and New Testaments are the only Word of God and that in them the way of salvation is taught completely, also accepting the Confessional Standards of this Church as being in harmony with Scripture, and do you refute all doctrines conflicting with them?” (p.41).

Moreover, in the Form of Subscription which all office bearers are required to sign before commencing their official duties, they pledge that they “heartily believe and are persuaded that all the articles and points of doctrine contained in the Confession and Catechism of the Reformed Churches, together with the Canons of Dort do fully agree with the Word of God.” They “promise diligently to teach and faithfully to defend the aforesaid doctrine….” They moreover declare that they “not only reject all errors that militate against this doctrine… but that they are disposed to refute and contradict these and to exert themselves in keeping the Church free from such errors” (cf. p.71 of the Psalter Hymnal for the full text from which the above quotations in part are taken.)

It is therefore not easy to see how one of the letter-writers quoted above can, while admitting that the office bearers must subscribe to the confessional standards of the Reformed faith, nevertheless declare that “to say that the Reformed Church as a whole! stands for the teachings of Calvin … that is not true!”

In all fairness to him we should recognise that he bases this claim upon the fact that “ordinary members, when they confess their faith, are bound to the Twelve Articles of our catholic and undoubted Christian faith.” This reference to the Apostles’ Creed, however, which he makes is based upon a quotation found in the form for the celebration of the Lord’s Supper (Psalter Hymnal, p.95) and refers to the liturgical use members of the Reformed Churches make of the Apostles’ Creed when, as they confess their faith in its terms, they make clear the fact that they are a part of the body of Christ as a whole.

However, when they make public confession of their faith at the time they become confessing members in full standing in the Reformed Churches, they are required to give assent to several questions, the first of which is, “Do you heartily believe the doctrine contained in the Old and the New Testament, and in the articles of the Christian faith, and taught in this Christian church, to be the true and complete doctrine of salvation, and do you promise by the grace of God steadfastly to continue in this profession?” (Psalter Hymnal, p.88). In the new Liturgical Forms booklet the question equivalent to this one is even more pointed in its reference to the Reformed faith, for it asks, “Do you believe the Bible to be the Word of God, and the doctrinal standards of this church to be in harmony with that Word?” (p.36).

It should therefore by clear that the members of the Reformed Churches, no less than their office bearers, are required to give their assent to the Reformed faith as being that which they believe “to be the true and complete doctrine of salvation” since it is “in harmony with the Word of God.”

However, we are prepared to admit that there are possible (indeed probable) differences between the official position of the Reformed Churches and their actual practice, at least in some specific instances. For Christians (even Reformed ones!) are in this life in a stage of spiritual development. Therefore their grasp of truth, while it may be correct insofar as they possess it, is yet incomplete. With others it may even be somewhat deficient, due to the remaining effects of sin or to intellectual limitations. A session must therefore decide on each particular case as it examines the applicant for church membership. And because such evaluation, being subject to human frailty, is faulty at times, there will be some who are unreformed and some even who are hypocrites who go undetected by sessions and become members in the Reformed Churches.

Moreover, the writer knows of at least one case where session was faced with the problem of what to do with an application for membership by a family who was Reformed in every respect except in the matter of infant baptism which they rejected. Finally the session, not willing to make membership in the Reformed Churches more difficult than getting into heaven (as was being alleged against it), accepted the family as members, with the stipulation that they not openly oppose the Reformed teaching on infant baptism nor seek to impose their less scriptural views upon other members of the flock.

No doubt many would hail such a resolution of a difficult problem as a wise course of action. And sessions generally may be tempted to follow such a procedure with similar cases which they encounter. Consequently, cases like this may indeed exist in the Reformed Churches. None of these instances, however, is proof of the claim that the Reformed Churches stand for less than the teaching of the Reformed faith. On the contrary, if and when sessions are induced to take such a course of action for these admittedly difficult cases, it is not because the Reformed Churches are thereby less than Reformed; but rather because it is hoped that such people thus admitted to membership and subjected to the teaching and preaching of the Reformed Churches’ ministry will ultimately see the light and wholeheartedly embrace Reformed truth as the truth fully taught by God’s Word.

Sometimes, however, such members ultimately wind up in the unhappy position of being discipline cases for one reason or another. Perhaps it is because they refuse to have their children baptised, or seek to propagate their unreformed views, or lose interest in supporting the church, etc. It may therefore be questioned whether sessions are acting in wisdom when they lower the Reformed bar of admission to church membership in any way for the sake of expediency. For oftentimes they are merely postponing the day of ultimate reckoning with such cases to a later and perhaps more difficult time.

At any rate we may conclude by saying that the Reformed Churches are doctrinally committed to the Reformed position and practically maintain it, howbeit in an imperfect manner at times.

Ray O. Zorn

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 ages past.

Leave a comment

Children’s Ministry

Helen Vanderbom. Trowel & Sword, February 2003

Preamble: The growth of Christian Schools in the last fifty years or sons an indication that Christians take the raising of their children in a Godly environment very seriously. But is it the case that an unintended consequence may be that parents today may not be as diligent in teaching their children in the home as their parents and grandparents were when they were growing up? Helen was well know for being passionate about children’s ministries and for bringing up children in the Lord. In this article Helen writes about some of the issues in raising up godly children in a Christian environment in the home.

Children’s Ministry

The new year with its challenges has now come upon us in earnest. Children and Youth ministries leaders are finalising the year’s aims, programs and activities. Many plan to come to the “Strength for the Journey” conferences run in almost every state, and to other local training opportunities. Parents are sacrificing again to send children to Christian schools.

Once again we must ask, what do we want for our children? What do we want for our churches and families?

Our affluent Australian lifestyle encourages us to provide videos, video games and play stations, camps, birthday parties, trampolines, cubby houses, indoor and outdoor entertainment, takeaways and outings, music and sports lessons all for our children’s well rounded education and social development. Our children have tremendous opportunities to develop their gifts and interests.
Despite all these distractions, as Christians we still believe that the most important thing we want for our kids is that they hear and respond to God’s message and desire to serve Him with their lives.

And despite the great programs our churches may run, the home continues to play a central role in the faith development of our children, both positively and negatively.

One question I’d like to examine is the place of family devotions in the life of the Christian family. How important is it to have devotions and Bible reading as a meaningful part of the family’s regular routine? Many of us know of people who were put off the Christian faith because Dad or Mum made them sit very still after the evening meal to listen to a long Bible reading, followed by an obscure prayer. My own memories were similar except that the chapter read to us was from a children’s Bible and I loved it. The prayer was okay and we had opportunity to talk about things if we wished. 

Many ‘old generation’ parents wanted their family to hear God’s Word together and to be trained by it. Fathers as head of the household took on the priestly task of leading in worship and teaching, not with harshness but love and respect. Mothers also accepted this task and took it seriously. Such was obviously the ideal family situation. We know not all our parents were like this. When parents had Godly wisdom and loving discipline, the children were able to respond and experience the love of God and learn His ways.

What about our modern Christian families? Many of us have cast off these old ‘shackles’, and no longer believe in this Reformed tradition of evening meal Bible reading and prayer because it was so boring’ and ‘old world’. Or we do not see it as all that important. Or we would like to maintain the custom but do not have the time.

So how do we reach and teach our children effectively today?
For those of us whose children are able to go to Christian schools we expect to rely on them to do the hackwork of helping children gain an overall understanding of the Bible.
Cadets and Gems (Calvinettes) have Bible badges that also give knowledge of what the Bible is about.
VBS and Holiday Clubs generally by their nature of being short term, must concentrate on particular stories or themes of the Bible that teach about God’s love for them in Jesus.
Sunday school and after school clubs. These have a number of functions in relation to the Bible. To tell the Bible stories in a regular, refreshing and interesting way. To present the central message of the Bible, God’s ‘Big Story’ so that children can come to know, believe and have Life. To teach the Bible so children will learn how God wants them to live in response to Him. All the above programs include having loving Christian leaders who by their lives, words and actions challenge the children to respond to the Good News they hear and see.

Teaching the Bible at Home
Aren’t the above aims broadly similar to what we want for our children at home? Today’s families are very busy people. Fathers work long hours, often cannot get home till late, perhaps even after the children go to bed. Then Mum has the major part of being with the kids until the weekend. Or there is shift work, or both parents work either full or part time. There can be unemployment with a little more time but also with the issues of seeking work and struggling with feeling depressed. The financial burden of paying for today’s modern home as well as Christian school fees also adds to the mix. The complexities are immense. This is the reality for the family today.

Can families still afford to worry about daily family devotions? Can’t these church programs do the job so families can use their spare time to do fun stuff, relax, watch TV and get out a bit?

God makes the parents’ task very clear in passages like Deuteronomy 6:5-9, Deuteronomy 11, Proverbs 22:6 and Ephesians 6:4. In these Scripture passages teaching and training are emphasised. Teaching and training always involve regular effort and the setting of priorities. Although the task can be shared with the various other programs, the central task is still there for the parents.
So God’s Word seems to point us towards having regular family times where we can train and teach about God and His Word. Using our mealtimes is a good start although the Deut. 6 passage reminds us to use every family outing and opportunity. Mealtimes are generally regular, readily available opportunities to talk and share.

It may mean that one parent takes on the responsibility of leading the family devotions much of the time because of circumstances. It is much more likely that regular Bible reading happens when it is a daily habit. A daily routine does not take away its effectiveness if it is done thoughtfully and appropriately. Just as we need to feed our bodies and clean our teeth every day, we need to feed our souls and meet with God daily. Our children learn much about our relationship with the Lord by these everyday habits. In Psalm 119, verse 105 we read Your Word is a lamp to my feet and a light for my path. Helping our children to see the immediate relevance of God’s Word to daily living, as well as having a wider overview of God’s Word will enable them to use God’s Word in decision making as they grow. It is important to choose a children’s Bible suitable for their age. Children need ‘milk’ rather than ‘solid meat’. Only slowly are children ready for an adult meal. There are also devotional books around to provide variety, but it’s important not to neglect reading God’s Big Story.
Asking questions and encouraging the children to ask questions ensures that they understand the story and issues involved.

I believe it is appropriate to leave out passages that deal with things that are beyond the kids’ understanding, and to make the teaching time interactive, relevant, lively and of appropriate length. Again the ‘milk passage’ is applicable.
If fathers are not often able to be around for this daily devotion time, it is important for them to be involved as often as possible. The kids need to see that it is Dad as well as Mum who loves interacting with God’s Word and believes God’s Word to be central to their lives.

We must not neglect prayer time as part of the daily family devotions, perhaps using a variety of approaches. Most of our children learn to pray spontaneously if we encourage and guide them. And we too may become more comfortable with prayer if we make the effort for the sake of our children. It is realistic to accept that we cannot fulfil this regime for half an hour every single day. However, God does want us to make family devotions, like our own private devotions, a priority, and put time and prayer into planning it. It takes effort to decide what is appropriate at each stage of our family’s life. And God can help us with that too. God will also help us review our priorities and activities from time to time so that we continue to be blessed by our family devotions.
May the Holy Spirit give us the desire to look at this aspect of our family life so that families and His church may be built up through Godly parents and children growing together in love and knowledge of Him.

H 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 ages past.

Leave a comment

Reformed Church or Ref. Ghetto (2)

Rev. W. Vanderkolk. Trowel & Sword, Jan./Feb. 1965

Preamble: Following on from the previous article Rev. Vanderkolk presents us with some suggestions on how to avoid becoming a “Reformed Ghetto”. It is worth remembering that these articles were written sixty years ago so perhaps the suggestion of working among Dutch migrants may not be as relevant as it was back then. It may also be true that over the years many churches have had programs like those suggested here; but how long ago? If it was more than a generation ago perhaps it is time they were “Revisited”.

Reformed Church or Reformed Ghetto (2)

Our churches owe it to their very character to be aggressive, militant churches. This implies that we have to take Christ’s great commission ” Go ye therefore and teach all nations….” as seriously as the Early Church. It is our solemn duty to proclaim the good news inside the Church and outside the Church. The great problem is how to do it outside the Church. How are we to reach a largely pagan, post Christian nation?

There are leaders in the Church who believe in organised evangelism work exclusively. They seek the solution in the direction of impressive, well publicised, well organised rallies and crusades. There are also leaders in the Church, who denounce this method and who believe in unorganised evangelism exclusively. They reason that if every Christian makes it a point to speak a good word for the Lord in his own circle of friends, relatives, colleagues and neighbours a most effective work can be done. This indeed holds true. Generally speaking we can say that personal witnessing for the Lord among people we know intimately yields the best harvest. It is the Biblical method par excellence. However, in my humble opinion, this does not remove the need for organised evangelism work. Organised evangelism work may not be as effective as personal witnessing (but) it has its advantages also. To begin with it puts a great many people to work for the Church of Christ. In the second place organised evangelism work will make quite a few participants active witnesses for the Lord in their own environment. In other words it leads to personal witnessing. In the third place by means of organised evangelism work we contact people we would never meet with otherwise.

In this article we will discuss a number of possibilities which we have as Reformed Churches. Every congregation will have to work out its own programme. Circumstances differ from place to place. In the Sutherland congregation (a normal, average sized, suburban Reformed Church) we work as follows:

1. Work Among Dutch Migrants. This is a task not one of our Reformed Churches can permit itself to neglect. Do you know that many a migrant of Dutch extraction feels desperately lonely? Do you know that many of them long for a bit of help, encouragement, fellowship, and compassion? Admittedly, many of them live self-centred, materialistic lives and have no interest whatsoever in the gospel of our Lord. Yet the 130,000 migrants of Dutch extraction constitute a mission field we can ill afford to neglect. In Sutherland we are continually on the look out for Dutch families. Whenever we spot one we begin sending “Elisabeth Bodes” and pay a visit shortly afterwards. In this way we have led quite a few families to the Lord Jesus. We don’t say this to boast. Only to encourage others who do the same work. At times the work may seem fruitless, yet the Lord does provide us with openings.

This work is time consuming. If it is true, however, that one soul has greater value than all the treasures on earth, it is more than rewarding. On the whole Dutch people are quite happy to receive you. Once a promising contact is laid, it is a good thing if a very experienced member of the church or the minister does the follow-up work. Our follow-up work begins usually with a discussion of the first chapter of John.

2. Door-to-Door Work. About half a year ago we started this work, It began at an ordinary meeting of evangelism workers in our church. One worker was thoroughly dissatisfied with visiting Dutch people only. Why should he not visit the neighbours of the Dutchman also? The meeting felt the same way. It was decided to work in ever widening circles around the church. The World Home Bible League provided us with Bibles and New Testaments. We bought children’s bibles and bibles for young people.

We still happened to have thousands of Back to God Hour tracts. One Thursday night at 7.15 p.m. ten scared people met for a short prayer meeting. Immediately afterwards we went. We felt ill at ease when we knocked on the first door. However, things proved a long way easier than we thought. How are you to open a conversation after you have knocked on the door? The way which satisfies me most is to have a large New Testament in your right hand and to ask politely, “Did you ever see this Book before, madam?’ Usually the question is answered in the affirmative. It gives you a chance to raise the next question “Do you know what it is all about?” From that moment onwards the conversation can turn into every possible direction. You want to know whether this work is successful? Usually you have one or two good conversations per evening. Due to this work two Australian families receive Bible lessons. With quite a few we have established hope giving contacts. By now we have collected some forty addresses where we have to come back. We don’t know what the upshot of it all will be. It is our firm conviction, however, that door-to-door work is an excellent way to beat the ghetto character of our church. An added blessing of this work is that we shake up a great many church members of other denominations also. Of the original group no one has dropped out so far. On the contrary the team still grows.

3. Vacation Bible School. This year we organised our first V.B.S. By now we have a fair idea which mistakes to avoid. Our school was attended by between 60 – 80 pupils. The numbers varied a little from day to day. We met for ten mornings from 9 – 12. 50% of the children were unchurched, At least they did not come from Reformed homes. The great majority of the children thoroughly enjoyed themselves. So did the teachers. In many shops and petrol stations, and also in the Railway Station we had posters. Hundreds of handbills had been distributed. A vacation bible school is fairly expensive. Both the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and the Christian Reformed Church have published beautiful material. The material of the C.R.C. is nicer than that of the O.P.C. Where the latter is considerably cheaper, we used that. Our school worked out at 10 shillings/pupil. The question could be asked: Was it worth the effort? We think it was. Next year D.V. we hope to have a better and bigger V.B.S.

4: Special Drives. The ecclesiastical calendar provides us with a few good opportunities to do some special work for the Lord. Round Christmas and Easter people seem inclined a little more to listen to the good news. Six weeks before Christmas we started our campaign. Free of charge a member of the church printed beautiful Christmas cards containing a greeting from our church and giving all the particulars about the church. Together with the booklets of the British and Foreign Bible Society we offered these cards to over six hundred families in the district. On the whole people were quite happy to accept them. During the final two or three days before Christmas about 1/3 of the congregation was participating one way or another. Again it could be asked: Was this a worthwhile venture? It was for those who participated. It was an excellent preparation for a proper celebration of Christmas. It was also a worthwhile affair for the few who were very keen to listen to what we had to say.

5. Vicariate of Evangelism. Only because of the presence of a vicar we could do so much work during the summer months. It would be a healthy development if the committees of evangelism in the average sized and larger congregations would make an effort to avail themselves of the services of our students. It is good for the students. A new dimension is added to their studies. They begin to understand what is involved in being an evangelist. In door-to-door work they meet with the indifference, scorn, and contempt which many an Australian has for the Christian faith. They begin to realise what it means to do a work in utter dependence upon the Lord. They can conduct a V.B.S., a beach mission, or some sort of a special drive. It is good for the churches also. Our churches can do with the zeal and vigour of young men who want to revolutionise the established order of our church life within the compass of three months. We need these men who are on fire for the Lord, It does a world of good in our churches to have men at work who can look at things from an entirely new and fresh standpoint. In years to come our churches can only benefit from the training it has given to its leaders in earlier years. Of course there is the ever present, financial hurdle, I don’t think it is so very hard to take. If it is a real burden on our souls that so many people live as if Christ is dead and not alive, we must be able to find ways and means to employ a student during the holidays.

In conclusion we can say that the forms of organised evangelism work as we suggested are fairly easy to realise. What is needed is a committee of evangelism which consists of hard working, dedicated men and women, who have the trust and support of the session. In our congregation we find that this extra work results in more effective, personal witnessing; in greater giving; and in a generally speaking better church life.

It is our prayer that as our churches are becoming better established they may become better tools in the hands of Christ to do His work. If we don’t want to fossilise, we will have to evangelise. 

W. VANDERKOLK

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 ages past.

While our main purpose is to revisit the wisdom of the past, we would also be happy to receive new contributions dealing with current issues of the day, provided name, address and church affiliation are supplied.

Leave a comment

Reformed Church or Reformed Ghetto?

W. Vanderkolk. Trowel and Sword, December 1964

Preamble: “Ghetto • a part of a city …… occupied by a minority group or groups. • an isolated or segregated group or area.” In this hard hitting article, written a mere 3 years before his tragic death while on a holiday with his family, Rev. William Vanderkolk wrote passionately about what he saw as a Reformed Church in danger of becoming inward looking and isolated from the world around it. It makes me wonder what he would think of the CRCA today. He closed his article with the following: “One can only wonder how much longer God will have patience with a pleasure seeking nation and a lazy church.”

Reformed Church or Reformed Ghetto

Our New Zealand churches have so their own problems to cope with. At one of their Synods a report was studied which dealt with the character of their church life. The problem was posed whether they had to go the Reformed way or the Presbyterian way as far as their form of church government was concerned.

About the character of our church life many an interesting article could be written. Suppose I would ask any outsider right now what he would consider our character to be, he most likely would answer: Dutch – irrespective of the fact whether we call a presbytery classis or a synod general assembly. Personally I think there is nothing wrong with this. I still must meet the first Presbyterian who feels ashamed about the typically Scottish character of his kirk, or an Anglican who excuses the typically English set-up of the Church of England. The Dutch character of a church, instituted by Dutch migrants is the most natural thing in the world and I can see no reason why we should make all these frantic efforts to get rid of it. A church without any flavour at all, seems to me a long way worse than a church with a Dutch flavour. As long as one thing is clearly understood. At all times we want to retain the character of a Reformation church, a church which traces back its pilgrim’s procession to the light which was kindled in the 16th century and which crashed in all its brightness upon the darkly glowering face of Europe. We want to retain the character of a church which is so overawed by God’s grace and love, that it has no other choice but simply follow its Lord.

It seems to me perfectly senseless to worry about the Dutch character of our churches. It seems to me an urgent matter to pay heed to the Reformation character of our churches. As Churches of the Reformation we have a stupendous task. It is our calling to proclaim in our land the principles of the Calvinist Reformation. This task asks for the zeal and vigour of the Early Church. It asks from our denomination the willingness to touch the nerve of Australian life and to seek continually ways and means to be related to our environment. If our churches are truly Christ’s, if our churches are living out of the Spirit which He has sent, they will naturally and necessarily enter into this mission relationship with our society. After all, the church was created a testimony to Jesus Christ. Whenever our churches and the world meet, there mission comes into being. In other words: mission is not first of all a programme which the church carries on. Dr. J.H. Nederhood says: “It is the inevitable event which occurs when the Church’s supernatural being contacts the world, when the life which has been bestowed upon the Church touches the death that sin brings”: (“The Church’s Mission to the Educated American, p• 19”). I think we do well to ponder upon these words. It is utter folly to our churches to become excited about foreign missions while remaining nonchalant about the relationship to our environment at home.

If we are unrelated to our environment we are no longer Reformed Churches but Reformed Ghettos. In a ghetto we can live very comfortably. We can build up a huge organisation with many committees, which produce many important reports. The outside world, however, will never read these reports and will leave us to ourselves. A ghetto does not influence its environment. This “ghetto” character we must avoid at all costs.

We must come to grips with the world in which we live. Of course this is easier said than done. Enormous problems confront us here. What are we to do to have churches with the missionary zeal we read about in the New Testament? More than one minister in our churches complains of the spiritual apathy he meets with time and again. Often it seems that our people cannot be stirred any more. They seem indifferent. Sufficiently orthodox and conservative to accept the Reformed position as the truly Biblical one, they nevertheless seem to sail in a heavy, spiritual fog. They seem so very tired of all the good things a minister or elder has to say.

What to do about such a situation? I don’t think there is a simple remedy. Let those of us, however, who can see which issues are at stake, fervently pray that the Spirit may be revived once more in the midst of the Church. Apart from praying, let us work also. Nothing is more liberating than work, especially when this work is a Christ given commission. The work I am referring to is not the work within the organisation. However valuable, it is no more than “ghetto” work. It is a good thing that in our churches there are always people willing to serve as members of the Board of Management, youth club committee, bible study group committee, ladies’ guild committee etc. The church could not function without them. But let us never see such a committee as an end in itself. All these committees must aid the church to do its real work: to be a testimony to Jesus Christ in a sinful world.

Many of our church problems would disappear, if we could stop being very busy with ourselves, and if we could start being compassionate with the perishing world around us. This is an urgent matter. Time is running out. Australia is a nation greatly blessed with material wealth. This wealth did not produce a people thankful to the Lord. On the contrary, God’s blessings helped Australia become a thoroughly godless and hedonistic nation. It is high time that our churches become out and out aggressive churches. One can only wonder how much longer God will have patience with a pleasure seeking nation and a lazy church.

In a following article we will give a few possibilities of organised evangelism work. 

W. Vanderkolk

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 ages past.

Leave a comment

The Beauty Of God’s House – A Few Small Points

Trowel & Sword. A.I. De Graaf, October/November 1964

Preamble: In this article, published over two months, Rev. de Graaf sets out to clarify what may be regarded as two of the lesser, albeit solemn “traditions” of the worship service of the day. It may well be that some churches today no longer even follow these traditions but their importance back in 1964 were such that Arent felt compelled to write an explanation for their use. It begs the question: “Does every person attending a worship service in the CRCA in 2024 know and understand why we do what we do”? There was obviously some misunderstanding and/or confusion in 1964 and it would not at all surprise if there are Reformed church members, (including elders and even ministers), with misconceptions about certain aspects of the worship service today.

The Beauty Of God’s House

Can one make difference in liturgical matters between big and small points? Can one say that, “Word and Sacraments” being the focal objects of Reformed Worship, the rest is just unimportant? Or is it so that all we do in the solemn meeting of the congregation with her Lord, must be done decently and in order, and – for that reason must be understood by all people?

I think that we all can agree on the answer. And therefore I would like to mention a few small items which give me the idea that some do not quite understand what’s going on. Maybe I can be of some help here.

The two points, are:

1. The handshake of minister and elder before and after the service.

2. Eyes shut during salutation before and benediction after the service?

1. THE HANDSHAKE OF DELEGATION.

As a little boy, and right up to the time when I as a student dipped a little deeper into liturgics, I always thought that the handshake of elder and minister in the church had the following meaning: BEFORE: “Dominee, the Lord strengthen you”.  AFTER: “Well done!” I think I am not a wild guesser when assuming that 75% of our people, including the office bearers, think this is what it means.

This, however, calls for some problems, in case it were true. Not so much the handshake before the service (I actually know of elders who say “STERKTE!! (strength) when ‘administering’ it!). But surely the one after, in case the minister might have said objectionable things in the pulpit. What is the poor elder to do? He feels upset because he does NOT agree. Must he hastily set up a whispered conversation in Session, say, during the final hymn, whether he shall shake the hand of “approval”, or not? But what if Session does not sit together like often is the case? Must he refuse in his own responsibility? But what if he was mistaken, and after all only misunderstood a certain passage, or what if the rest of Session appears to uphold the minister’s words? A thorny problem!

And a problem which is needless, because THE HANDSHAKE DOES NOT AT ALL MEAN TO CONVEY AN ON-THE-SPOT APPROVAL MADE IMPROMPTU BY THE ELDER. It conveys, before and after the service, that SESSION which IN ITS ENTIRETY is responsible for the service, DELEGATES the minister to do his job” ON BEHALF OF SESSION. Afterward this is again expressed: “You stood there on our behalf, you and we are together”. This is the historical view. And in a country where MINISTERS have – like in the Presbyterian Church the right of the pulpit all alone, and where the local session has not that right to call him to task in that way, it is the more significant. Often people who commented upon this “foreign” custom offered thus a splendid opportunity to tell a bit about the corporate responsibility of Session for the ministry of the minister. So the handshake means: “Dominee, you are doing (or: have been doing) this holy work on our behalf: we are together in this…”

But then what in case of the minister who says things or does them, which the elder-of-duty cannot agree with? Even in that case it is clear: the handshake should be given. But this means then: “We, the Session, the WHOLE SESSION (not just the one elder who can be mistaken just like the one minister can) shall look into the matter: Your sermon is our sermon, too: we may not just for reasons of personal kindness leave this matter: You and I, we are appointed JOINTLY by God to feed this flock”, Then the very handshake implies that the minister may and must be called to task by his elders, and, in case he is proved to be unscriptural, the very handshake implies that Session must insist that he make amends from the Pulpit as soon as this can be done.

This, and no other, is the meaning of the handshake. It is good that everyone in our Churches realise this: It is the delegation, and not just the approval. Of course the elder himself, and the whole Session for that matter, can ALSO express prayers for strength before, and warm grateful appreciation afterwards, but these are ADDED notes, not the real intention.

2. EYES OPEN OR SHUT DURING SALUTATION BEFORE – AND BENEDICTION AFTER SERVICE 

I think again, that at least 75% would answer the question in the above title with “shut of course”. But then I submit they are mildly mistaken. When the service begins there is opportunity for silent prayer, when we together draw to the Lord and commit the service to Him, making special mention before the Throne of the minister who needs anointing from on high, something which he himself cannot always publicly do.

Then the words “Our help is in the name of the LORD…” are the sign to OPEN THE EYES. This is not a prayer. It is a proclamation. It is to relay again the promise of the Lord that where 2 or 3 are together in His Name, there He is in the midst of them with blessing, with fulfilment, with grace. After that the SALUTATION follows. This is not a benediction, with two uplifted hands, like will follow at the END of the service. It is a greeting for that is what “salutation” means. In the old christian church this was more evident as the minister said: “THE LORD BE WITH YOU”, to which the congregation REPLIED by “and with your spirit”, The type of greeting as it was done by Boaz meeting his servants on the field and like Jesus himself used when entering the meeting of His church after Easter: “Peace be unto you”.

The minister lifts ONE hand in the manual of greeting, and, if we think it is not dignified enough to greet back in the Name of the Lord or even lift a hand too, at least we could look one another in the eyes! It is a greeting, not a prayer! Fancy me coming into your lounge room saying ‘good morning” and you reacting by closing your eyes!

What then about the blessing at the end of the service? Is that a prayer? Is that a wish we lay before God’s throne? No, it is not, We have already prayed before for the LORD’s peace and light and grace upon us. But the benediction is more: it is a proclamation on behalf of Almighty God that His favour DOES rest upon His covenant people. The priest in the old Testament was to pronounce (!) that benediction after the offering was made which was a condition for God’s favour (and that offering means Christ as He is preached in the service) and after he had been at the golden altar of incense where the prayer was made on the strength of that offering (which means Christ). The benediction was not a mere repetition of that prayer. The Lord Jesus (Matt.6) warned against repetitions. After the prayer the priest was to go out and pronounce the benediction (think of the story of Zacharias, Luke 1).

During such a pronouncement of God’s favour in Jesus we must not look to the ground, nor shut our eyes (by the way did you notice how often the body then reacts to these shut eyes by yawning? I do have my eyes open and never do the people yawn as much as during the benediction. Maybe my colleagues will comfort me by saying that I had better be glad they don’t during the sermon!).  “But our eyes should be lifted up.

The minister is to lift his hands over the congregation, thus reminding them of the hands of Jesus lifted up as He went to heaven to pray for them (Luke 24) and surely the effectual prayer of This Righteous Man availeth much (James 5!). Let us look then, and rejoice! For God’s promises are pronounced and very sure. Blessed are we indeed, whenever we claim them in living faith!

A.I. DE GRAAF

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

Leave a comment