A Short History

Bert Moritz & Pieter Stok. Trowel & Sword Revisited, September 5, 2023.

Preamble: It has been a year since TSR’s first post, “Building A New Nation” was published on Oct. 2, last year. A month earlier we had launched our website with the article below. The original idea, conceived several years earlier, was to revive T&S as a denominational magazine, not just as a means of disseminating information but also as a way of encouraging congregations and individuals to reconnect with each other instead of being isolated from fellow Reformed churches in this vast country of ours. Sadly, there appeared to be a lack of enthusiasm for such a venture at the time. As a result, Trowel & Sword Revisited was born as a compromise between an established denominational magazine and… nothing. It is still our hope that the day will come when we as a denomination will see the need and the value of a magazine promoting Reformed principles both internally and to the world. There are already some who have seen the light as the following testimonies show:

Many will commend and thank you, Bert and Pieter, for thinking of publishing relevant and interesting material from Trowel & Sword – and making it happen.
Even though the 20th century has passed into history, it is well worthwhile digging out and republishing some of the chronicles and encouragements of our pioneering foreparents. Fred VanderBom

Wonderful to hear of your endeavours for the Kingdom…! I always regretted that some of the excellent material from T&S was mouldering away somewhere in the CRCA’s dusty archives. I recall excellent articles by the likes of people like Dr Klass Runia and Prof George Van Groningen that would be so beneficial for people today to read. I applaud your efforts and trust it will bear fruit. John Westendorp.

As an Aussie with no Dutch heritage in our churches, I really appreciate this and look forward to encouragements and challenges from the generations gone by – on whom shoulders we stand! It’s a good to be provoked into thinking: what are we doing with what we’ve inherited? And how can we build further based on what we’ve learned? Isaac Overton.

Love this idea, my father was an elder in Holland and then in the Sydney/Sutherland churches.
My husband also was an elder in the Sutherland church but sadly now in an aged care facility.
I well remember Trowel and Sword magazines and still have some we kept.
Will be lovely to see them again. They were very helpful to the new migrants. Johanna van der Jagt.

Thanks Bert and co.
Three great memories of T&S: my dad was the printer for the first 20 years or so, starting at home on a Gestetner he’d brought with him from Holland, typing it on our kitchen table in Kingston, then getting my brothers and me to collate and staple them, before bundling them up for distribution. This continued in Geelong for some time. And locally in Kingston, there were no “pigeon holes” in the church building, and distributing T & S in the foyer on a Sunday was considered Sunday work, so my brother George and I were assigned each month to walk all over Kingston, Kingston Beach, Blackmans Bay and “Little Groningen” to hand deliver on a Saturday afternoon. Up to ten miles each. Good exercise! And Dad confessed that occasionally Aunt Harriet or Aunt Tilly (van Groningen and Piening) were a bit late with their contributions to the children’s or women’s pages, and he wrote them! I suppose his journalism and printing and accountancy training in Holland stood him, and T&S, in good stead! Peter van der Schoor

And so, we begin our second year of publication in the same way the we started the first; with the same article we used to launch our website: tsrevisited.com. We thank our subscribers and hope that as we move forward, there may be many more.

A Short History.

The first edition of Trowel and Sword was published by and for the Reformed Churches of Australia and New Zealand in October 1954, with the final printed edition being distributed in December 2010.

The denomination itself had only been established three years earlier and consisted mainly of Dutch immigrants who had been part of the post-war exodus from Europe looking for a new life and a new beginning. They came with a pioneering spirit, full of hope and fervour, beginning their new lives in a strange environment and often in what would today be considered substandard housing.

Their lives revolved around work and their churches; often tiny congregations spread across the length and breadth of Australia and New Zealand.

What they achieved in those early years was truly remarkable and included permanent places of worship, Sunday schools, Youth Groups including Cadets and Calvinettes, Holiday Clubs, Beach Missions and other outreach activities which often led to the planting of new churches, the establishment of the Reformed Theological College for the training of ministers as well as being instrumental in the starting of many Christian schools. 

They dreamed dreams, worked hard and prayed ceaselessly, and God blessed their efforts.

A detailed account of the development of the Reformed Churches is contained in “A CHURCH EN ROUTE” – 40 Years Of Reformed Churches Of Australia.

The Present

Today we must ask ourselves whether much of that effort and momentum has slowed to a walk, or even a crawl. We seem to be just as busy but our efforts are focussed in a different direction. Instead of forging ahead in working for the kingdom of God, we have become sidetracked and even bogged down by the issues thrown at us by an increasingly secular and antagonistic world such as divorce, promiscuity, abortion, homosexuality, same sex marriage, cancel culture and gender fluidity. To the world, the Christian teachings as espoused in the Bible are now considered to be “controversial”.

So instead of lighting fires for Christ we have become preoccupied with fighting the fires lit by Satan and his followers.

Like the church in Ephesus, have we lost the love we had at first? The solution for the Ephesians was to: “Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent and do the works you did at first.” (ESV. Rev. 2:5)

Moving Forward By Looking Back

The pioneers who began the journey have all moved on to glory. They are gone… but not forgotten. Their thoughts, their writings and their dreams remain although perhaps relegated to a different time. I often hear it said that the world has changed. “Things are different now”. “We live in a different time”.

So did Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Samuel and David. So also did the judges and the prophets. And so also did Jesus Himself. 

Yet we still look to them and learn from them. So also we can look to the early leaders of the Reformed Churches in Australia and New Zealand. We can still learn from them and follow their examples.

This then is our purpose. To resurrect the writings of the greats of the CRCA. See what they had to say and adjust our thinking and our actions to carry forward their dreams and aspirations for this, our adopted nation. We will do this by publishing a weekly blog using articles taken from the pages of Trowel and Sword – the CRCA newsletter which may be gone but not forgotten.

We invite you to join us on this journey of moving forward by looking back. Look for the masthead: Trowel and Sword Revisited.

Bert & Pieter.

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

Dr. Billy Graham Came, Preached and Went… What Now?

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

Preamble: After all the hopes, doubts and even scepticism expressed by various writers in T&S in the previous months leading up to the Billy Graham Crusade, Dr. Runia’s assessment and hopes make for interesting reading. No doubt many others had varying opinions of the success or otherwise of the crusades. But there can be no disputing that the crusade did have an impact. Dr. Runia’s hope was that it would be a lasting impact. After 65 years that impact has faded. Can it be rekindled? Below is a link to Dr Graham’s crusade event at the Myer Music Bowl in Melbourne. His powerful message still resonates through the ages but these days, few few seem to be listening, particularly in Australia and New Zealand.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWEf72F_d9A

Dr. Billy Graham Came, Preached and Went… What Now?

As I write this, the part of the Billy Graham crusade that was scheduled for Melbourne has been finished. In the other capitals of Australia it will go on for a while.

The attendances have been tremendous. It was reported that at the last meeting 180,000 people were present and hundreds of decisions for Christ were made.

In Melbourne in general we must say that the immediate influence of Dr. Graham’s preaching has been very, very great. As Dr. Irving Benson wrote in the Herald of March 14: “I have seen scientists, intellectuals, doctors of medicine and what are called hard-headed’ business executives, with stoical, cynical, sophisticated men and women coming penitently to Christ, all like a page out of the Gospel. That to me is the greatest feature of these three weeks. I rejoice to have seen miracles of grace. Broken homes have been reunited, parents and families have found a new quality of understanding and love”.

Well, who would not rejoice with Dr. Benson?

We all must be very grateful for the work Dr. Graham has done in Australia, and which, I am sure he will do in the other capitals too. We must be very grateful for the clear message of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which he brought. I myself had the privilege to attend one of the meetings and the message we heard was heart strengthening indeed.

I also know that many of our Church members have been strengthened in their faith, attending one or several of these meetings. Many of them made a new, public or secret, decision for their Saviour.

Again: who would not rejoice here?

But what now? Billy Graham is going back to America, no doubt to plan new crusades in other parts of the world. We are staying here in Australia or New Zealand.

What now?

What will be the lasting fruit of this crusade in our lives, in our Churches?

I would like that all those who attended some of the meetings, asked themselves this question. What will be the lasting fruit in my life and through me in my church?

There are two possibilities. The first is a negative one the second is positive. I will mention them in this order, and in the form of what “I do not hope” and of what I do hope

I do not hope, that the main result of Dr. Billy Graham’s crusade has been, that we became so critical of our own Church life, that we do not find any good in it.

I do not hope that we make a wrong comparison, by comparing the highlight of a crusade meeting, where we are taken up in the enthusiasm of a great man, with our own ordinary Church life, where we know each other so well, where we are in the midst of the daily struggle of young migrant Churches.

You know, it is rather easy to be enthusiastic for one or a few nights, when there is nobody to irritate you by his well known faults and shortcomings!

I do not hope that our riches, received at the crusade meeting, will make us proud and induce us to look down upon others, who are so cold, so formal, so unspiritual (in our eyes)!

I do not hope that we forget, what Billy Graham himself said more than once that he could give only baby food, but that we in the Churches receive the more solid food , required for grown ups in the faith.

I do not hope…..

But I do hope that we all do what Billy Graham told us.

I do hope that we all attend the services of our own church the more faithfully.

I do hope, that we all realise the better, how rich we are in being privileged to hear the preaching of the full Gospel every Sunday.

I do hope that we all give our strength and all our support to the Church God has given us.

I do hope that we all have become very critical of ourselves and therefore filled the more with love and forbearance towards our fellow Church members.

I do hope that we all are the more prepared to be active in own Church life and that, as soon as we are called to prove our dedication to the Lord and Saviour, we are ready to come forward and join the band of workers.

I do hope that we all are burning to help to spread the Gospel flame among those around us.

In short: I do hope that we all bring into practice what Billy Graham told us to do:

Take my life and let it be, Dedicated, Lord, to Thee .

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

Shall We Co-operate With Dr. Billy Graham. (Question Box)

J.W. Deenick. Trowel & Sword, September 1958.

Preamble: Following on from last week’s article from Rev. van Groningen we have a second article, from Rev. J.W. Deenick regarding the visit by Dr. Graham. He is responding to a question from an unnamed subscriber who asks what to many would appear to be a reasonable question. I wonder how many of today’s pastors/ministers would answer in a similar way.

QUESTION: Dominie, it seems that some conservative christians object to the evangelistic methods of Dr. Billy Graham. What will our attitude be when he comes to Australia and New Zealand? Can there be any objection against working together with a man so sound in his message and so fruitful in his work? Should not our ministers act as counsellors on the committees for the follow-up work after the campaign? Or are we opposed to everything and everybody just for the sake of being “in the opposition”?

ANSWER: You are right, Dr. Graham is coming to Australia and New Zealand at the invitation of the National Councils of Churches in Australia and in New Zealand.

To begin with our Reformed churches are not represented in these national councils, as I believe for good reasons. I think I could formulate the main objection of our Reformed churches to the world council and to the national councils in this way. That we object to cooperation with churches that are so manifestly rejecting the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ and of the Scriptures, in their inner church life. We have separated ourselves from these churches. We did not believe that we could trust ourselves or our children to the guidance or to the pastoral care of these churches. We did not join the Presbyterian Church because we knew that we could not trust its gospel preaching in many places from many pulpits. We therefore encourage both Australians, New Zealanders and Dutchmen to join us in the Witness for the faith of the Protestant Reformation, which we believe to be the message of the bible itself.

Now Dr. Graham is coming to this part of the world in order to preach the message of salvation. We trust that he will do that, as he has generally done, in a scriptural way . We believe however that in some respects his message is not sufficiently clear and in others too limited. To give one example, we believe that the message of the sovereign grace of God should be preached more emphatically than Dr Graham does. Moreover, we believe that his activity is more revivalistic, along the lines of the Wesleys, Moody and Sunday, than Reformed in the tradition of Luther, Calvin, Hodge and Machen. In this and in other respects Dr. Graham upholds the teachings of arminianism, which we reject.

Our main problem is not what Dr. Graham preaches. We wholeheartedly agree with most of what he proclaims so powerfully. In 1954 we wrote in Trowel and Sword : “We have greatly enjoyed the reports on Dr. Graham’s campaign, most of all because it has become evident again what the world needs, even in our age  is clear and fundamental gospel preaching”.

We then continued: “but as far as we understand the Scriptures and the history of the Christian Church the deadly weak side of Dr. Graham’s crusade is the fact, that he is co-operating with people, who actually hate his message and will do their utmost to shipwreck whatever he might have achieved”.

And that is the problem. An evangelistic campaign demands follow-up work. 

“Converts” must be guided to a full understanding of the Scriptures. This follow-up work will be entrusted both in Australia and New Zealand to many sincere Christians, but also to many who cannot be trusted for one minute, and who believe nothing of what Dr. Graham preaches. It is Dr. Graham’s method to seek the follow-up workers among the so called modernists as much as among the so called evangelicals.

A Reformed follow-up worker or as he is called “counsellor” would know that in the next room his colleague would possibly deny what he affirms. Moreover, a Reformed counsellor would have to promise that he will send every “convert” back to the church to which he originally belonged in the Protestant or Catholic world. That is, I believe, a promise we can never make. We cannot advise someone else to do the thing we refused to do ourselves. We openly stated: these churches are not trustworthy. We cannot honestly say to one seeking Christian: they are good enough for you.

We do not believe, that this would be a scriptural manner of doing the follow-up work of any evangelistic campaign. But Dr. Graham insists upon this method and is excluding everybody from his counsellors who does not fully accept this way of cooperation.

Therefore we would do a greater service to both Dr. Graham and to the Christian Church by not co-operating under sincere and urging protest, than by being silent and by acquiescing in methods we do not believe to be scriptural.

J. W. Deenick

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

Leave a comment

The Billy Graham Crusade – What Shall Our Attitude Be?

Rev. G. Van Groningen. Trowel & Sword, November 1958

Preamble: Consider the context. A mere seven years previously, Calvinist migrants from the Netherlands had established the Reformed Churches of Australia as they had not been satisfied with any of the existing denominations. Now they were faced with the prospect of an evangelist from the Southern Baptists in the USA, who had been drawing huge crowds, coming to Australia. The debate centred on whether or not the Reformed Churches should participate in the coming “crusade” alongside or even in partnership with other churches which they had previously rejected. An important part of that debate centred on the teachings of Graham himself and whether they were compatible with the doctrinal standards of the fledgling Reformed Churches. In this article Rev. van Groningen, who had himself recently arrive from the USA as a missionary to serve the Reformed Church of Geelong as its minister, and who later became a Professor at RTC, looked at the cases for and against participating in what would become the largest evangelism effort in this country. For the record, the Billy Graham Crusade still holds the record for the largest one day crowd ever at Melbourne’s MCG with estimates ranging between 130,000 and 143,000 people.

The Billy Graham Crusade – What Shall Our Attitude Be?

At the outset; let us recognise that the Question – what shall our attitude be toward the Graham Crusade is an involved one. We realise this especially when we try to answer the question. For in so doing, we find that there are various possible answers.

1. We will participate in the Crusade with all our endeavours: attend pre-crusade prayer meetings and join in organisational work, assist in counselling, singing, teaching, attend work-shops etc.

2. We will co-operate; that is to say, work along in some respects.

3. We will attend the meetings occasionally, more or less as a spectator with a prayer that our presence may be of moral or spiritual aid.

4. We will not attend at all but pray for the conversion of sinners, strength for the preacher, spiritual blessings for all who hear.

5. We will ignore it completely.

6. We will oppose it and condemn it outright as detrimental to the cause of Christ.

As we seek the proper answer to our Question, we must remain tolerant of our brothers and sisters who also have struggled with this question but who arrived at a conclusion differing from our own. Let us get this straight; every TRUE Christian is deeply and vitally interested in:

a. His own spiritual welfare. Yes, by all means, he must consider this as he seeks an answer to this question.  2.Tim.2:1,

b. His neighbour’s spiritual welfare. He prays and longs that his unsaved neighbour may be brought into the fold of Jesus Christ and there be nurtured, guided, developed as a child of the Lord and thus become one with the church of Jesus Christ.  John 10:16.

c. His Lord’s special delight and love, the church. The church is precious in Jesus’ eyes. He gave His blood for it.  Acts 20:28,

d. His sovereign God’s eternal glory.  Rom.11:36.

Now then, just because every Christian is so vitally interested in these things, mentioned above, we may not close our minds or shut our eyes to the facts as they pertain to the Crusade. Preconceived notions, dreams of full churches, desires to be identified with a big movement etc., have no place in a mature Christian’s evaluations and decisions at any time; and not in face of the Crusade either.

What are some of the facts with which we are faced? Facts in favour and not in favour will be cited; thus we can weigh the evidence.

What is for participation, and/or at the least, co-operation with the Crusade? Here are some facts:

1. There are so many non-Christians and nominal church members in the world today . A real coming to life is needed. The Graham Crusade is used with varying results; let us therefore join in. (At times one hears or reads remarks to the effect that churches in America and England are “streaming full” again once the Graham Crusade has been active in a given area. That is not the case in America; true some churches have enjoyed an increased attendance, at least an increased enrolment).

2. Billy Graham is able to reach hardened sinners who would otherwise not be reached. Such a person can be persuaded to come and see the Crusade in action, but he cannot be persuaded to enter a church, or even listen to a sermon on his wireless. Numbers of incidents can be recited where this has proven true; again with varying results.

3. Billy Graham does distinguish between a Biblical and a non-Biblical message.

He will have nothing to do with the modernistic perversion of the gospel. He preaches the Lord Jesus Christ as the only hope for sinful man.

4. Billy Graham doos not in any way compromise with the liberals, though he does seek their external organisational co-operation.

5. If a church does not in any way work along with the Crusade, no references will be made to that church. Thus a church would miss out on receiving enquirers and converts who sorely need the further ministrations of the means of grace and who would add to the membership.

6. The ministers of those churches which co-operate preach more evangelistically, directly, personally once they have worked along with the Crusade.

7. The Crusade is a means of uniting many churches and many Christians: of various confessions into one mighty praying force for the conversion of sinners. Surely no one would want to miss out on that unified prayer activity.

8. Workers who serve as choir singers, ushers and especially the counsellors get a great personal blessing.

9. The ministers who attend the workshops are greatly stimulated in their task of active evangelism.

10. God in His providence is bringing the Graham Crusade to this part of the world. Dare we ignore or oppose God’s providential provisions for the preaching of the gospel as it is done in the Graham Crusade? (But, did anyone speak this way when Oral Roberts and his band moved into Melbourne and other cities? God in His providence placed the Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist and Anglican churches here long ago. Yet we are convinced we should not be identified with these “providentially present” denominations and rightly so). 

Undoubtedly one can add to this lineup of arguments favouring participation of some kind in the Crusade. But now, is there anything to be said which might lead one to view the Crusade in an unfavourable light? Here are some facts:

1. The results of the Crusade up till now have been varied. Much superficiality has come to light. There are those converted, and they are many, whose zeal is short lived. They gave every evidence of a true conversion; seemed to taste the joys of spiritual awakening and life. But they dropped away soon after the Crusade moved away. What of these? Heb. 6:4-6 tells us a frightening truth. Revivalism has been and still is a means of unnecessarily exposing many people to this great threat of the impossibility of repentance and renewal. 

2. The superficiality of the Crusade comes to light in the lives of many other folk who became or who were Christians before. These folk, once having enjoyed the Crusade meetings are disappointed and often deeply critical of the church and its work. Graham’s sermons are considered the proper regular diet, which he himself denies. The regular church services are too dead, formal: people long for the thrill and drama of a large mass meeting with a prepared psychological atmosphere produced by music, choir, manner of speech etc. Solid, soul building, doctrinal instruction in Catechism and preaching is strongly frowned upon if not openly rejected. These folk also become critical of and often retard their own church’s mission activity.

3. The Scriptural teaching regarding the church is sadly neglected. Though Graham wishes to channel the converts into the church, the entire Crusade is pervaded by a pietistic, fundamentalistic atmosphere which has been particularly harmful to the organised church of Jesus Christ. The church does not receive its proper due. Though churches invite, participate and co-operate, the Crusade as such is an independent organisation. It does not come forth directly from the church. The Crusade thus encourages an individualistic or organisational preaching of the gospel which results in the church’s increased lack of responsibility for and execution of its witnessing task. Then too, it is happening in various places that Graham organisations are arising, meeting separately which are actually considered a substitute for the church. Does not anyone who takes Paul’s letter to the Ephesians seriously, especially Chapter 2, hesitate to join in a movement which does not meet up to the Scriptural teaching of the church?

4.The Crusade hampers, rather than aids, a truly Biblical program of evangelism. Jesus spoke to multitudes, but his meetings were entirely different from the present day organised mass meetings. And Christ knew how to conduct such a meeting; read how He did that in John 6. The altar call, the pressing for public show of an intimately personal, spiritual decision is foreign to Scripture. It is true, the Graham Crusade endeavours to do the correct thing in making personal contacts after the meeting and to have these continue; but these are overshadowed by the psychology of the “mass meeting”. Peter gives us the Biblical example – he went to the home of Cornelius and there dealt with him in the living situation in which Cornelius lived day by day. Paul entered into the Jailor’s home and evangelised. Phillip made a fruitful personal contact with the Eunich. “What” you ask, “no meetings then?” Yes, meetings are Biblical. Notice what Paul did, e.g., Acts 18. He first went to the established customary place of worship, the 0.T. church. From there he went into the homes.

5.The history of revivalism in the U.S. has a sorry tale to tell us. With each wave of revivalism there was a seeming upsurge in spirituality. But – viewed from a further perspective, after each wave of revivalism, about 25 years later, the churches were worse off than before the revival; Biblical theology was watered down even more than before; rampant individualism was more deeply entrenched than ever. Read the history of the U.S. See what happened after a Charles Finney, Billy Sunday, D.L. Moody swept across the nation!

6. Australia and New Zealand have been witnessing too many hit and run evangelists in the past. There is an anti “Evangelists” mood prevalent. The Crusade will quite likely drive many folk to a more hardened resistance against the gospel, which will make it the more difficult to win such a person if and when a more Biblical method is employed.

7.An amazing confusion will be a most logical result from the mixing of our Reformed witness with the fundamentalistic Arminian teaching and method of the Crusade. A few clarifying statements are in order: 

a). Though Graham is utterly and genuinely sincere in his attempt to keep out emotionalism and to present a simple Biblical gospel message, the co-workers all too often negate Graham’s endeavours. Too many of Graham’s teams are employing emotional techniques and are extremely Arminian in their preaching and teaching.

b). Though Graham wishes to be as true to the Scriptures as possible, he is still a product of his training. Graham is growing, developing in the truth of the Scriptures; for that we praise God. But at present Graham’s preaching is cast in the frame of an over emphasis on the will of man. At a press conference in New York, Graham stated, “Primarily, however, when a person comes to Christ it is his will – he is saying: I willreceive Him. I will follow Him. I will serve Him.” The Reformed witness says, “no man cometh unto the Father except he be drawn” and “for by grace ye are saved through faith and that not of yourself, it is the gift of God; yield then, your heart, your mind and your will, your entire personality as a whole to this sovereignly gracious God.

8 .The problem of referring converts to any church of their choice I need not deal with. I wholly agree with what Rev. J. Deenik wrote in the September  issue of “Trowel and Sword”,

The Crusade has been placed in the balance. How are we to judge as to what our attitude should be?

We can ask: how is tho greater glory brought to God? Some say, “by the conversion of sinners, using whatever methods are at our disposal”.  Others say, “By being a true, loyal church of Christ, avoiding all that hinders, detracts from, and or that brings unnecessary disrepute to the gospel and to the church”.

I personally am convinced that I must give the latter answer. But be sure to realise this: if the church is true and loyal to its Lord, not only will the church grow and develop, avoid unnecessary disrepute for itself and the gospel committed to it, but sinners also will be brought to conversion. The point is this: let us be a true church. Let us take our Christ-given mandate seriously to go forth and evangelise. From within the established, consecrated church the program of evangelism is to issue forth. Under the impetus and supervision of the church, the members must carry the witness to their neighbours. Do YOU want a church full? Do YOU want your neighbour to be saved? Then YOU as a church member go to him, talk to him, take him along to YOUR CHURCH and to YOUR CHURCH’S MEETINGS. Then we will have numerous conversions, Then the church will grow, then we will make an impact on our communal, national life. Biblical evangelism does not ask another to witness to my sinful unsaved reighbour, it demands that I do it.

If we would get busy and be a CHURCH we would have little if any NEED for the Crusade. Indeed, if we would truly be a church, we would not even have the TIME to join the Crusade.

The Crusade is coming.

What shall we do?

My position is becoming increasingly a strong conviction in my heart. May I add that past experiences play a part also. As a youth at home in California, and as a soldier in the army working in spare time with the Chaplain, I have attended and participated in many “Youth for Christ” and various other revival type meetings. Having been somewhat enamoured by these for a while, actual participation did give a rather unwholesome reaction. Today I would urge no one, if only for his spiritual wellbeing, to join in fully and actively in such ventures. Likewise, my attendance at the Graham meetings and hearing him often over the wireless and T.V. in the U.S. all influence my position.

My position is this: I cannot recommend participation or co-operation with the Crusade. I do not feel conscience free to again participate in a movement the like of which I have been deeply disappointed with before. I must spend my time and energy in the Reformed church, endeavouring to awaken it increasingly and guiding it in the direction of Biblically prescribed means of growth, development, zeal for and method of evangelism.

This does not mean I will ignore the Crusade. I may visit once or even twice. That, for one thing, will help me to remain alive to what the Crusade is. I will gladly work with any convert or enquirer that is referred to our church. I will pray for Billy Graham as a preachor and for the preaching of the gospel. I will pray the Lord to use the Crusade as He sees fit. But praying this, I still cannot feel free to join and strengthen the Crusade as it now is.

G. Van Groningen.

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

Leave a comment

The Telly: A Spiritual Health Hazard

Rev. Raymond O. Zorn. Trowel & Sword, June 1996

Preamble: Just under thirty years ago when this article was written, life was so much simpler than it is today. We only had the “evils of television” to worry about. Today we also have the internet, mobile phones and social media platforms multiplying rapidly. So while this article may seem somewhat outdated, the issues and problems that it raises are equally relevant when applied to today’s technologies. In fact, Prof. Zorn could not have imagined the extent to which technology has take over our lives, nor the effect it has had on our culture. Add to that the rapid development of artificial intelligence and one can only wonder, where (or when) will it all end?

The Telly: A Spiritual Health Hazard

The shortcomings of television have, over the years, been well-documented. That it encourages a passive, couch-potato mentality, treats subjects superficially, portrays a false sense of reality, is uncritically misused by the hour as a children’s baby-sitter and, worst of all, is too easily enjoyed even by adults whose critical perceptions have in the meantime all but disappeared, is virtually beyond dispute.

In addition to the above “health” hazards, however, TV too easily escapes detection as a spiritual health hazard for Christians. This is not to say that all TV viewing should be banned, which has been an extremist position adopted by some in the past but which has proved untenable – unless one refuses to have a TV set in the home and is able to keep the children from watching it on sets in the homes of other children the neighbourhood.

It should be recognised that the issue about watching TV is not just whether, instead of being a servant, it becomes a master. Nor is it that there is nothing worthwhile to watch on TV. In some instances, it can even serve a useful purpose, and these different levels of usefulness should be acknowledged and appreciated.

One useful purpose would be the viewing of news. While, admittedly, that offered by the local stations is often superficial and parochial (compare it for example with world news), getting the visible picture of TV is graphic if not powerful. Think of the plight of war victims, refugees, etc., which in being publicised by TV brought the refugees much needed relief aid.

Another level of usefulness would be the educational realm. “Sesame Street” for children has limitations with which parents by now are familiar. But there are travelogues, animal and nature studies, gardening tips, current affairs, etc., which increase the knowledge and understanding of the viewer.

A popular level of TV use is for sports. Those who like to be entertained in this way have a large variety from which they may make regular selections. The viewing of some forms of sports is perhaps questionable. Is the deliberate mayhem of boxing a sport? Do the frequent violent smashes which occur in auto racing make it a good sport to watch? Should the gambling associated with horse and dog racing be encouraged, even if only by viewing it on TV? However, sports-viewing is usually only a hazard when too much time is given to watching it. Like everything else in life, the exercise of self-control and moderation is necessary, especially in matters of entertainment and recreational pursuits.

Can the same be said for other forms of entertainment on TV? Here is where factors arise that need serious consideration. Not just the questionable pop psychology of some talk-back shows like “Oprah Winfrey” or the greed-promoting ones like “Sale of the Century”, even if the feelings of greed can only be satisfied vicariously. Matters are even more serious when it comes to virtually all “sit-coms”, for these shows uniformly present and promote a lifestyle that is inimical to that which should be the Christian’s.

The apostle Paul wrote, “Do not be conformed to this world…” (Rom.12:2). If his original readers were in need of this warning, how much more this is true of the viewers of sit-coms. In many of these programs blasphemy (“My God” is one of the more milder but frequent epithets) is habitually used, vulgarity (think of the “Golden Girls” who one would think should know better) is promoted under the guise of comedy, immorality is worked out in fine detail (“L.A. Law” was particularly lawless in this regard, with its adultery, homosexuality, and shady ethics at the top of the list). The attack upon the family and its values is also a favourite target, a typical sit-com being, “Married With Children”, with its portrayal of father as a brainless oaf (or is it victim, one is never quite sure?), the wife as a brazen hussy, and the children as unruly, cheeky upstarts sadly in need of discipline.

More also needs to be said about a lifestyle in sit-coms that is commonly but unrealistically lavish. Money never seems to be an object of thrift nor is frugality even considered, let alone encouraged, as a virtue. Religion of course gets no mention, or where in rare cases it does, it is only the object of a joke or ridicule. Gambling, drinking, adultery, homosexuality, etc., seem to be part and parcel of most plots. Pervading the whole atmosphere of the presentation is humanism, with its teaching of man as basically good, independent and autonomous, free to do his own thing and not really in need of the restraints of discipline.

Oh, but someone may say, why be so critical? It’s only entertainment and therefore not to be taken seriously. Would that this were the case. Just one example proves the contrary, namely, marital break-ups, which were rare in the church a generation ago but which have become as much a problem in the church as in the world. The observation of the German philosopher, Feuerbach, aptly applies, “Man ist was man isst” (literally, “One is what one eats.”). In similar vein the English poet, Alexander Pope, pointed out, “Vice is a monster of so frightful mien, As to be hated needs but to be seen; Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face, We first endure, then pity, then embrace” (from An Essay on Man).

It’s the old story of salt, instead of fulfilling its purpose of being salty, losing its saltiness and becoming worthless, as our Lord Himself reminds us (Matt.5:13). What our society so desperately needs today are Christians whose pattern of living is not shaped by the artificial and harmful reality of TV sit-coms but by the morality divinely prescribed in the Ten Commandments. Scripture warns, “Don’t be conformed”, because it’s an ever-present danger, and never more so than with the influential pressures of TV upon the lives of God’s people.

Are sit-coms without any merit whatsoever? One could hardly say this without first having sat through most if not all of them. Moreover, certain detective series (“Poirot”), and drama (“Shadowlands”), etc., might in a sense be classified with sit-coms, though in the former, the redress of wrong more than anything else is to the fore, while in the latter a true autobiographical story is portrayed. However, discerning viewing here is also required.

A good principle to be followed when watching sit-coms (whose specific aim is to depict, in some measure at least, a true to life situation) is, what if any is the moral basis of this program? Does it foster a morality in keeping with Christian principles, and if not, does make clear what the consequences are when these principles are violated? Or is its basis actually anti-Christian and the goals it portrays intended to magnify the humanistic spirit of arrogantly independent, seemingly self-sufficient man? If the latter is the case, such sit-coms should be avoided, not only for the sake of one’s Christian testimony, but because such are clearly a spiritual health hazard, not only to adults, but even more so to children and young people.

The secular and pluralistic spirit of our society has put TV beyond reformation in harmony with Christian standards, unless the Lord in his mercy sends revival to our society. Since this is true, it is also true that Scripture exhorts Christians not be conformed to the pattern of this world, not only for their spiritual health, but also that by their uncompromising lifestyle, they may be means that God is pleased to use for the conversion and transformation of increasing numbers in society.

Rev. Raymond O Zorn, Emeritus Principal and Professor, RTC. Geelong.

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

What Does Our Church Teach?

C. Schaveling. Trowel & Sword, June/July 1959.

Preamble: This article was originally published across two editions as shown above. It begins with a brief introduction, presumably written by Dr. K. Runia, in which he invites readers to share their copies of Trowel & Sword to people who may be interested in learning more about the teachings of the Reformed Churches. A much more comprehensive summary of the Christian Reformed Faith was also written by Dr. Runia in the Dutch language and later translated into English by Rev. Martin Geluk for use in Catechism classes. It is titled, “A Summary of the Reformed faith”.This booklet was published by the Reformed Church Publishing House in Geelong and printed by List Print which was operated by Rev. John Piening. We at TSR have reproduced this booklet to make it available to any church interested in using it for current catechism classes; at no cost for an electronic version or for the cost of postage for hard copies. In the process, we have changed the scripture quotes from RSV to NIV.

What Does Our Church Teach?

(This article was prepared by Mr. C. Schaveling of South Australia. The reason was that so very often we are asked: “What does your church teach?”, and so very often we have much difficulty in formulating this teaching. In order to give some help he collected the following items from the February, March and April 1959 issues of the Family Altar, published by the Back to God Hour organisation of the Christian Reformed Church. If you have friends who are genuinely interested in our Churches, you might pass this, and the next copy of “Trowel and Sword” on to them. Editor.)

Sooner or later, if we don’t believe in isolationism, we will be confronted with the question; What does your church stand for, is it an all Dutch concern? What does it teach, and why does it differ from other denominations?

Are you able to give a satisfying and convincing answer?

Are you propagating and supporting the Back to God Hour? Are you circulating your “Trowel and Sword” and other literature?

Well, here is your golden opportunity, let this magazine be read by as many as are willing to read it; don’t think, they won’t, because they are eager to find out the”TRUTH”; John 14:16.

Here then follows condensed what the Reformed Church teaches.

THE SAVIOUR

The Reformed Church teaches that Jesus Christ, the Saviour, is the Son of God, and equal to the Father in all things; that he is also the son of the virgin Mary and became like unto all men in all things, sin excepted; that he satisfied the demands of the divine law by his life, passion, and death; that he arose bodily from the dead, ascended to glory, and is now our intercessor with the Father; and that he will return visibly at the last day to judge the living and the dead. John 14:9; Gal. 3:13; Matt, 1:18-25; Heb. 2:17; Heb. 4:15; Rom, 4:25; Acts 1:9-11; 1 John 2:1; Acts 10:42.

THE ATONEMENT 

The Church teaches that the justice of God required that the demands of the law be met; that Jesus Christ as a substitute atoned for the sin of mankind and wrought an eternal redemption for man; and that the satisfaction of Christ applies to those whom God in His sovereign love has chosen as His people and secures their salvation.

The Reformed Church repudiates the doctrine which holds that the atonement is universal and that man’s actual redemption depends on his own free choice. Is. 53:6; John 10:11,15; Matt. 1:21 Acts 20:28; Eph. 5:25-27.

THE GOSPEL 

The Church teaches that the gospel is the revelation of that which God in Christ Jesus has done and will do for the salvation of sinners and to His glory, and that to all who hear the gospel God offers salvation in the way of faith and repentance. Mark 1:15; Mark 16:15; John 3:16; Rom. 1:16; Acts 15:7.

REGENERATION 

The Church teaches that regeneration consists in the implanting of the new spiritual life in man by God through the Holy Spirit; that this radical change is not a gradual process, but is completed in a moment of time; that the in man evidences of this change are seen in a new life; and that without regeneration it is not possible to enter the kingdom of God. Ezek. 11:19; John 3:3; Cor. 2:14; Eph. 1:18; Col. 3:10, Gal. 6:15.

CONVERSION 

The Church teaches that conversion is not a mere reformation of habits, but change wrought by God in which the to a regenerated man consciously turns

him in repentance and faith; that repentance is a sincere sorrow for and an acknowledgement of sin with a trustful appeal to God for forgiveness and a resultant change in life; and that it is a condition of the heart without which no man can hope to be saved, Acts 17:30; Joel 2:12,13; Is. 55:6,7; Luke 13:5; Acts 3:19; Acts 2:38; 2 Cor. 7:9,10.

FAITH 

The Church teaches that faith is the act of the soul by which the convicted sinner receives the truth of the gospel, relies upon the promises of God, and thus embraces Jesus Christ with all his merits; that such faith is not a personal achievement but rather the result of the work of the Holy Spirit in the sinner’s heart; and that without it no salvation is possible. Eph. 2:8; Acts 10:43; Acts 16:31; Gal. 2:16; John 3:18.

JUSTIFICATION 

The Church teaches that on the basis of the finished work of the Lord Jesus Christ God grants forgiveness of sins and declares the sinner righteous before him; that God imputes Christ’s righteousness freely of his grace and not because of any merit of man; and that this righteousness becomes the possession of all who believe in Christ with true faith.  Eph. 1:17; Rom. 3:24; Rom. 5:1; Rom. 3:28; Acts 10:43; Gal. 2:16.

SANCTIFICATION

The Church teaches that God, having renewed the sinner by the operation of the Holy Spirit, enables him to live a godly life; that all christians manifest the fruit of their faith in good works; and that, though sanctification is progressive, perfection is not attained until man enters glory. 2 Cor. 5:17; Gal. 5:24; 2 Cor. 7:1; James 2:22; Gal 5:6; James 3:2; Rom. 7:7-26; Philip. 3:12-14; 1 John 1:8.

DIVINE ELECTION 

The Church teaches that God in his eternal plan for all creatures has foreordained all things that come to pass; that in his sovereign love and according to his good pleasure he has chosen in Christ out of the whole human race a people unto eternal salvation; that from this election proceed faith and all the gifts of salvation; and that the ground for this election is not anything in man which would merit for him any favour but solely the good pleasure of God. Is. 46:9,10; Eph, 1:4; Acts 13:48; Psalm 33:11; Eph. 1:11; 2 Tim. 1:9.

ETERNAL SECURITY 

The Church teaches that by virtue of their election, the substitutionary atonement of Christ, and his intercession for them, the salvation of God’s people is assured; that God will not suffer those who are joined to Christ in true faith to totally fall away from faith and grace; and that by reason of the continuous abiding of the Holy Spirit the believers will persevere in the way of salvation to the end. John 10:28,29; Heb. 7:25; Rom. 11:29; Philip. 1:6; 2 Thess. 3:3;  2 Tim, 1:12.

THE CHURCH 

The Reformed Church teaches that there is an invisible Church, which consists of all true believers; that Jesus Christ is the Head and King of the Church; that this Church is one; and that this Church has been from the beginning of this world, and will be unto the end thereof.

The Reformed Church also believes that this invisible Church becomes visible in the fellowship of those who profess the true religion together with their children; and that it is the duty of every Christian to join and support that section of the visible Church which stands for the pure preaching of the Word, the Scriptural administration of the Sacraments; and the elimination of those from its membership who are not sound in doctrine or lead offensive lives. Eph. 1:22,23; Tim, 3:15; Col. 1:18; 1 Cor. 12:13; Matt, 16:18; John 8:32,33; Acts 2:42; Matt. 18:18,

BAPTISM 

The Church teaches that Baptism, even as circumcision in the Old Testament days, is a sign and seal of the Covenant of Grace; that children, as well as their believing parents, are included in that Covenant and hence are entitled to that Sacrament; and that God in baptism seals his promises of the forgiveness of sins and eternal life to those who profess their faith in Jesus Christ, and to their children. Gen. 17:7; Acts 2:39; Matt, 28:19; Matt, 19:14; Col. 2:11,12; Rom. 1:11.

THE LORD’S SUPPER 

The Church teaches that the bread and wine in the Lord’s Supper represent the body and blood of the Lord Jesus Christ, broken and shed upon the cross; that by these visible signs and seals of his love the believer is assured of the promises and blessings of God’s Covenant; and that through the proper observance of his ordinance of Christ the faithful believer grows in the grace and knowledge of his Saviour. Cor, 10:16;  Matt, 26:28;  Mark 14:22-25; 1 Cor. 11:23-29.

THE LAW

The Church teaches that the Law of God is the divine revelation of his will for all rational creatures; that it serves to bring man under the conviction of sin and to lead him to Christ; that in the light of the law man learns more and more to know his sinful nature: and that it is the rule of life for believers in showing their gratitude to God for their salvation. Rom, 3:20; 1 John 5:3; Psalm 19:7,8; Gal. 3:24; James 2:10. 

THE CHRISTIAN LIFE 

The Church teaches that, having been implanted into Christ, the child of God delights in bringing forth fruits of thankfulness; that he shows his love for God by doing good works, namely, such as are done from true faith, according to the Law of God, and to his glory; that he should manifest a zeal for the honour of his God by recognising him in every sphere and relationship of life; and that he should labor ceaselessly for the propagation of the gospel and the evangelisation of the world until the kingdom of God shall embrace the whole of God’s creation. Matt. 7:17; Eph. 2:10; 1 Cor, 10:21; Matt, 5:16; Rom, 11:36; Matt, 28:19,20.

PRAYER

The Church teaches that prayer is the chief part of thankfulness which God requires of his children; and that the prayer of faith has God’s assured promises of acceptance and answer because of the merits of Jesus Christ, in whose name alone all men should pray. Psalm 50:14; James 5:16; John 14:13; Matt. 7:7; 1 John 5:14; Is. 65:24; Matt. 21:22,

DEATH 

The Church teaches that physical death is God’s judgment upon man’s sin; that for the Christian the sting of death has been removed through his deliverance from sin and its punishment; and that for the Christian death now is the means whereby God delivers him from the body of death and prepares him for Entrance into glory. Rom, 6:23; John 11:25,26; Rom, 5:12; Philip. 1:23; 1 Cor. 15:55-57.

THE INTERMEDIATE STATE 

The Church teaches that the believers enjoy a conscious life in communion with God and with Jesus Christ immediately after death; that sinners as well as saints continue to exist for ever; and that man’s eternal state is irrevocably fixed at death and no opportunity for repentance is possible beyond the grave. Luke 23:43; 2 Cor. 5:8; Rom, 5:12; Philip 1:23; 1 Cor. 15:55-57.

THE RESURRECTION AND THE LAST JUDGMENT 

The Church teaches that the body which in death was separated from the soul, will be raised on the Last Day and will be reunited with the soul; that the believers will be judged by Jesus Christ according to what they have done, whether it be good or evil; and that all the righteous will enjoy the perfect bliss of glory forever while all the ungodly will be sent to eternal condemnation. John 5:28,29; Matt, 25:31-46; Rev. 20:12-15; Gal. 6:7,8; Rev. 21:3,4.

APPENDAGE

CHRISTIAN EDUCATION 

The Reformed Church maintains that the education of children is the task of parents; that it is proper for the parents to organise Christian elementary and high schools for the purpose of assisting them in bringing up their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord; that parents owe it to themselves, their children, and their God to cooperate in activities undertaken for the Christian education and training of children and young people; and that the Church should urge the opening of private Christian schools and lend such moral and financial support as may be required and is possible for the Church to give.

LIFE OF SEPARATION

The Reformed Church holds that Christians should lead a life of spiritual separation from the world; that they should avoid all fellowship with institutions and organisations that are anti-Christian in character or are guilty of un-christian practices; and that they should manifest in their lives an aversion to participation in activities and amusements which injure their spiritual and moral well-being.

CHURCH GOVERNMENT 

The Reformed Church maintains that Christ is the head of the Church and the source of all its authority; that Christ exercises his authority by means of the Word; that Christ as King has endowed his Church with power to carry out the work which he has entrusted to it; and that the ruling power in the Church sides primarily in the local consistory which consists of elders chosen by the congregation and, together with other consistories, deal in major assemblies, classis and synod, with matters of doctrine, church government, discipline, and all that pertains to the preservation of unity and good order in the Church of Jesus Christ.

C Schaveling

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

Please leave an expression of interest in the comments box if you or your church is interested in the above mentioned, “A Summary of the Reformed Faith”.

Leave a comment

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