LOUIS PRAAMSMA 1910–1984 – It pleased the Lord of life to take to Himself a good and faithful servant, Dr. Louis Praamsma, a solidly Reformed pastor, preacher, writer, teacher, and that in three countries: The Netherlands, Canada and the United States of America. I could attempt to say a few things in his honor, but I couldn’t possibly do better than translate a short tribute published in Calvinist Contact by his son, Herman. It is entitled “In Memoriam,” is written in Dutch, and goes like this:
Letters we used to get at our home always carried the impressive address: To the Honorable Learned Gentleman Dr. L. Praamsma. But the memories which have been playing in my mind the last while were not of a person of high honor or great learning.
They were memories of one with whom I gladly rode on the handlebar of a bicycle while we sang choruses together; one with whom we experienced delightful vacations at Schiermonnikoog; of long walks through woods and over dunes, readings from Godfried Bomans and swimming and soccer; a father who could compose such lovely poems for Sinterklass, and play that role himself. I remember Sunday evenings around the organ with Johannes de Heer, and many mornings when I crept into his bed for just a few moments, warm and safe. I remember . . . there isn’t any end to it.
Above all I remember his sincere, simple love for God and the people of God; his deep impression of the reality of the grace of a rich Savior for poor sinners, among which he counted himself first. He was aware of his own shortcomings and his complete dependence upon his Savior Jesus. And there was no greater joy in his life than to see children and grandchildren profess their faith in the same Lord Jesus Christ (Translation mine, J.H.P.).
Among his papers was found a poem entitled Hoe Zal Ik Mijn God Ontmoeten? (How Shall I Meet My God?) Herman or another of Dr. Praamsma’s gifted children owe us a translation of this precious composition!
A Bible text comes to my mind as I think of the life and labors of Dominie Praamsma (he insisted after a brief stint as professor of Church History at Calvin Seminary that he was called to be a pastor and ought therefore to go back to a ministry in a local congregation). It reads:
Remember your leaders, who spoke the word of God to you. Consider the outcome of their way of life and imitate their faith. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever (Heb. 13:7, 8).
Our Christian sympathy to the family and all who mourn the passing of Louis Praamsma!
HOW DO WE FIGHT ONE ANOTHER? – There are more than a few these days who find it necessary to warn “conservatives” in the Christian Reformed Church against unkind, unchristian conduct. Some years ago a prominent Calvin Seminary professor labeled the kind of people who sponsor this periodical as militant. They have “a militant mind.” Their theme song is “Onward Christian Soldiers.” They love to fight, in fact, they pick fights. They disturb the church. And they ought to be resisted, put away, discredited. In fact, they are the chief cause for disgrace in the Christian Reformed Church.
All this is said with the Bible open to First Corinthians 13, of course.
One of the latest of these warnings comes from the pen of the Reverend Nicholas B. Knoppers ofEdmonton. He does it well. Writing an interesting meditation on Philippians 4:5 (“Let your gentleness be evident to all.”) in the Dutch language (DeWachter, Jan. 15, 1985), Knoppers urges that all parties in the current unrest in his church understand that the word translated gentleness has a three-fold significance. It then offers the rules by which and within which we may contend with others as Christian brothers and sisters.
These are: modesty, friendliness, fairness.
Under the first Knoppers suggests that we recognize the relative insignificance of our little denomination. We are just a small drop (some 300,000) in the great North American ocean with its 250,000,000 residents. Let’s be modest, says Knoppers, recognizing that things we used to fight for as principles later came to light as not being principles at all. (Just where this leaves modest people like Knoppers and myself I’m not sure!)
And we ought to be friendly. Indeed! I sincerely appreciate Knoppers’ assertion that we have often admonished people with a Bible in the hand but without a Bible in our hearts.
Still more, we ought to be fair. This, says Knoppers, appealing to that outstanding (conservative) exegete, S. Greijdanus, means a willingness to go along, to be conciliatory, to be kind. It does not mean compromise at the expense of the truth, but a willingness to listen to one another, to be open so that we can hear this Word of the Lord, “Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves” (Phil. 2:3).
Knoppers closes by reminding us that this appears in Phil. 4:5 as a command. The urgency of this matter is put in awesome language. “The Lord will soon appear for judgment and His verdict will pass also upon our conduct in the current struggle.” Who could possibly disagree?
One observation, however: Doesn’t the following opening paragraph seem to be a bit one-sided? Translated by me, it reads:
Professors from a seminary with a militant name make long and therefore expensive trips to call the good people to open protest against a synodical decision which has been worked at for no less than fourteen years with five committees and thousands of dollars of expense. Consistories are urged to send ‘overtures’ according to a certain model. Coalitions are formed to unite available manpower. Bulletins and periodicals press strongly that certain quotas not be paid. A strategy is recommended to get our men in the seats of power. Family birthday gatherings are used to form the home front. Pulpits must serve as quivers (loaded with arrows to shoot at the congregation, I guess–JHP). Forward march!
I hope my friend Nick Knoppers will forgive the awkward translation of parts of his meditation. And once again: I agree: we are commanded to love one another, to be good to one another, to be gentle, friendly, fair, modest.
“Conservatives” (I dislike that word!) ought to do that. And even “progressives” (another word I don’t recommend) ought to do it. To put it better: ALL Christians should pledge themselves to obey the Lord’s command found in Phil. 4:5! Pray that it may be done!
WHAT WILL SYNOD DO? – Speculation about Synod 1985 is plentiful these days. Especially about its possible disposition of overtures and protests against last year’s decisions regarding the admissibility of female communicants to the office of deacon. A few observations:
1. Does it really make much difference what synod decides on this (or any other) issue? Several years ago the late Edwin Palmer (Christian Reformed minister; executive secretary of the New York Bible Society) wrote a little piece in this journal under the title, “Phooey on the Church Order.” From the title it is easy to guess that he felt constrained to observe that careful and scrupulous obedience to the official Church Order of the Christian Reformed Church was lacking. This development has not abated, I fear. I know of at least one instance in which a particular congregation proceeded to install a lady deacon before Last synod, arguing that the demand for such action was so strong that delay was not possible. Similar stories can be multiplied. Do they reveal that “respect for the law” in the church is lacking? If so, can we believe that all congregations will always “go by the book,” or will we see a growing tendency toward individualism, congregationalism, independentism . . . all “big words” meaning that each does whatever seems good in his own eyes?
2. Are the differing points of view here really reconcilable? My impressions are that they are principally and emotionally so far apart that any decision will provoke disagreement, hostility and further agitation. The intensity with which the feminist movement works makes me shudder. For this issue is not a matter of quiet conviction but of absolute and almost fanatic devotion to the most important of causes. We are being asked to pray for the peace of Jerusalem. Well we might! But can we easily pray for a resolution that will satisfy all the saints when the lines drawn are so sharp and the differences indicated are so deep?
3. Have the real dimensions of this controversy about the eligibility of women to hold office in the church been explored by the Christian Reformed Church? I think not. I know that report after report has come to synod and to the churches—and much hard work has been expended to write (and to read!) them. For the past twenty-five years or so we have not suffered from a drought of synodical study committee reports in the CRC! It seems to me, however, that although the reports on this issue have not been superficial or without reference to the larger implications of the problem, there has been almost a total ignoring of the radical, revolutionary spirit of the modern feminist movement. To assume that it has no influence on us is absurd . But have we really looked at it for what it is, and evaluated the implications it holds for any Christian in our time? Whatever moves we make to change our rules governing eligibility for office in Christ’s church ought, it seems to me, to be informed by a recognition and understanding of this movement.
4. Can we in the churches expect that business done at Synod 1985 on this (and all other) issues will be totally free from any and all kinds of political maneuverings? Will truly Christian churchmanship be evident? Will there be a real effort to avoid even the appearance of partiality and prejudice in the appointment of key committees, in the full recognition of all voices? Will there be a real attempt to minimize pressure from the gallery during the discussion of this issue? If not, we can pray and talk and debate all we want—the effect will be further polarization. And polarization is not really admissible in the Body of Christ.
HERESY TRIAL IN THE CRC – Thanks to the accused, the Rev. Neal Punt of Evergreen Park , IL, I have a copy of the “Agenda for the Special Meeting of Classis Chicago South Friday, March 1, at 7:30 P.M. at the Kedvale Avenue C. R. C.” This meeting is being called to discuss a protest against the teachings of Mr. Punt by the consistory of First CRC, Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada.
This is not to suggest that Punt is an aggrieved victim in this procedure. On the contrary, my impression is that he couldn’t be happier. Ever since his book (Unconditional Good News) appeared (1980) he has been more than willing to take on all comers.
Readers of OUTLOOK know that one of our more prolific contributors , the Rev. Jelle Tuininga of Lethbridge, has more than once expressed total disagreement with Punt’s ideas. Pressed by Punt, this has come to be a formal trial. As a result the Lethbridge consistory has lodged a five-point complaint. These points are:
“I. Punt’s book is entitled Unconditional Good News, and he writes that ‘the church must announce the good news to all persons,’ and that (Karl) Barth ‘recognizes correctly that the gospel is the announcement of an objective state of affairs for the elect’ (p. 108). Since neither the Scriptures nor the creeds speak about the gospel as ‘unconditional good news’ or as an ‘objective announcement,’ we believe Punt‘s view brings him into conflict with both Scriptures and creeds. (Scripture and creedal citations follow, JHP).
II. Punt’s peculiar view of ‘biblical universalism’ leads him to a peculiar view of faith, whereby faith is not essential in establishing in the state of grace . . . .
III. Punt states that only those who willfully reject the gospel will be lost, and that all others must be regarded as being in Christ and as joined with us in fulfilling the cultural mandate . . . This is a denial of the radical antithesis between belief and unbelief, and of the radical nature of sin rooted in the human heart.
IV. Punt states that all who die in infancy are saved, since no one is condemned on the basis of original sin alone.
V. Perhaps Punt‘s most basic mistake and error lies in his unbiblical and speculative assumptions or premises. He says that in bringing the gospel we must assume that all men are elect in Christ . . . . We have no business assuming who is elect or non-elect when preaching the gospel . . . . We believe that Punt’s premise is in conflict with Scriptures and creeds which state that all men are by nature dead in sins and trespasses, and unless they hear the voice of the Son of God they will not live . . . .”
Punt offers a detailed rebuttal of these charges which we will not try to summarize here. By the time this is published the classis will have met and made its judgment. We’ll give you the results next time. Suffice it to say that the issues at stake are not trivial!
MARRIAGE AND RESPONSIBILITY – Sydney J . Harris is a long-time, brilliant syndicated columnist. His material appears regularly in one ofChicago’s two outstanding dailies, The Sun-Times. A recent column contains this observation One of the chief reasons that so many marriages fail is that the functions of a date and a mate differ radically; that of a date is to be charming; that of a mate to be responsible; and, unfortunately, the most charming people are not necessarily the most responsible, while the most responsible are just as often deficient in charm.
Not bad!
“Dating” and “fun” are often identified in a very dangerous way. I have often warned covenant young people that their friendships were dangerous for their spiritual and moral welfare, only to hear that they were “only dating” and marriage was not at all being contemplated. This turned out differently, of course, and the problems ensuing were soon horrendous.
It is sad that the Christian world has become so insensitive to the reality of divine calling. Looking for a thrill instead of God’s will can only bring pain. Not to mention disaster for God’s cause!