One really begins to wonder at times what The Banner (and its editor) is trying to accomplish? What is the editor really trying to prove? That he is not a “conservative” or “traditionalist?” We knew that a long time ago, since he advocated “burning the wooden shoes.” Only it wasn’t just the wooden shoes he was after, but almost everything associated with our Dutch Reformed heritage. Our editor is nothing if he’s not iconoclastic. He just can’t seem to wait to dismantle the traditions of the Reformed faith as we have come to know them. (Let it be known, in case it needs saying, that I’m no advocate of conservatism or traditionalism.)

The latest tradition to be laid on the chopping block is the second service (Cf. Banner of Feb. 9). One author proposes to do away entirely with what he calls “a relic that no longer works.” A second suggests that we transform it into a kind of free-for-all “show and tell” demonstration–a kind of people-centered “charismatic” hoopla—the kind of thing that has raised havoc and division within several congregations du ring the last number of years.

One wonders: Is this the best that can be said about the second service? You can’t tell me either that the editor didn’t know ahead of time what kind of authors he was picking for this topic, and what their general direction was. One would think (and expect) that at least he could have asked some representatives from the more traditional viewpoint to present the other side of the argument. More evidence of the editor’s bias and onesidedness—something which he was told about at the Synod of 86.

I ask again: What does the author really want to do to the church with this kind of material? In what way is this really serving the welfare of the denomination? The author of Hebrews (10:25) admonishes us not to neglect the assemblings of ourselves together, and our confession (L.D. 38) understands the fourth commandment as teaching us that “we must diligently attend the church of God.” In the light of this, how must one view the above-mentioned issue of The Banner?

Some years ago a Presbyterian colleague in the city of my first charge was so envious of what he called our “fine Reformed tradition” of having two services per Sunday. The Presbyterian church of Canada, of which he was a member, had by and large lost this tradition. He tried to reestablish it in his charge, without much success. Now and then he would worship with us in the evening service.

Here we have someone who would like to regain something of value that we still had. But meanwhile some of our leaders don’t see the value of what we have, and would just as soon do away with it. How ironical!

Besides, in what possible way would this improve the life of the Christian Reformed Church? Not only would it rob several members from even attending once (those with small babies, sick children, etc.) but it would also be the death knell for the preaching of the Heidelberg Catechism. What a tremendous loss that would be! This could come about sooner than you think.

One of the authors says life is much too busy and hectic during the week to spend much time together as family—perhaps only one meal per week. But rather than cutting out some of this (questionable) busyness during the week, we have to cut out a Sunday service. The author’s entire presentation is so utterly superficial and devoid of Biblical sense that one wonders if he’s serious himself. What is more, the Sunday service problem is just that—a Sunday Problem. What is true of one service is true of the other. The trouble lies elsewhere—in people’s hearts—and perhaps in preachers who want to entertain and have liturgical calisthenics in place of the preaching of the Word. Let’s not kid ourselves: Dropping one service won’t solve the real problem. Soon the remaining service will be in trouble too.

I would say that it’s high time we get back to some of the spiritual verve that is found in Ps. 84 and 122. And also that The Banner becomes a bimonthly publication instead of a weekly.

J.T.