Is the church old fashioned? Outmoded? Passe? Archaic? Antiquated? Not with it? Is the church a vestigial organ which apparently contributes nothing to the adequate functioning of the body in which it has been placed? Is it best then excised by the surgeon’s knife to permit the better development, the evolution and adaptability of the organism?
A Bold Question
Perhaps these questions strike the readers of TORCH AND TRUMPET as bold, daring, wild, and not in conformity with the conservative, even defensive, stance of this journal. Fine! Excellent! We are glad that you are shocked! You see, these questions (or similar ones) are being asked, and not merely by the eternal critics of the church, the adherents of the various sects—Jehovah’s Witnesses and all the California cultists, or by the atheistic! agnostic unbeliever who boasts no connection with the Christian church. These questions come from churchmen, from leaders in Christian communions, from theologians, campus ministers, as well as from the youth (though the youth are often made the whipping post for critical views by their conservative parents).
Widespread questioning of the relevance, importance and even the legitimacy of existence of the church is occurring today. It is folly for us to act as if this were not so, to take the ostrich posture and claim everything is fine because, having blinded ourselves in the soft sand, we can see nothing wrong. We will only accentuate whatever problems there are by failing to listen to criticism, whether that criticism is legitimate or not.
Question Reveals an Attitude
There is a subtle, un-Christian attitude, even arrogance, present in each of us when we will not listen to criticism. It betrays the stance of one who believes that what he (or his church) has been doing cannot possibly stand improvement, revision, or alteration. Some of the questions come from perceptive, sensitive youth and concerned Christian ministers and leaders. They want the church to express itself in the language and idiom of today while retaining the decorum, the dignity and the “divinity” they have come to expect in a truly reformed church.
Some questions reveal more about the interrogator than the object of his probe. When, for instance, a delegation of women demonstrate at the synod of a denomination asking (demanding?) that they no longer be “second-class communicants,” but be allowed admission to the offices of deacon, elder and minister, they show that they have not submitted themselves to the clear teaching of the New Testament which sets out the requirements for these offices, and provides adequate grounds for the restriction of these offices to Christian men. Such questioners show that they have been conditioned by the popular ideas of our day, in this case the so-called emancipation of women, epitomized by the cigarette commercial’s “You’ve come a long way, Baby.”
To listen to the questions is to learn—to learn about inadequacies, ineptness, on the part of the ministry, the individual members, the church program as a whole—but also to learn from the questioner where he is, and perhaps how he got there. And many questions being asked reveal that the “spirit of this age” has affected the one asking the question.
Some Questions are Illegitimate
The church should not be cowed by the position or importance of those whose questions reveal their basic animus against the biblical revelation. It would be far better for the church to deal firmly, and with dispatch, with those whose questioning of creedal matters shows their unwillingness to be under divine authority, than to engage in lengthy “studies” and other acts of toleration which foster further disregard for the standards, and contempt for the authority of the offices of the church.
Dr. Cornelius Van Til used to challenge the legitimacy of questions undermining the faith by telling his students they could have no part in an expedition whose purpose was to look for the bones of Christ. Many questions leveled at the mission and message of the church today are of this bone-discovering variety. Thus under the guise of great theological insight one may call into question the historicity of Genesis, the Virgin Birth of Christ. the infallibility of the Holy Scriptures or the dignity and importance of the offices the Savior instituted in his church.
A Legitimate Question
To ask if the preaching in a particular church is relevant to today’s needs is a legitimate question that we dare not avoid answering. But to ask if preaching is relevant to today’s needs involves more than a slight variation in the use of words; the semantic shift calls into question the very foundation on which the preacher stands the ever-relevant Word of God which the preacher must proclaim to the people of his own day.
But to return to questions, legitimate questions, questions conceived in the matrix of concern for the church in the space age and born in anguish over the disparity between Christian ideals and Christian practice.We dare not turn a deaf ear to these! We do so only at the peril of our own souls, at the impoverishing of our own communions and the alienation of our youth. Yes, we must admit to the inadequacy of the church. Reformed Christians have been conscious of this for a long time. Part of the answer given has been legitimate: the church (as “instistitute”) is no substitute for the family, for the school or for the state. Each has its particular role, and in each area the Christian must act as a Christian. He does not send his children to the church for their instruction five days a week, but establishes Christian schools for that purpose. He knows that neither the local church nor the Christian school can function for (that is, in place of) the family. The Christian father does not surrender his ruling in the home to either of these institutions. So far, so good. We have rightly viewed Christian living as more than belonging to a local congregation of believers and worshipping there a few hours on the Lord’s Day. “Church” is sometimes (loosely) used to mean Christianity, or in the jargon familiar in our circles, it means “kingdom,” kingdom activity when used broadly. So the Reformed Christian admits that the church (as an institute) is inadequate. In fact it is abhorrent to him that the church (in this latter sense) intrude in the affairs properly belonging to these other spheres. Yet we may haven fallen prey to the kind of thinking that thinks all is well in Zion when this territory is divided, Gaul-like, into three segments. And despite cries to the contrary, most of our attention, concern, and benevolences are directed to the church-institute.
The Place of the Church
So as an opener, let us ask if some of the difficulties which concerned (young) people feel today do not arise from the fact that the church as institute receives a disproportionate amount of attention. This is nowhere more plainly seen than in the prominence of the church building in any local “church.” Almost without fail the weekly church bulletin reveals this by a picture of “our church.” The hundreds of thousands of dollars that have been spent for the erection, remodeling and beautification of the cubicle that encloses the worshippers on the Sabbath demand recognition by member and visitor alike. Were these buildings to be so prominent in the lives of the Christians we might have expected the New Testament writers to emphasize the necessity of ornate, esthetically-correct cathedrals for the church-institute’s use! The inspired penmen, however, speak little of that, mentioning the living-stone nature of the church (body of believers) and in passing referring to the houses (private homes) which shelter the believers as they worship.
We might well reassess our values and see whether we have unwittingly been giving the impression that we believe the church building is of greater importance than the body of believers. Arc not the buildings themselves neutral? Could buildings not be so designed to be used by more than one congregation, or for a congregation for worship and instruction on the Sabbath days and the use of a Christian school, Christian youth group, Christian political action group, etc., during the week. The result would not only be tremendous saving of kingdom resources (admittedly the financial aspect is too often primary in our thinking) but also a restored balance of interest (true concern, not lip-service) in the importance of kingdom activities other than the church-institute.
What Language?
We ministers are to blame for some of the alienation of our youth by our unwillingness to speak to them in their language. This does not mean that we are to be in tune with the latest “in” terms, the jargon making the scene in the bistros, coffee houses and rec-centers. But is it too much of a demand on the clergy to read, preach and pray in the language we use ninety-eight percent of the time? Is God really better addressed in the quaint thee-thou-thine paradigm? Can we not combine respectful address with meaningful everyday idiom in our prayers?
Our Saviour who chided the Pharisaical Jews for the long, showy prayers may well reserve similar remarks for verbose preachers who practice the parallel structure of ancient Hebrew poetry in their praying and preaching. Brevity and precision should supplant the loquacious ineptness which adorns (?) much preaching and more praying.
The late R. B. Kuiper used to warn his aspiring preachers not to develop a special tone of voice for preaching, a “preacher’s whine,” but to speak conversationally. Worse than a “whine” is the stilted, artificial language, the hackneyed ecclesiastical lingo which cuts us off from the people we must reach with the divine message.
We must try to remove any barrier which blockades the way from pulpit to pew, and which in turn isolates the pews from one another. People today feel isolated in our increasingly impersonalized society. They are lonely in the crowd; city dwellers unknown to those “neighbors” in the same building, suburbanites withdrawn to their own mini-castles, their problems, their anxieties, their fears bottled up within.
Is the church marshalling its forces to reach the alienated? Do we let them turn to “Dear Abby” with their problems, or to “Dial-a-Friend”? Does the church even contribute to the sense of “apartheid,” with super-large congregations where the distance between men, spiritually-personally, increases as more souls are jammed together in the same building to worship? Loneliness in the crowd can be a dimension in the church as well as in the world.
Is the church out-dated? Or has the church in some ways become so “modern,” so like this God-alienated, spirit-crushing world that it is “far-out,” far out from what it was intended to be?
John M. Zinkand, Professor of Classics, Dordt College, Sioux Center, Iowa.
A Bold Question
Perhaps these questions strike the readers of TORCH AND TRUMPET as bold, daring, wild, and not in conformity with the conservative, even defensive, stance of this journal. Fine! Excellent! We are glad that you are shocked! You see, these questions (or similar ones) are being asked, and not merely by the eternal critics of the church, the adherents of the various sects—Jehovah’s Witnesses and all the California cultists, or by the atheistic! agnostic unbeliever who boasts no connection with the Christian church. These questions come from churchmen, from leaders in Christian communions, from theologians, campus ministers, as well as from the youth (though the youth are often made the whipping post for critical views by their conservative parents).
Widespread questioning of the relevance, importance and even the legitimacy of existence of the church is occurring today. It is folly for us to act as if this were not so, to take the ostrich posture and claim everything is fine because, having blinded ourselves in the soft sand, we can see nothing wrong. We will only accentuate whatever problems there are by failing to listen to criticism, whether that criticism is legitimate or not.
Question Reveals an Attitude
There is a subtle, un-Christian attitude, even arrogance, present in each of us when we will not listen to criticism. It betrays the stance of one who believes that what he (or his church) has been doing cannot possibly stand improvement, revision, or alteration. Some of the questions come from perceptive, sensitive youth and concerned Christian ministers and leaders. They want the church to express itself in the language and idiom of today while retaining the decorum, the dignity and the “divinity” they have come to expect in a truly reformed church.
Some questions reveal more about the interrogator than the object of his probe. When, for instance, a delegation of women demonstrate at the synod of a denomination asking (demanding?) that they no longer be “second-class communicants,” but be allowed admission to the offices of deacon, elder and minister, they show that they have not submitted themselves to the clear teaching of the New Testament which sets out the requirements for these offices, and provides adequate grounds for the restriction of these offices to Christian men. Such questioners show that they have been conditioned by the popular ideas of our day, in this case the so-called emancipation of women, epitomized by the cigarette commercial’s “You’ve come a long way, Baby.”
To listen to the questions is to learn—to learn about inadequacies, ineptness, on the part of the ministry, the individual members, the church program as a whole—but also to learn from the questioner where he is, and perhaps how he got there. And many questions being asked reveal that the “spirit of this age” has affected the one asking the question.
Some Questions are Illegitimate
The church should not be cowed by the position or importance of those whose questions reveal their basic animus against the biblical revelation. It would be far better for the church to deal firmly, and with dispatch, with those whose questioning of creedal matters shows their unwillingness to be under divine authority, than to engage in lengthy “studies” and other acts of toleration which foster further disregard for the standards, and contempt for the authority of the offices of the church.
Dr. Cornelius Van Til used to challenge the legitimacy of questions undermining the faith by telling his students they could have no part in an expedition whose purpose was to look for the bones of Christ. Many questions leveled at the mission and message of the church today are of this bone-discovering variety. Thus under the guise of great theological insight one may call into question the historicity of Genesis, the Virgin Birth of Christ. the infallibility of the Holy Scriptures or the dignity and importance of the offices the Savior instituted in his church.
A Legitimate Question
To ask if the preaching in a particular church is relevant to today’s needs is a legitimate question that we dare not avoid answering. But to ask if preaching is relevant to today’s needs involves more than a slight variation in the use of words; the semantic shift calls into question the very foundation on which the preacher stands the ever-relevant Word of God which the preacher must proclaim to the people of his own day.
But to return to questions, legitimate questions, questions conceived in the matrix of concern for the church in the space age and born in anguish over the disparity between Christian ideals and Christian practice.We dare not turn a deaf ear to these! We do so only at the peril of our own souls, at the impoverishing of our own communions and the alienation of our youth. Yes, we must admit to the inadequacy of the church. Reformed Christians have been conscious of this for a long time. Part of the answer given has been legitimate: the church (as “instistitute”) is no substitute for the family, for the school or for the state. Each has its particular role, and in each area the Christian must act as a Christian. He does not send his children to the church for their instruction five days a week, but establishes Christian schools for that purpose. He knows that neither the local church nor the Christian school can function for (that is, in place of) the family. The Christian father does not surrender his ruling in the home to either of these institutions. So far, so good. We have rightly viewed Christian living as more than belonging to a local congregation of believers and worshipping there a few hours on the Lord’s Day. “Church” is sometimes (loosely) used to mean Christianity, or in the jargon familiar in our circles, it means “kingdom,” kingdom activity when used broadly. So the Reformed Christian admits that the church (as an institute) is inadequate. In fact it is abhorrent to him that the church (in this latter sense) intrude in the affairs properly belonging to these other spheres. Yet we may haven fallen prey to the kind of thinking that thinks all is well in Zion when this territory is divided, Gaul-like, into three segments. And despite cries to the contrary, most of our attention, concern, and benevolences are directed to the church-institute.
The Place of the Church
So as an opener, let us ask if some of the difficulties which concerned (young) people feel today do not arise from the fact that the church as institute receives a disproportionate amount of attention. This is nowhere more plainly seen than in the prominence of the church building in any local “church.” Almost without fail the weekly church bulletin reveals this by a picture of “our church.” The hundreds of thousands of dollars that have been spent for the erection, remodeling and beautification of the cubicle that encloses the worshippers on the Sabbath demand recognition by member and visitor alike. Were these buildings to be so prominent in the lives of the Christians we might have expected the New Testament writers to emphasize the necessity of ornate, esthetically-correct cathedrals for the church-institute’s use! The inspired penmen, however, speak little of that, mentioning the living-stone nature of the church (body of believers) and in passing referring to the houses (private homes) which shelter the believers as they worship.
We might well reassess our values and see whether we have unwittingly been giving the impression that we believe the church building is of greater importance than the body of believers. Arc not the buildings themselves neutral? Could buildings not be so designed to be used by more than one congregation, or for a congregation for worship and instruction on the Sabbath days and the use of a Christian school, Christian youth group, Christian political action group, etc., during the week. The result would not only be tremendous saving of kingdom resources (admittedly the financial aspect is too often primary in our thinking) but also a restored balance of interest (true concern, not lip-service) in the importance of kingdom activities other than the church-institute.
What Language?
We ministers are to blame for some of the alienation of our youth by our unwillingness to speak to them in their language. This does not mean that we are to be in tune with the latest “in” terms, the jargon making the scene in the bistros, coffee houses and rec-centers. But is it too much of a demand on the clergy to read, preach and pray in the language we use ninety-eight percent of the time? Is God really better addressed in the quaint thee-thou-thine paradigm? Can we not combine respectful address with meaningful everyday idiom in our prayers?
Our Saviour who chided the Pharisaical Jews for the long, showy prayers may well reserve similar remarks for verbose preachers who practice the parallel structure of ancient Hebrew poetry in their praying and preaching. Brevity and precision should supplant the loquacious ineptness which adorns (?) much preaching and more praying.
The late R. B. Kuiper used to warn his aspiring preachers not to develop a special tone of voice for preaching, a “preacher’s whine,” but to speak conversationally. Worse than a “whine” is the stilted, artificial language, the hackneyed ecclesiastical lingo which cuts us off from the people we must reach with the divine message.
We must try to remove any barrier which blockades the way from pulpit to pew, and which in turn isolates the pews from one another. People today feel isolated in our increasingly impersonalized society. They are lonely in the crowd; city dwellers unknown to those “neighbors” in the same building, suburbanites withdrawn to their own mini-castles, their problems, their anxieties, their fears bottled up within.
Is the church marshalling its forces to reach the alienated? Do we let them turn to “Dear Abby” with their problems, or to “Dial-a-Friend”? Does the church even contribute to the sense of “apartheid,” with super-large congregations where the distance between men, spiritually-personally, increases as more souls are jammed together in the same building to worship? Loneliness in the crowd can be a dimension in the church as well as in the world.
Is the church out-dated? Or has the church in some ways become so “modern,” so like this God-alienated, spirit-crushing world that it is “far-out,” far out from what it was intended to be?
John M. Zinkand, Professor of Classics, Dordt College, Sioux Center, Iowa.