DISAPPROVES OF ARTICLE RE NEW EDUCATIONAL MATERIALS OF THE CRC
After a few weeks of careful consideration I have decided to ask for space in THE OUTLOOK in reaction to the January article recommending that churches not use the new educational publications of the Christian Reformed Church.
I have read THE OUTLOOK (also as TORCH AND TRUMPET) for many years. I have appreciated its conservative loyalty to the CRC. This now increases my disappointment at the action of the Reformed Fellowship in this instance. I am dismayed that such a divisive step could have been taken with what seems to be such little real consideration. I say little consideration because the article reflects such a strange interpretation of Synod’s action and a rather I1Ish conclusion. This was done without so much as a single contact with the Education Committee or Education staff of the church.
If you will look at the Acts of Synod 1970, pages 206–211, you will not find anywhere in the report an explicit statement that churches should adopt a single track educational program. The document does say that in its educational ministry the church must seek to communicate the “single comprehensive message of Scripture.” The principle that the Word of God has one message to all men, you will agree, is Scriptural. Whether bond or free, kings of high estate or men of low degree, child or adult, God comes with that “single comprehensive message.”
In recognition of that Scriptural directive, the Board of Publications adopted as its first priority a unified core program which “shall seek to do justice to both the catechetical and evangelistic dimensions of gospel teaching as a single educational task . . . .” In the same document Synod said that this core program must include “The witness of the creeds as meaningful reformulations of the central teachings of the Bible.” There was no intent then, nor is there now, of discontinuing our historic instruction in doctrine. The new material clearly indicates this at the grade levels of 5 and 6.
Now, are churches left, as you say, with “no choice” but to go outside the Christian Reformed Church for materials? Please note that Synod also said “This core program shall seek to adapt this message to all kinds of people representing the highly diversified religious commitments confronting us in our contemporary pluralistic society.” This diversity in local situations will mean that some churches deem it wise to continue a Sunday School with an evangelistic emphasis and also catechism classes where there is more stress on nurture of covenant youth. Many churches have found the Christian Reformed Bible Way Curriculum to be an excellent tool for such Sunday School programs. By grades 5 and 6 there is a natural transition toward including many of the concepts formerly considered as “catechism” material.
Other churches are no doubt continuing a two-track program for more practical reasons still. A one-track program, it is assumed, must meet on Sunday, and there is not enough time for a thorough unified program. Or when all classes meet at the same time there is a shortage of adequate facilities, and the pastor can teach only one class. Many of these churches also find the Bible Way program a fine tool for their Sunday Schools. Because of a difference in format and approach the overlap of concepts from catechism in the Bible Guide (grades 5 and 6) does not become a serious pedagogical problem. Please note: the Education Committee has stated that its older catechism materials will remain available as long as there is a sufficient demand.
I hope you will reconsider your action. I hope you will base your conclusions on a careful study of the contents of the new curriculum and the principle of the oneness of God’s message. I hope your rather cursory rejection is not based on a dislike of what is to a large extent a matter of personal taste—the art, format, attention getting devices, etc. Please do not judge too hastily on the basis of these somewhat extrinsic things. There is some adjustment in the way teachers will have to handle the lessons. Teachers will talk less and children will be more involved. Before you reject this change, honestly face the questions of how children learn and what teaching technics are most effective.
I think I may share your problem somewhat. I am conservative by nature. I resist change, but we must try to be open to better ways of doing things. Let’s be honest. Are you really satisfied that teacher talk (lecturing) and rote memorization of answers is the best way to “heart” knowledge as well as “head” knowledge?
I respectfully ask that you reconsider your action. Let us all help each other find the best answers within the church we love. Please do not foster an already deplorable spirit of mistrust and suspicion that seems to equate every change with a trend toward liberalism. The Christian Reformed Church’s educational program is in a stage of being shaped for the future. Your church needs your constructive comments and help, but don’t abandon it.
Respectfully,
MARION J. VOS
Reply
Dear Mr. Vos:
We thank you for your support of Reformed Fellowship through the years and also for the letter expressing your concern. We will deal with your observations in the order in which they occur and we hope that our explanation will be satisfactory to you.
Your letter says that we will not “find anywhere in the Report an explicit statement that churches should adopt a single track educational program.” But the quote in your next paragraph contradicts this statement. The quote d early indicates that the CRC has now officially adopted as its system of instruction a unified core pr0gram which will seek to do justice in a one-track system to the material which was formerly treated in a two-track system of catechism and Sunday School. As it now stands in the CRC, any churches in the CRC who still desire to maintain a two-track system of Sunday School and separate catechism classes, will no longer be able to look to the denomination for catechetical materials except the reprints of other catechism materials. The denominational office has decided very recently to reprint older catechism materials as long as there is a demand. But they have no plans for preparing new catechetical materials because they feel the need is satisfied in the new, unified church school plan. So the point simply stated is this: Whereas separate catechism classes for instruction in doctrine have always been—required in the CRC—this is now, not only optional, but such catechism classes are definitely not encouraged by the denomination as is evidenced by 1) their official decision recorded in the Acts of Synod, and also 2) by the obvious fact that they have no plans for new catechism books and have only very recently decided to reprint older ones.
In the light of all this, Reformed Fellowship is stating that it stands committed to a separate and thorough instruction in catechism (doctrinal training) for the children and the young people of our denomination. We are not denying that the Word of God has one message to all men, but we are saying with the CRC as it has historically stood, that the Bible can be approached in two ways: The Biblical-historical approach (taught in SS) and the doctrinal approach (taught in catechism), recognizing at the same time that Biblical history and doctrine do intertwine in the Scriptures. The CRC has always taught these two basic approaches in two separate tracks, Sunday School and catechism, feeling no doubt, that a more thorough treatment of Scripture could be achieved by this two-track method. It cannot be contested that the CRC has now officially set aside the two-track system. An overture coming to Synod 1973 from Classis Zeeland, points out this fact and asks that Synod “recognize again catechetical instruction as we have known it in the Reformed heritage as an accepted mode for religious instruction.” The Board of Reformed Fellowship in formulating its article for the January issue of THE OUTLOOK did not feel that it was necessary to consult with the Board of Publications on this matter since all the official acts of the CRC are recorded in the Acts of Synod for all to read.
Dealing now specifically with materials for SS or church school as the case may be, it should be ke pt in mind that for years already, CRC churches have not felt obligated to use CRC material. We are not commending this attitude but simply stating that it is a fact. Many churches have been using materials from companies such as David C. Cook, Gospel Light, Scripture Press, Standard Publishing and others for years already. When the new CRC materials were released last summer, much dissatisfaction was voiced. The overture from Classis Zeeland to the Synod 1973 states that “None of the churches of Classis Zeeland consider the materials being provided in the Uni6cd Church School Curriculum to be adequate to replace catechism materials provided previous to the 1970 decision of Synod.” So the judgment of inadequacy of materials comes from the constistency, not from Reformed Fellowship. But as a result of the dissatisfaction (and this is not only a matter of “personal taste”), any number of churches have decided to look elsewhere for materials. Because people desired direction in this matter, Reformed Fellowship endorsed Great Commission Publications. Upon investigation of various materials, we found Great Commission to be pedagogically attractive and doctrinally in line with our own Reformed position. Without such direction these churches may have moved (and may still move) to materials less Reformed in character.
Finally, with regard to your question about “teacher talk” and “rote memorization,” we have no reason to think that this method has been either erroneous or ineffective in the past. And it certainly has not been proved that “teacher talk” or “memorization” only promotes “head knowledge” and hinders “heart knowledge.” It would be unfair to allege that such “memorization” was a stumbling block for children of bygone years. Many older folks today will testify to the fact that even now in their sunset years, when various circumstances come upon them, they recall with great blessing, catechism answers, or verses, or even entire Psalms which they memorized as children. The Bible says in Proverbs 6:20: “Bind the commandments upon your heart.” What better way to “bind” the truths of God upon one’s own heart and the hearts of these little ones than by memorizing? The blessings of such “binding” will follow:
“My son, keep your father’s commandment, and forsake not your mother’s teaching. Bind them upon your heart always; tie them about your neck. When you walk, they will lead you; when you lie down, they will watch over you; and when you awake, they will talk with you. For the commandment is a lamp and the teaching a light, and the reproofs of discipline are the way of life, to preserve you . . .” (Prov. 6:20–24)
Cordially,
THE BOARD OF REFORMED FELLOWSHIP, INC.
CLASSIS ZEELAND OVERTURE
Classis Zeeland overtures the CRC Synod of 1973 to:
1. Diverge from the 1970 decision of Synod which made the U.C.S.C. (Unified Church School Curriculum) the pattern for religious instruction for all the churches within the denomination, and re-establish or recognize again catechetical instruction as we have known it in the Reformed heritage as an accepted mode for religious instruction.
2. Instruct the Board of Publications to continue research, development and publication of materials suited particularly for catechetical instruction of our covenant youth as historically practiced in the Christian Reformed Church for congregations that find the two-track (Catechism and Sunday School) system necessary and preferable to the Unified Church School Curriculum.
GROUNDS:
1. A survey of all the churches of Classis Zeeland indicates that:
a. None of the churches of Classis ZeeJand intend at this time to phase out the two-track (Sunday School and Catechism) system.
b. None of the churches of Classis Zeeland consider the materials being provided in the Unified Church School Curriculum to be adequate to replace catechism materials provided previous to the 1970 decision of Synod.
c. The Unified Church School Curriculum necessitates placing the responsibility of teaching the doctrines of the church primarily in the hands of those who are not pastors or elders; however the churches of Classis Zeeland desire that the work of teaching the doctrines of the church should remain primarily the task of the pastors and elders.
2. The consistories of Classis Zeeland find it difficult to observe the spirit of Articles 63 and 64 of the Church Order if they adopt the Unified Church School Curriculum, particularly in the requirements that: “The instruction shall be given hy the minister of the Word with the help, if necessary, of the elders or those appointed by the Consistory.” “The Heidelberg Catechism and its compendium shall be the basis of instruction. Selection of additional instructional helps shall be made by the minister in consultation with the Consistory.”
OUR WHOLE OUTLOOK ON SECOND SERVICE IS INCORRECT
During the past several months articles have appeared in Calvinist Contact, The Banner and THE OUTLOOK regarding the second service. These articles make for interesting reading, and the main idea seems to be: “What can we do to improve our second service?”, “How can we make the second service attractive enough for our people?” Some suggestions were offered, such as more participation by the people, some even to the extent that a sort of dialogue be carried on.
It seems to the that the questions above are not fairly rai~ed. Since the morning service is usually very similar to the second service, maybe we should ask: “Why do people come in the morning and not to the second service?” In effect, then, we should not pose the question “What’s wrong with the second service?”; instead we should say, “What’s wrong with the people, that they should ignore, omit, skip, or just stay away from the second service?”
The suggestions for improvement of the second service appear to be nothing more than devices for attracting people, and once the novelty of these inventions wears off, we have to start all over improving the second service.
In the second service, as well as the morning service, the Word of God is preached. Sometimes it is brought by a very “interesting” minister; sometimes by one, who is termed as “dull.” Regardless of the quality of the service, it is nevertheless a worship service where we sing God’s praises, where the minister proclaims the gospel, and where we may offer to our Lord our gifts. The attitude of the attendants more often than not determines the quality of the performance of the minister.
It would appear then that our whole outlook on the second service is incorrect. If we go to church, morning or second service, to “hear the minister” we will certainly not benefit spiritually. We should instead go to church to hear “the Word of God,” and we will certainly find that God uses even “dull” ministers to instruct us from the Bible.
We usually have three meals a day, and if at every meal we are hungry enough, we go for second helpings. Are we spiritually so overfed that one helping on Sunday morning is sufficient? Are we such enthusiastic followers of the Lord that all we need to hear is just one sermon. The apostle Paul says: “Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is” (Heb. 10:25).
Paul says that faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God (Rom. 10:17). Seems to me he implies that the more we hear the Word of God, the stronger our faith will be. Perhaps what applies here is; “For the heart of this people is waxed gross and their ears are dull of hearing ( Is. 6:10, Matt 13:15) or even: “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears. And they shall tum away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned to fables” ( II Tim. 4:3, 4).
Let’s rather listen to what Nehemiah says: “And the ears of the people were attentive to the hook of the law”; or Solomon when he writes, “Apply thine heart to instruction and thine ears to the words of knowledge” (Prov. 23:12).
In Communist countries people hunger for the Word of God, sharing even pages of the Bible. Here we have the opportunity, and it seems that the spiritual food offered in the second service is spumed. Is this the way faithful Christians can treat God’s call to worship? If we are that dedicated, will not Revelation 3:15 and 16 apply to us?
Instead of improving the second service, let’s improve on the attitude of our people, beginning at “our own home.”
H. NYMEYER
After a few weeks of careful consideration I have decided to ask for space in THE OUTLOOK in reaction to the January article recommending that churches not use the new educational publications of the Christian Reformed Church.
I have read THE OUTLOOK (also as TORCH AND TRUMPET) for many years. I have appreciated its conservative loyalty to the CRC. This now increases my disappointment at the action of the Reformed Fellowship in this instance. I am dismayed that such a divisive step could have been taken with what seems to be such little real consideration. I say little consideration because the article reflects such a strange interpretation of Synod’s action and a rather I1Ish conclusion. This was done without so much as a single contact with the Education Committee or Education staff of the church.
If you will look at the Acts of Synod 1970, pages 206–211, you will not find anywhere in the report an explicit statement that churches should adopt a single track educational program. The document does say that in its educational ministry the church must seek to communicate the “single comprehensive message of Scripture.” The principle that the Word of God has one message to all men, you will agree, is Scriptural. Whether bond or free, kings of high estate or men of low degree, child or adult, God comes with that “single comprehensive message.”
In recognition of that Scriptural directive, the Board of Publications adopted as its first priority a unified core program which “shall seek to do justice to both the catechetical and evangelistic dimensions of gospel teaching as a single educational task . . . .” In the same document Synod said that this core program must include “The witness of the creeds as meaningful reformulations of the central teachings of the Bible.” There was no intent then, nor is there now, of discontinuing our historic instruction in doctrine. The new material clearly indicates this at the grade levels of 5 and 6.
Now, are churches left, as you say, with “no choice” but to go outside the Christian Reformed Church for materials? Please note that Synod also said “This core program shall seek to adapt this message to all kinds of people representing the highly diversified religious commitments confronting us in our contemporary pluralistic society.” This diversity in local situations will mean that some churches deem it wise to continue a Sunday School with an evangelistic emphasis and also catechism classes where there is more stress on nurture of covenant youth. Many churches have found the Christian Reformed Bible Way Curriculum to be an excellent tool for such Sunday School programs. By grades 5 and 6 there is a natural transition toward including many of the concepts formerly considered as “catechism” material.
Other churches are no doubt continuing a two-track program for more practical reasons still. A one-track program, it is assumed, must meet on Sunday, and there is not enough time for a thorough unified program. Or when all classes meet at the same time there is a shortage of adequate facilities, and the pastor can teach only one class. Many of these churches also find the Bible Way program a fine tool for their Sunday Schools. Because of a difference in format and approach the overlap of concepts from catechism in the Bible Guide (grades 5 and 6) does not become a serious pedagogical problem. Please note: the Education Committee has stated that its older catechism materials will remain available as long as there is a sufficient demand.
I hope you will reconsider your action. I hope you will base your conclusions on a careful study of the contents of the new curriculum and the principle of the oneness of God’s message. I hope your rather cursory rejection is not based on a dislike of what is to a large extent a matter of personal taste—the art, format, attention getting devices, etc. Please do not judge too hastily on the basis of these somewhat extrinsic things. There is some adjustment in the way teachers will have to handle the lessons. Teachers will talk less and children will be more involved. Before you reject this change, honestly face the questions of how children learn and what teaching technics are most effective.
I think I may share your problem somewhat. I am conservative by nature. I resist change, but we must try to be open to better ways of doing things. Let’s be honest. Are you really satisfied that teacher talk (lecturing) and rote memorization of answers is the best way to “heart” knowledge as well as “head” knowledge?
I respectfully ask that you reconsider your action. Let us all help each other find the best answers within the church we love. Please do not foster an already deplorable spirit of mistrust and suspicion that seems to equate every change with a trend toward liberalism. The Christian Reformed Church’s educational program is in a stage of being shaped for the future. Your church needs your constructive comments and help, but don’t abandon it.
Respectfully,
MARION J. VOS
Reply
Dear Mr. Vos:
We thank you for your support of Reformed Fellowship through the years and also for the letter expressing your concern. We will deal with your observations in the order in which they occur and we hope that our explanation will be satisfactory to you.
Your letter says that we will not “find anywhere in the Report an explicit statement that churches should adopt a single track educational program.” But the quote in your next paragraph contradicts this statement. The quote d early indicates that the CRC has now officially adopted as its system of instruction a unified core pr0gram which will seek to do justice in a one-track system to the material which was formerly treated in a two-track system of catechism and Sunday School. As it now stands in the CRC, any churches in the CRC who still desire to maintain a two-track system of Sunday School and separate catechism classes, will no longer be able to look to the denomination for catechetical materials except the reprints of other catechism materials. The denominational office has decided very recently to reprint older catechism materials as long as there is a demand. But they have no plans for preparing new catechetical materials because they feel the need is satisfied in the new, unified church school plan. So the point simply stated is this: Whereas separate catechism classes for instruction in doctrine have always been—required in the CRC—this is now, not only optional, but such catechism classes are definitely not encouraged by the denomination as is evidenced by 1) their official decision recorded in the Acts of Synod, and also 2) by the obvious fact that they have no plans for new catechism books and have only very recently decided to reprint older ones.
In the light of all this, Reformed Fellowship is stating that it stands committed to a separate and thorough instruction in catechism (doctrinal training) for the children and the young people of our denomination. We are not denying that the Word of God has one message to all men, but we are saying with the CRC as it has historically stood, that the Bible can be approached in two ways: The Biblical-historical approach (taught in SS) and the doctrinal approach (taught in catechism), recognizing at the same time that Biblical history and doctrine do intertwine in the Scriptures. The CRC has always taught these two basic approaches in two separate tracks, Sunday School and catechism, feeling no doubt, that a more thorough treatment of Scripture could be achieved by this two-track method. It cannot be contested that the CRC has now officially set aside the two-track system. An overture coming to Synod 1973 from Classis Zeeland, points out this fact and asks that Synod “recognize again catechetical instruction as we have known it in the Reformed heritage as an accepted mode for religious instruction.” The Board of Reformed Fellowship in formulating its article for the January issue of THE OUTLOOK did not feel that it was necessary to consult with the Board of Publications on this matter since all the official acts of the CRC are recorded in the Acts of Synod for all to read.
Dealing now specifically with materials for SS or church school as the case may be, it should be ke pt in mind that for years already, CRC churches have not felt obligated to use CRC material. We are not commending this attitude but simply stating that it is a fact. Many churches have been using materials from companies such as David C. Cook, Gospel Light, Scripture Press, Standard Publishing and others for years already. When the new CRC materials were released last summer, much dissatisfaction was voiced. The overture from Classis Zeeland to the Synod 1973 states that “None of the churches of Classis Zeeland consider the materials being provided in the Uni6cd Church School Curriculum to be adequate to replace catechism materials provided previous to the 1970 decision of Synod.” So the judgment of inadequacy of materials comes from the constistency, not from Reformed Fellowship. But as a result of the dissatisfaction (and this is not only a matter of “personal taste”), any number of churches have decided to look elsewhere for materials. Because people desired direction in this matter, Reformed Fellowship endorsed Great Commission Publications. Upon investigation of various materials, we found Great Commission to be pedagogically attractive and doctrinally in line with our own Reformed position. Without such direction these churches may have moved (and may still move) to materials less Reformed in character.
Finally, with regard to your question about “teacher talk” and “rote memorization,” we have no reason to think that this method has been either erroneous or ineffective in the past. And it certainly has not been proved that “teacher talk” or “memorization” only promotes “head knowledge” and hinders “heart knowledge.” It would be unfair to allege that such “memorization” was a stumbling block for children of bygone years. Many older folks today will testify to the fact that even now in their sunset years, when various circumstances come upon them, they recall with great blessing, catechism answers, or verses, or even entire Psalms which they memorized as children. The Bible says in Proverbs 6:20: “Bind the commandments upon your heart.” What better way to “bind” the truths of God upon one’s own heart and the hearts of these little ones than by memorizing? The blessings of such “binding” will follow:
“My son, keep your father’s commandment, and forsake not your mother’s teaching. Bind them upon your heart always; tie them about your neck. When you walk, they will lead you; when you lie down, they will watch over you; and when you awake, they will talk with you. For the commandment is a lamp and the teaching a light, and the reproofs of discipline are the way of life, to preserve you . . .” (Prov. 6:20–24)
Cordially,
THE BOARD OF REFORMED FELLOWSHIP, INC.
CLASSIS ZEELAND OVERTURE
Classis Zeeland overtures the CRC Synod of 1973 to:
1. Diverge from the 1970 decision of Synod which made the U.C.S.C. (Unified Church School Curriculum) the pattern for religious instruction for all the churches within the denomination, and re-establish or recognize again catechetical instruction as we have known it in the Reformed heritage as an accepted mode for religious instruction.
2. Instruct the Board of Publications to continue research, development and publication of materials suited particularly for catechetical instruction of our covenant youth as historically practiced in the Christian Reformed Church for congregations that find the two-track (Catechism and Sunday School) system necessary and preferable to the Unified Church School Curriculum.
GROUNDS:
1. A survey of all the churches of Classis Zeeland indicates that:
a. None of the churches of Classis ZeeJand intend at this time to phase out the two-track (Sunday School and Catechism) system.
b. None of the churches of Classis Zeeland consider the materials being provided in the Unified Church School Curriculum to be adequate to replace catechism materials provided previous to the 1970 decision of Synod.
c. The Unified Church School Curriculum necessitates placing the responsibility of teaching the doctrines of the church primarily in the hands of those who are not pastors or elders; however the churches of Classis Zeeland desire that the work of teaching the doctrines of the church should remain primarily the task of the pastors and elders.
2. The consistories of Classis Zeeland find it difficult to observe the spirit of Articles 63 and 64 of the Church Order if they adopt the Unified Church School Curriculum, particularly in the requirements that: “The instruction shall be given hy the minister of the Word with the help, if necessary, of the elders or those appointed by the Consistory.” “The Heidelberg Catechism and its compendium shall be the basis of instruction. Selection of additional instructional helps shall be made by the minister in consultation with the Consistory.”
OUR WHOLE OUTLOOK ON SECOND SERVICE IS INCORRECT
During the past several months articles have appeared in Calvinist Contact, The Banner and THE OUTLOOK regarding the second service. These articles make for interesting reading, and the main idea seems to be: “What can we do to improve our second service?”, “How can we make the second service attractive enough for our people?” Some suggestions were offered, such as more participation by the people, some even to the extent that a sort of dialogue be carried on.
It seems to the that the questions above are not fairly rai~ed. Since the morning service is usually very similar to the second service, maybe we should ask: “Why do people come in the morning and not to the second service?” In effect, then, we should not pose the question “What’s wrong with the second service?”; instead we should say, “What’s wrong with the people, that they should ignore, omit, skip, or just stay away from the second service?”
The suggestions for improvement of the second service appear to be nothing more than devices for attracting people, and once the novelty of these inventions wears off, we have to start all over improving the second service.
In the second service, as well as the morning service, the Word of God is preached. Sometimes it is brought by a very “interesting” minister; sometimes by one, who is termed as “dull.” Regardless of the quality of the service, it is nevertheless a worship service where we sing God’s praises, where the minister proclaims the gospel, and where we may offer to our Lord our gifts. The attitude of the attendants more often than not determines the quality of the performance of the minister.
It would appear then that our whole outlook on the second service is incorrect. If we go to church, morning or second service, to “hear the minister” we will certainly not benefit spiritually. We should instead go to church to hear “the Word of God,” and we will certainly find that God uses even “dull” ministers to instruct us from the Bible.
We usually have three meals a day, and if at every meal we are hungry enough, we go for second helpings. Are we spiritually so overfed that one helping on Sunday morning is sufficient? Are we such enthusiastic followers of the Lord that all we need to hear is just one sermon. The apostle Paul says: “Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is” (Heb. 10:25).
Paul says that faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God (Rom. 10:17). Seems to me he implies that the more we hear the Word of God, the stronger our faith will be. Perhaps what applies here is; “For the heart of this people is waxed gross and their ears are dull of hearing ( Is. 6:10, Matt 13:15) or even: “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears. And they shall tum away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned to fables” ( II Tim. 4:3, 4).
Let’s rather listen to what Nehemiah says: “And the ears of the people were attentive to the hook of the law”; or Solomon when he writes, “Apply thine heart to instruction and thine ears to the words of knowledge” (Prov. 23:12).
In Communist countries people hunger for the Word of God, sharing even pages of the Bible. Here we have the opportunity, and it seems that the spiritual food offered in the second service is spumed. Is this the way faithful Christians can treat God’s call to worship? If we are that dedicated, will not Revelation 3:15 and 16 apply to us?
Instead of improving the second service, let’s improve on the attitude of our people, beginning at “our own home.”
H. NYMEYER