June 14, 1968
Editor, TORCH AND TRUMPET
Dear Brother:
I want to thank the Rev. and Mrs. Van Groningen for their comments on my article published in the February issue of the TORCH AND TRUMPET, I am in complete sympathy with two of the ideas expressed, the first being that seminary students would profit tremendously from a study “in depth” on the subject of “church music.” If pastors were more informed about and interested in the history and crucial role of music in the lives of their people, the practical problems in the field of sacred music would be greatly reduced. I use the word “crucial” advisedly because I am convinced that much of the “sacred” music (so-called) which is played in the studios of “Christian” radio stations and aired in the homes of hundreds of Reformed people has dulled their capacity for doctrinal discernment. It has opened the door for much confused thinking on basic truths of Scripture concerning atonement, sovereignty of God and human responsibility, justice and love of God, election, free will and other areas. We have seen its effects in a practical way in our own denomination. I am thinking currently of the doctrinal controversy re: the atonement, the total absorption of the methods and message of the Campus Crusade movement by many Christian Reformed people, the lack of interest in and conviction about distinctively “Reformed” teaching on our mission fields. Consequently, I feel this area of sacred music is “crucial” to the theological stability of our denomination. It is for this reason that I accepted the task of writing for this journal on that topic.
Secondly, I support Rev. and Mrs. Van Groningen’s hope that more writing in the form of articles on this topic will appear in this journal.
There are however, a few points made by the Van Groningens which I would like to clarify, perhaps amplify. First, they feel there are other areas beside the “glory to God” area which should occupy a place in the worship service. They suggest three: fellowship, witnessing, and personal expression. Many more could be added. There is a sense in which this is very true. However, I do not feel that these areas to be set “alongside of’ glory to God. I feel rather that each one of these areas must be permeated by the basic unifying principle of giving “glory to God.” That is why I chose that as my theme. THE CENTRAL PRINCIPLE must be “glory to God.” It and it alone gives meaning to fellowship, witnessing, personal expression. We truly fellowship only “in the Lord”; we witness only “to or about the Lord”; we express our deepest personal joys or sorrows only “in and through the Lord.”
Secondly, the Van Groningens feel that the Pentecostal movement has taken its toll in Reformed fellowships partly because our music lacks these elements. I would like to point out that there are scores of selections in our hymnal (and other reputable hymnals) which do include these elements. I would also like to suggest that perhaps the reason for defection from Reformed fellowships into Pentecostal fellowships may be a result of a lack of appreciation for our music. (We must also keep in mind that there have been defections from fundamentalist groups into our groups for the sturdiness and completeness of the Reformed faith). “Who can fail to feel the undergirding power of the psalm, 1 love the Lord, His Strength is Mine”? Who can fail to experience the rich communion of the saints in a hymn such as “Blest Be the Tie That Binds” or “How Good and Pleasant is the Sight When Brethren Make it Their Delight to Dwell in Blest Accord”? Who does not thrill to the thought that “Jesus, the Very Thought of Thee, With Sweetness Fills My Breast”? And, if you will forgive me for being personal, I have yet to sing “Come to the Savior Now, He gently calleth thee” without tears of joy welling up from within as I recall unsaved community friends in our past and present parishes who have responded to that call in deep repentance and faith, with tears of sorrow and an ache in my heart as I think of those with whom we’ve wrestled in prayer and conversation who have since rejected that call. Further, can anyone fail to be at one and the same time so humiliated and so exalted as when one sings that grand hymn, “My God How Wonderful Thou Art.” In one hymn we are drawn through awe, contrition, fear, tears, love, rapture! Oh, we have a rich musical heritage! Let us build on it! Take strength from it! Propagate it! And enlarge it! Certainly the last good hymn has not been written. A real challenge lies before Christians with deep spiritual convictions and competent musical ability to write more hymns. The board of Christianity Today magazine took upon itself a few years ago, the responsibility of sponsoring a hymnwriter’s contest on the subject of witnessing. Six valuable hymn texts were selected from the entries and published in the magazine. The board of Women’s Missionary Union in Wisconsin agreed to include these selections in the programs for several years and several hundred women sang these songs with real enthusiasm. Our minds are open to new discoveries and new developments provided that the text and tune gives “glory to God” and Him alone!
LAURIE VANDEN HEUVEL
May 25, 1968
Dear Brethren,
I have just received the April issue of TORCH AND TRUMPET. And I want to express appreciation for another stimulating and informative issue. The article by Professor van Groningen has helped to inform your readers of the problem we face in the Reformed Churches of New Zealand, and we can thank him for taking time out of his busy schedule to write this summary.
There is, however, great danger of misunderstanding in my opinion. In reading, and re-reading, carefully, 1 cannot but think that your readers may gel the wrong impression. The point that needs to be emphasized is the fact that the Reformed Churches of New Zealand adopted the Westminster Confession as a binding form of sound words in 1957. There were, of course, certain chapters of the Confession (23, 24, 25 and 31) which were not adopted in 1957. There were also certain sections of adopted Chapters that were deleted (7:2, 10:3, and 20:4). But what must be clearly understood is the fact that the sections of the Westminster Confession of Faith dealing with the Sabbath were adopted as binding in 1957. The Synod in 1957 decided to engage in further study before adopting excepted portions of the Confession, and in 1967 other portions were adopted. The action of the 1967 Synod which is quoted in Professor van Groningen’s second article (TORCH AND TRUMPET, April 1968, p. 9, paragraph 3), in other words. does not refer in any way to the adoption of the “sabbath” sections of the Westminster Confession. It refers only to the fact that, with the exceptions noted, the whole of the Confession—or the additional Chapters—became binding as well.
As one of the “O.P.” men mentioned in Professor van Groningen’s article, I think it is important for readers of TORCH AND TRUMPET to realize that all of us in the ministry of the Reformed Churches of New Zealand at the present time were required to subscribe to the Westminster Confession of Faith (and hence to Chapter 21, sections 7, and 8) when we were received into the Church. This means that the Westminster statement on the Sabbath was adopted as binding by our Churches in New Zealand several years before any “O.P.” men arrived on the scene. And it means that when “O.P.” men were admitted into the Church, they—like all other office-bearers in the Reformed Churches of New Zealand—were required to express agreement with the Westminster Confession view of the Sabbath, and to oppose and refute anything contrary to this. It was for this reason that the overture referred to by Professor van Groningen (p. 9, par. 1) was regarded as a gravamen.
Professor van Groningen indicates ( in his 6rst article, March 1968, p. 18, par. 4) that the Reformed Churches of Australia did not adopt the Westminster Confession in the same way that we did in New Zealand. But it should be pointed out that the Reformed Theological College at Geelong did adopt the Westminster Confession as a binding creed. This is at least our understanding of the 1957 Constitution (which was in effect when we came into the New Zealand Church). The Constitution stipulated as its basis:
“The Holy Scriptures as the infallible word of God interpreted by the following Reformed confessions:
The Heidelberg Catechism, The Belgic Confession, The Canons of Dort, The Westminster Confession with the exception of section 3, chapter 23 and section 2, chapter 31. (If a doubt or difference arises concerning this section 3, chapter 23, the applicable section of the Belgic Confession is to be normative).
It will be noted that sections 7 and 8, of Chapter 21, are in no way excepted. And the binding nature of these Confessions is clearly seen when we read Article 5 of the Regulations of the Reformed Theological Faculty.
“Before assuming his office each teacher appointed shall answer the following questions:
(a) Do you feel in your heart that God has called you to this, your office?
(b) Do you believe the writings of the Old and New Testaments to be the only Word of God? Do you accept the Reformed Confessions as the purest interpretation of the doctrine of salvation? Do you reject all doctrines in conflict with them?”
(c) Etc.
With these facts clearly in sight, it will be evident that the real cause of the difficulty in Australiasian Reformed Churches (or at least in the New Zealand Reformed Churches and the Reformed Theological College) is the fact that the Westminster Confession of Faith was not taken as seriously from the beginning as it ought to have been. And for this the “O.P.” men are in no way whatever to blame.
G. I. WILLIAMSON
Editor, TORCH AND TRUMPET
Dear Brother:
I want to thank the Rev. and Mrs. Van Groningen for their comments on my article published in the February issue of the TORCH AND TRUMPET, I am in complete sympathy with two of the ideas expressed, the first being that seminary students would profit tremendously from a study “in depth” on the subject of “church music.” If pastors were more informed about and interested in the history and crucial role of music in the lives of their people, the practical problems in the field of sacred music would be greatly reduced. I use the word “crucial” advisedly because I am convinced that much of the “sacred” music (so-called) which is played in the studios of “Christian” radio stations and aired in the homes of hundreds of Reformed people has dulled their capacity for doctrinal discernment. It has opened the door for much confused thinking on basic truths of Scripture concerning atonement, sovereignty of God and human responsibility, justice and love of God, election, free will and other areas. We have seen its effects in a practical way in our own denomination. I am thinking currently of the doctrinal controversy re: the atonement, the total absorption of the methods and message of the Campus Crusade movement by many Christian Reformed people, the lack of interest in and conviction about distinctively “Reformed” teaching on our mission fields. Consequently, I feel this area of sacred music is “crucial” to the theological stability of our denomination. It is for this reason that I accepted the task of writing for this journal on that topic.
Secondly, I support Rev. and Mrs. Van Groningen’s hope that more writing in the form of articles on this topic will appear in this journal.
There are however, a few points made by the Van Groningens which I would like to clarify, perhaps amplify. First, they feel there are other areas beside the “glory to God” area which should occupy a place in the worship service. They suggest three: fellowship, witnessing, and personal expression. Many more could be added. There is a sense in which this is very true. However, I do not feel that these areas to be set “alongside of’ glory to God. I feel rather that each one of these areas must be permeated by the basic unifying principle of giving “glory to God.” That is why I chose that as my theme. THE CENTRAL PRINCIPLE must be “glory to God.” It and it alone gives meaning to fellowship, witnessing, personal expression. We truly fellowship only “in the Lord”; we witness only “to or about the Lord”; we express our deepest personal joys or sorrows only “in and through the Lord.”
Secondly, the Van Groningens feel that the Pentecostal movement has taken its toll in Reformed fellowships partly because our music lacks these elements. I would like to point out that there are scores of selections in our hymnal (and other reputable hymnals) which do include these elements. I would also like to suggest that perhaps the reason for defection from Reformed fellowships into Pentecostal fellowships may be a result of a lack of appreciation for our music. (We must also keep in mind that there have been defections from fundamentalist groups into our groups for the sturdiness and completeness of the Reformed faith). “Who can fail to feel the undergirding power of the psalm, 1 love the Lord, His Strength is Mine”? Who can fail to experience the rich communion of the saints in a hymn such as “Blest Be the Tie That Binds” or “How Good and Pleasant is the Sight When Brethren Make it Their Delight to Dwell in Blest Accord”? Who does not thrill to the thought that “Jesus, the Very Thought of Thee, With Sweetness Fills My Breast”? And, if you will forgive me for being personal, I have yet to sing “Come to the Savior Now, He gently calleth thee” without tears of joy welling up from within as I recall unsaved community friends in our past and present parishes who have responded to that call in deep repentance and faith, with tears of sorrow and an ache in my heart as I think of those with whom we’ve wrestled in prayer and conversation who have since rejected that call. Further, can anyone fail to be at one and the same time so humiliated and so exalted as when one sings that grand hymn, “My God How Wonderful Thou Art.” In one hymn we are drawn through awe, contrition, fear, tears, love, rapture! Oh, we have a rich musical heritage! Let us build on it! Take strength from it! Propagate it! And enlarge it! Certainly the last good hymn has not been written. A real challenge lies before Christians with deep spiritual convictions and competent musical ability to write more hymns. The board of Christianity Today magazine took upon itself a few years ago, the responsibility of sponsoring a hymnwriter’s contest on the subject of witnessing. Six valuable hymn texts were selected from the entries and published in the magazine. The board of Women’s Missionary Union in Wisconsin agreed to include these selections in the programs for several years and several hundred women sang these songs with real enthusiasm. Our minds are open to new discoveries and new developments provided that the text and tune gives “glory to God” and Him alone!
LAURIE VANDEN HEUVEL
May 25, 1968
Dear Brethren,
I have just received the April issue of TORCH AND TRUMPET. And I want to express appreciation for another stimulating and informative issue. The article by Professor van Groningen has helped to inform your readers of the problem we face in the Reformed Churches of New Zealand, and we can thank him for taking time out of his busy schedule to write this summary.
There is, however, great danger of misunderstanding in my opinion. In reading, and re-reading, carefully, 1 cannot but think that your readers may gel the wrong impression. The point that needs to be emphasized is the fact that the Reformed Churches of New Zealand adopted the Westminster Confession as a binding form of sound words in 1957. There were, of course, certain chapters of the Confession (23, 24, 25 and 31) which were not adopted in 1957. There were also certain sections of adopted Chapters that were deleted (7:2, 10:3, and 20:4). But what must be clearly understood is the fact that the sections of the Westminster Confession of Faith dealing with the Sabbath were adopted as binding in 1957. The Synod in 1957 decided to engage in further study before adopting excepted portions of the Confession, and in 1967 other portions were adopted. The action of the 1967 Synod which is quoted in Professor van Groningen’s second article (TORCH AND TRUMPET, April 1968, p. 9, paragraph 3), in other words. does not refer in any way to the adoption of the “sabbath” sections of the Westminster Confession. It refers only to the fact that, with the exceptions noted, the whole of the Confession—or the additional Chapters—became binding as well.
As one of the “O.P.” men mentioned in Professor van Groningen’s article, I think it is important for readers of TORCH AND TRUMPET to realize that all of us in the ministry of the Reformed Churches of New Zealand at the present time were required to subscribe to the Westminster Confession of Faith (and hence to Chapter 21, sections 7, and 8) when we were received into the Church. This means that the Westminster statement on the Sabbath was adopted as binding by our Churches in New Zealand several years before any “O.P.” men arrived on the scene. And it means that when “O.P.” men were admitted into the Church, they—like all other office-bearers in the Reformed Churches of New Zealand—were required to express agreement with the Westminster Confession view of the Sabbath, and to oppose and refute anything contrary to this. It was for this reason that the overture referred to by Professor van Groningen (p. 9, par. 1) was regarded as a gravamen.
Professor van Groningen indicates ( in his 6rst article, March 1968, p. 18, par. 4) that the Reformed Churches of Australia did not adopt the Westminster Confession in the same way that we did in New Zealand. But it should be pointed out that the Reformed Theological College at Geelong did adopt the Westminster Confession as a binding creed. This is at least our understanding of the 1957 Constitution (which was in effect when we came into the New Zealand Church). The Constitution stipulated as its basis:
“The Holy Scriptures as the infallible word of God interpreted by the following Reformed confessions:
The Heidelberg Catechism, The Belgic Confession, The Canons of Dort, The Westminster Confession with the exception of section 3, chapter 23 and section 2, chapter 31. (If a doubt or difference arises concerning this section 3, chapter 23, the applicable section of the Belgic Confession is to be normative).
It will be noted that sections 7 and 8, of Chapter 21, are in no way excepted. And the binding nature of these Confessions is clearly seen when we read Article 5 of the Regulations of the Reformed Theological Faculty.
“Before assuming his office each teacher appointed shall answer the following questions:
(a) Do you feel in your heart that God has called you to this, your office?
(b) Do you believe the writings of the Old and New Testaments to be the only Word of God? Do you accept the Reformed Confessions as the purest interpretation of the doctrine of salvation? Do you reject all doctrines in conflict with them?”
(c) Etc.
With these facts clearly in sight, it will be evident that the real cause of the difficulty in Australiasian Reformed Churches (or at least in the New Zealand Reformed Churches and the Reformed Theological College) is the fact that the Westminster Confession of Faith was not taken as seriously from the beginning as it ought to have been. And for this the “O.P.” men are in no way whatever to blame.
G. I. WILLIAMSON