TENSIONS IN THE CHURCHES
Dear Mr. Editor:
Please allow me to respond to a number of faulty syllogisms and misconceptions as presented by brother Tuininga in his article, “Tensions in the Church.” in the February issue of the Outlook. It is true that unfamiliarity causes tension. The Christian life, including worship, will always be one of tension as the working of the Spirit seeks to sanctify and purify one’s life. It is not true that all charismatic/gifted people (which Christians are) seek to cause tension. Brother Tuininga cites several examples that have caused irritation within the worship structure of a particular congregation such as, the raising of hands during singing, mutual greetings, prayer requests, and participation of members in prayer. When I look in my Bible I find all these “irritations” scriptural. If waking up sleeping young people causes some to feel uncomfortable, perhaps they should re-evaluate why we have the privilege of going to church in the first place.
To say that those who advocate reform (Is not a reformed church always reforming?) are the ones who adhere to myths and disregard sound doctrine is an outright faulty syllogism and a slap in the face to many who seek to serve the Lord. Since when has God prescribed a formal order of worship binding to the church for all ages? This to me smacks of medieval Catholicism. Our style of hymn-sandwich worship can be glorifying to God, but I know of many services which do not follow this strict liturgical pattern and still, nevertheless, glorify our God. It is faulty to equate emotional selfism as characteristic of the whole charasmatic movement. The expression of joy is an element of reverence that comes forth in more than one way.
It is also very dualistic to assume that God’s presence is meted out in greater portions in the building where we gather to worship. Worship is to be a very reverent experience, but to consider the raising of hands as levity and frivolity is ludicrous. Brother Tuininga, have you really evaluated what you consider evil? Alleging that these people do not possess a living faith is a terrible accusation. God will judge the heart of every action. Please evaluate the worship of the OT and NT church or the church of Revelation four and five, or Paul’s injunction to Timothy to raise hands (which Calvin almost declares to be a sacrament). As God’s reformed church we must continue reforming or we will become deformed.
Sincerely, a concerned brother,
Peter J. Vellenga
Burlington, Ontario
THE REAL TENSION IN THE CHURCH
This article is written in response to Cecil Tuininga’s piece “Tension in the Church” (Feb. ’86), but is directed to the Reformed community at large. I agree whole-heartedly that there exists within Reformed denominations a tension between what Tuininga calls “the spirit and practices of the historic Christian faith” and what he refers to as “the charismatic movement that is invading many mainline churches today.” What I disagree with is his premise that one is evil and the other good based on his understanding of the charismatic movement and the historic Christian faith. I hope to show that not only is he incorrect in his understanding of the two, but also that this tension is an either/or decision for the church.
Having studied at Reformed Bible College, Calvin College, Westminster Theological Seminary and Calvin Theological Seminary, I feel adequately competent in understanding the historic Christian faith. Having recently experienced what charismatic Christians call “baptism or release of the power of the Holy Spirit.” I also feel qualified in explaining what this means to a Reformed Christian. This article is written not as a rebuttal but as clarification of what is truly causing tension within the Church.
Tuininga begins his article by stating that “the cause of tensions today are unique, quite different from what the Church has ever experienced before, as far as I know.” It appears as though his knowledge of church history is rather limited, because there has been tension within the church ever since Paul’s admonition of Peter regarding the Jews and Gentile Christians (Galatians 2). Tuininga unconsciously implies within the article that for him the historic Christian faith dates from the Reformation to the present. He states that because of the charismatic movement, there will be “more deviations from the heritage of the fathers, more churches forming that are distinctly unreformed in life and practice.” A quick perusal of any church history book will give abundant information regarding tension within the church very similar to today’s tensions, long before the Reformation came.
The correct understanding of the historic Christian faith should be taken straight from the Word of God as in the Heidelberg Catechism (Q&A 21), Belgic Confession (Art. 17-29) and the Canons of Dort (III,17). The Bible tells us in Acts , chapter one. that Jesus told His disciples “you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be my witnesses in Jerusalem and Samaria and to the ends of the earth,” (Acts 1:8). Shortly after Jesus’ ascension came the day of Pentecost, and Acts two tells us that all the disciples were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in tongues. Following Peter‘s sermon three thousand souls came to know Christ as their Lord and Savior and so began the Christian Church. It is this historic Christian faith, as stated in the New Testament on which I base my appeal. not just the “heritage of the fathers” or the distinctly reformed churches of today. So let us go to the Word of God.
Mr. Tuininga states that the whole charismatic movement has its origin based upon 2 Tim. 4:3, 4 (not 2:3, 4), in which the church in the last days will not put up with sound doctrine, with the result that they will tum aside to myths. Every Reformed charismatic Christian would agree with him fully. What brought such sadness and pain was that with this text be has condemned the entire charismatic movement to hell. He states that they no longer want to hear the truth or have a meaningful study of God’s Word, have a dislike for sound doctrine, have no living faith, deny the power of God, do not know what it means to repent, or have any idea what is to take place in a worship service. All of this he bases on the premise that Reformed charismatic Christians want to incorporate into the worship service the raising of hands during singing, the greeting of members and visitors in worship services. speaking in tongues. participation of congregation in prayers , prayer requests and testimonies, and that all they want is an easy to understand message.
Obviously heretical, right? There is one small problem however, and that is, what do we do with the Word of God as it relates to each of these “heresies”? We would have to deny Psalm 63:4 and I Timothy 2:8 (lifting of hands), I Tim.2:1 and Phil. 4:6 (requests and prayers), I Corinthians 14 (tongues and orderly worship), and I Corinthians 1:26–2:5 (understandable message). Unless I am mistaken, the Reformed community still believes in the inerrancy and infallibility of the Word of God. It is here that the true tension exists within the church: that of the theological and the experiential Christian. Nowhere in Scripture are these two separated. Only in the hearts and minds of Christians who have been blinded by pride and arrogance has this division arisen. This is the problem of both sides.
There is a need to seek a balanced view between the Word and the Spirit, between Christology and pneumatology, between the intellectual and the experiential, between the Presence and the Power of the Holy Spirit.
The General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S. prepared a report entitled “The Person and Work of the Holy Spirit” in 1971. It reads in part: “There are a number of people in historic Protestant churches who have had an experience which they call ‘baptism of(with, in) the Holy Spirit’ (Reformed prefer ‘full release of the power of the Holy Spirit’). This experience has been so meaningful and vivid to those who have gone through it that they have difficulty putting it into words: ‘a new relationship, a deeper encounter, a closer walk.’ Many speak of it primarily as an extraordinary sense of God’s reality and presence, and lay claim to a praise and adoration of God hitherto unknown to them. At the same time they often testify to a new bond of community with those who have had the same experience, and a heightened desire and capacity to bear witness to the gospel. In all aspects of life they claim a deeper love, joy and peace . . .
. . . They usually disclaim an interest in the spectacular as such; rather their testimony is to the reality of God, a deeper awareness of His presence, and the wonder that the Holy Spirit has filled their being.”
This report gives an excellent definition of those whom Tuininga considers to be an evil movement within the church. The question must be asked: What is un-Christian or unbiblical about these brothers and sisters in Christ who belong to the Reformed community of believers? Is the current tension within the church based on ignorance of one another, or upon our own stubbornness of wills? It is ironic that Tuininga mentions Revelation 3:3a in support of Scripture’s admonition to the charismatics, when they cite Rev. 3:1–3 in showing the deadness of traditionalism. Must there be an either/or choice within the Reformed community? Again the Word of God gives us the answer in I Corinthians 3:3, 9. “For since there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you not worldly? Are you not acting like mere men? . . . For we are God’s fellow workers; you are God’s field. God’s building.” We all must search our hearts to find the answer to this question. For me, it is more appropriate to say both/and.
Mark A. Bruursema, Director One–Way House, Inc.
(Project of the Sunshine C.R. Church) Grand Rapids. Mich.
Dear Editor:
I will answer very briefly to the two brothers. First to state that I am pleased with the response to my writing . We must evaluate carefully just what is happening among us and then be sure we are not being led astray. As I have openly expressed it, and naturally, that is my understanding of it, I see what is happening among us as a trend in an unreformed direction. If we understand Reformed rightly, that stands for our particular interpretation of the Scriptures.
It would be very helpful if those who claim to have received the “baptism” of the Holy Spirit would explain just what this means. Does that mean, for example that only a favoured few experience that, or do all those who truly believe receive that? I believe every true believer has received that baptism and with it the power of the Holy Spirit. I am very suspicious of those who claim more than that, that is , that this involves special gifts of tongues, healings, deeper love, joy and peace, etc. It sounds a long way from the true humility that should characterize God’s children.
Surely it is not in my, or anyone else’s, jurisdiction to judge whether men are saved or not. It is our business to test the spirits whether they are from God or not. Let me now repeat what I said before, that all change is not necessarily bad. But we must analyze the changes being introduced, why they are being introduced, and where they are leading us. I do not single out any specifics. but the overall direction, and that I fear greatly. As I have expressed it, we are losing our great Reformed heritage without any reasons given as to why. Or let me say it this way, it seems we do not care to ask why our forefathers developed the beautiful liturgies and just what their deeper meaning is for true worship. Before we change we should ask why, and if it is an improvement, or a losing of something most precious.
Having lived with, spoken to, and sought to understand the motivation, of aspirants to our present day innovations, I can come to no other conclusion than, that back of this trend lies an indifference to doctrine, a desire for theatricals, an attempt to bring life into what is judged to be a dead, traditionalistic church, in short, to effect a complete break with all liturgies and practices of the past. Yes. I do believe that very few know what it means to gather for worship . If they did, these innovations would soon end, for then it would be seen that we come together in the very presence of God to join mutually in praise, prayer, (receiving) hearing the Word proclaimed, and giving for the cause of God’s Kingdom on earth. In other words, as covenant homes, units of a covenant church, we come fully prepared to worship our covenant God and thus we are all fully involved.
One final comment. It seems to me that those pushing for all these innovations want to go back to the confusion and disorder found in the Corinthian church (1 Cor.14:26).
Sincerely,
Cecial Tuininga, Edmonton, Alberta
TODAY’S HYPOCRISIES
It is probably asking too much to expect from a man whose lamentations concerning the Christian Reformed Church appear with tedious frequency that his interpretation of what he reads is always correct. I, therefore, pass over with a sort of benign neglect the inaccuracies in the Rev. Mr. J. Tuininga broadside entitled, “Today’s Hypocrisies” in the February issue of your Journal.
However, I must protest a misconception that Mr. Tuininga seems to hold as to the role of Q& A in the Bonner. I attempt to answer questions directed to me concisely, in the belief that these views are also in harmony with the teachings of God’s Word. That every answer will not please every reader is a given. That Mr. Tuininga finds many answers unpalatable is not surprising.
The function of Q & A, however. is to answer specific questions. not to make tempting detours on matters that, though they may be related. are not part of the question.
Our brother says that we have congregations who blatantly ignore and openly defy synodical decisions by having adjunct or associate female elders and that this is tolerated by our editor (W.D.B.) “without a whimper”; the same goes for a female “preacher” who occupies the pulpit in a Christian Reformed congregation in violation of ail synodical rules.
The solution here is simple: no “whimper” has come from me, because these questions have not been asked. Since Mr. Tuininga is very likely not yet ready to claim omniscience, how does he know what my reaction would be to these matters? Want to try me, Jelle?
Fraternally,
William D. Buursma
Third Church
2400 Winchell
Kalamazoo, MI 49008
Reply to Rev Buursma:
Judging by the tone of your reply , Bill, I think my comments were quite on target. I can be blunt, but your reply is downright unkind and betrays a hurt ego.
Re the “tedious frequency” of “lamentations”, I suggest you see I Kings 22:8b, 18; Isa. 30:10 and Jer. 6:14.
Yes, of course, you answer questions sent to you. But you know very well that is not quite so cut and dried a matter as you make it out to be. It gives you a good opportunity to let your biases come through. and one doesn’t have to be particularly astute to note in your answers the direction from which you’re coming. And that. of course, is your good right (within certain limitations). But when you then begin to editorialize and severely reprimand a congregation for ignoring synodical “encourgements,” honesty and integrity would then demand that you also come down very hard on congregations who openly violate synodical decisions. The question at that point was inexcusable. That is the point I was trying to make, and still make.
J. Tuininga