“…BUT I DON’T THINK HE WILL COME”

“We called Rev ………… but I don’t think he will come.” How often we hear that statement by members of a calling church. The writer of these lines has heard it dozens of times. Often it is put in the plural—“We don’t think he will come.” That makes it even worse. Possibly we have a clue here as to why some pastorless churches must wait so long before they receive an acceptance of a call.

What is it that makes church members talk that way? Does it indicate a “congregational inferiority complex”? Does “he won’t come” mean that the calling church fears it is not large enough to attract the man? Is the man “too big” for the church? Or is it a salary factor? Or a location factor?

“We called Rev …………. but we don’t think he will come.” Then why did you call him? Consider for a moment the procedure for calling a pastor. It begins in the consistory room where the officebearers of the church, after prayer and deliberation, decide on a duo or a trio. The names are announced to the congregation with the request that the forthcoming congregational meeting be made a matter of prayer. Then, on the night when the members assemble, prayer again is offered for Divine guidance. The balloting is completed, the man is chosen, the name is announced the following Sunday, and letters are written assuring the minister that he will be remembered in prayer and that it is the earnest desire of the calling congregation that the Lord “will incline his servant to accept the call.” But out on the street, over the coffee cups, and in telephone conversations, the old familiar words are heard, “We don’t think he will come.”

Of course, the Lord may still send him. But on the other hand, why should we be surprised that the Lord so frequently disinclines his servants to accept such a call, when it is extended by faithless people who shrug their shoulders and say, “We don’t think he will come”?

L.G.

CHRISTIAN PROGRESSIVISM

Words are like military objectives: both sides in today’s discussions try to capture them for their “cause.”

Some words are now regarded as of no value whatsoever, and Barry Goldwater will very likely live to discover that his successful campaign to hold the term conservative will end only in disappointment. There just isn’t much of a market for such words today!

Progressive -now there is a word of a different color, and of much greater appeal today! And who can blame modern man in the day of atom-splitting and space flight for wanting to be progressive, for wanting to be known as one who wishes to go ahead?

Words also have re1atives, and a blood-brother of the word conservative is orthodox. This brother usually carries a nickname nowadays, and it isn’t a very Hattering one at that. He is almost always called “dead orthodox”!

No one is in better position to claim title to the word progressive than the Christian! In fact, only the Christian believer can really know what progress is at all. With the Preacher he can write “vanity” over all the so-called progress of unbelieving science and philosophy, and by his confession and walk he must do so, too!

For progress is determined by the goal toward which one is going, not by the amount of commotion one engenders or by the effectiveness of one’s destructive criticism of the past. And all our energies must be directed toward the goal implied in John 3:16, “For God so loved the world…” which means that our business activities, our political strivings, our interest in philosophy and wisdom, our ambition for better position and greater accomplishment, our passion for beauty in art and music, in fact all our living must con· tribute to the glory of Him who is KING, and who is Savior of the WORLD!

TIlls represents a program sufficiently lofty for anyone to strive for—and it is Christian Progressivism!

J.H.P.

OUR OVER-PROTECTED CHILDREN

The mother of Amelia Earhart received a letter from her daughter soon after that young pioneer airwoman took off on the adventurous Hight from which she never returned. The letter contained these startling words: ‘“Even though I have lost, the adventure was worthwhile. Our family tendsto be too secure.” Without commenting on this particular case, the fact is. that families which tend to be too secure are not uncommon among us, A host of competent psychologists will corroborate the statement that the saddest casualties of such homes are over-protected children who are utterly unprepared to face the real rigors of life. We do great harm to our children when we clip the wings of their initiative and throttle their natural desires for personal enterprise and achievement. Just as we can give them too much liberty to the point that our unconcern encourages excessses on their part, so it is also possible to shelter them so much that they never develop self-reliance. Parents need much wisdom here. Christian parents know where that wisdom is available!

L G.

NUMBER ONE REASON FOR DIVORCE

Recently Ann Landers, a nationally known counselor, stated that sex was the number one reason for divorce in America. As much as we may be shocked by this judgment, we may accept her word for it that such are the statistics. For as we all know from personal observation, it is becoming more and more difficult to escape the open display of sex. American products are sold by sex appeal; at least it would seem so, when we observe how it is used in print and on television. TV programming seems to demand a voluptuous woman with a husky voice in order to get a higher rating on the listening polls.

The development of wholesome attitudes toward sex in marriage is difficult in the light of the competition of TV. It seems that “affairs” are expected by American society. One gets the impression from certain TV stories that no marriage is normal without at least one such experience.

Have the marriages of our Church people been influenced by this lewdness? While our percentage of sex violations is lower than the national average, and our divorce rate is also lower, this does not mean that we have escaped this sin. For judging by the time needed for marital counseling where sex is a factor, I am sure that our ministers will agree that sex commercialization has taken its effect also among our people.

Scripture teaches us that God saw it was not good for man to be alone; therefore he took woman from roan to be a helpmeet, and the two became one flesh. One flesh—not to satisfy selfish, lustful desires, but one flesh united in the Lord. The husband, expressing his sincere love for his wife, and the wife, reverencing her husband, will then find their union blessed. If husbands and wives would remember that their marriages are symbolic of the glorious relationship which exists between Christ and his Church, we would regain a purer and more wholesome attitude toward marriage and the important part sex plays in it.

J.P.B.

IS PSALM 1:1 APPLICABLE?

In this age of tolerance and compromise, church-mergers and unions, ecumenical organizations and movements, we shall have to become increasingly sensitive to the limitations imposed upon us by the Scriptures if we are to preserve the doctrinal purity of the church. It is regrettable that even in Reformed circles people are made to feel that they should apologize for their concern for doctrinal purity in the church. This too, it seems, has become outmoded. But history proves that the question of purity of doctrine in the church is actually a question of the very life and existence of tho church. We can forfeit the former only at the cast of the latter. It is this fact that brings into focus the question concerning the relevancy of Psalm 1:1 with respect to participation in ecumenical organizations.

Psalm 1:1 pictures a progression in the way of sin that illuminates in a sitting “in the seat of the scornful.” Now we submit that these scorners are to be found in many places in the world. One finds them in taverns, pool-halls, on park-benches and in every place where worldly people gather and profanely mock with all that is holy. Blessed is the man who refuses to sit in the seat of these scorners. But is there anywhere a scorner quite like the man who uses biblical terminology but repudiates the divinely revealed truths which the Bible teaches? And is it not true that the modernist does this knowingly, willfully, deliberately and in protest against all that belongs to what he calls “pre-scientific faith”? Some association with scoffers and scorners may be necessary when they are ignorant and there is a reasonable basis to hope that they may be brought to repentance. But sitting with the intellectual, well-informed, and casehardened deniers of the fundamental truths of Scripture, by which alone the church is preserved in her true character, can hardly be defended by such an appeal. The church gives a much more positive testimony by refusing to participate in an organization that makes room for such scorners. It doesn’t actually make any difference that such scorners are in the minority. The only thing that matters is the question of who is sitting with whom. As long as the scorners sit there, both as individuals and as representatives of their respective churches, it is a place to be avoided, for the cause of God and the church.

H.D.W.

FOR MINISTERS ONLY

The following story was related to the writer some twenty-five years ago. Undoubtedly, others among our reader$: have heard it. But even so, it bears repeating.

The pastor of a certain congregation had departed from the evangelical faith, and, as a result, his congregation was beginning to suffer from his ministry. One Sunday morning the pastor found on the pulpit a little note in pencil, which read: “Sir, we would see Jesus.” In the weeks succeeding, the pastor found himself unable to dismiss the note from his memory. Finally, it sent him to his knees in penitence. A new note was now heard in his messages. His sermons became Bible-centered, and each Lord’s Day his people went home with a clear exposition of Scriptural texts. He preached with new power. One Sunday morning there lay on the pulpit a penciled note in the same handWriting as the previous one. It read: “Then were the disciples glad when they saw the Lord.”

“Over-simplification!” some may say. Perhaps so. But who will deny that it has a good point, a very good point!

L.G.

BROKEN CISTERNS

Many contemporary philosophers have decided to relegate the language of theology to the area of the strictly emotional, if not actually to the limbo of nonsense. For these philosophers, statements which cannot be proved by the experimental methods of science cannot be said to have a truth content. Thus, theological statements which have been meaningful to traditional Christianity are no longer meaningful to the modern secular mind which uses the measure of its own scientism as its rule. Theological propositions are therefore pseudopropositions. Or to use the future of the caption, for many contemporary philosophers, the old theological terms arc broken cisterns that can hold no water. So while disqualifying the old containers they have also turned their backs on the waters of life.

Contemporary theologians have found other ways of drying up the old cisterns and making them waterless. They have diverted the cisterns to other uses. In so doing many have not been completely honest. Unlike the philosophers, they do not forthrightly declare that the old cisterns are no longer useful. The theologians mislead their followers by creating the impression that they are keeping the cisterns in good repair. Meanwhile they clandestinely fill them with seemingly heady elixirs but such as cannot quench the thirst of those who are seeking the waters of life.

Orthodox Protestant theologians are not alone in their objection to the kind of subterfuge which empties the old terms of their meanings while retaining them for other uses. Here follow the words of a Jewish scholar on this subject. In an article in the American Scholar (Summer, 1961) entitled “The Evasions of Modern Theology,” Samuel Sandmel writes as follows:

In large measure the modern theologians have justified their departure from religion to secularism by adopting a process that to me is most discouraging. It consists of using some term traditional in religion, of divesting it of its pristine meaning by defining the term in a sense consistent with modem science, and then of using the term in the pristine way. I can find it admirable in a Christian to say that he believes in the virgin birth, or in an ex-Christian to say that he disbelieves. But when a theologian informs me that the virgin birth is not to be taken literally, but is simply a term that essays to express the ineffable, and then proceeds to treat the virgin birth as though he believes in it literally, I confess I am not moved to admiration. At the best, these ancient terms now become mere slogans, catchwords that seek from religious antiquity an authority and sanction to which in the reinterpreted sense they are not entitled. At the worst, these reinterpreted terms raise seriously the question of the intellectual integrity of the users.

Nick R.V.T.

THE MODERN CRAZE FOR SPORT

It happened in Columbus, Ohio, a few months ago. The faculty council of Ohio Stale University decided by a majority vote that its football team should not accept the coveted invitation to play in the Rosebowl game on New Year’s Day. The students and the city as a whole were up in arms. Goaded by the newspapers, angry citizens demanded a reversal of the Council’s ruling by the President of the School, annoyed and pestered the professors suspected of responsibility for the decision, and even hung the Faculty Council in effigy.

Back of the faculty council decision was the conviction that student interest in sports tended to overshadow their concern for study and that competitive games should be deemphasized. But this effort conflicted with the ambitions of students, alumni, and the people of Columbus in general. All such efforts anywhere will run counter to the prevailing absorption of Americans in baseball, basketball, and football.

Why can the American people wax so enthusiastic about competitive sports while their interest in social, cultural, and political affairs is often lukewarm? Is it merely because we are mentally immature? Because we follow the line of least resistance? Because prosperity and self-indulgence have made us soft? It seems to us there is a deeper reason. A mild concern for sport may be harmless but this excessive interest in physical exercise by proxy, sometimes bordering on fanaticism, is the symptom of a serious spiritual and moral illness which bodes ill for the future. It is a form of idolatry comparable to the idol-worship of the children of Israel in times of moral decadence. It lifts the skillful athlete to the level of a god notwithstanding his persistent Sabbath desecration. It prevents many from giving serious attention to national or community problems and perils. It stimulates the fallacy that play is the principal thing in life and work only a means to make it possible.

According to Scripture, in the last days men will be “lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God.” We see in the sport craze of our day a partial fulfillment of that prophecy.

One of the causes of the fall of Rome was the moral deterioration of its citizens who were so well satisfied with “Dread and the circus” that they were oblivious to the peril of invasion by the barbarians at their gates.

May we as God’s people not be swept along with the flood of engrossment in sport. And may our Christian educational institutions determine to curb the excessive interest in competitive games among the students. After all, young people should go to school for study, not for play; for sheepskin, not for pigskin.

H.J.K.

UNCOMMITTED DELEGATIONS AT SYNOD

At our political conventions there are usually blocs of uncommitted delegates. That means they have no specific mandate to vote for a certain candidate. Right now is the time our classes are electing their delegates to represent them at Synod. All of them are “uncommitted.” They have no binding mandate as to what stand they are to take on any issue. They are free. But is there such a thing as a moral mandate? Let me explain.

Sometime ago this writer did a little historical research on classical representation at our synods. It was discovered that in 1926 nine of the fifteen classes overtured Synod to reduce the number of delegates from 6 to 4 from each classis. Lacking just one, that was two thirds of all the classes. Yet these overtures failed to muster a majority vote. Why?

One possibility is that after these overtures were adopted, some classes proceeded to elect delegates who were in opposition to their own overture. That doesn’t make sense but is not at all uncommon. But even so, what is now the obligation of such a delegate to his own classis? May he just maintain his own position and oppose his own classis on the floor of the synod? We usually take a dim view of a consistory member’s opposing the consistory at congregational meetings. That is not done unless it is a matter of conscience or he considers the proposition contrary to Scripture or the Church Order. And then he is to inform the consistory of his intentions. May not a classis expect the same treatment of its own delegates at Synod? True, technically he is uncommitted, but is there not a moral obligation? If he cannot support his own classis he certainly should inform them about his contrary convictions and so give them the opportunity to elect someone else in his stead.

Another possibility is that through the discussion things are brought to light that had not been adequately weighed before. One may occasionally hear the remark at classis: “I was first going to vote for this, but through this discussion I have altered my views completely; we must not have it.” And no one will demur at this. However, it is exceedingly unlikely that nine classes should have been so limited in their understanding and vision that a discussion on the Boor of Synod should completely alter the views of the majority of the delegates. No matter how one views it, it is a strange piece of history.

Are the delegates of Synod always morally free to vote against the decisions or overtures of their classes?

C. Huissen

ECCLESIASTICAL ANTIQUES

May we never have them. I’m not thinking now of dated hymnals, old fashioned pews, or antiquated collection plates. Such antiques are harmless and every church is bound to have things of this sort sooner or later. I have in mind something of a far more serious nature, something that often becomes antiquated through disuse and neglect. I refcr to the Confessions of the church. It is no secret that there is in many churches today an abysmal ignorance of the creeds which were once actively maintained. It is to be feared that even in our own church the Confessions are sometimes confined to the back section of the Psalter Hymnal where they are left to age in blissful oblivion. Sometimes one gets the impression that there are people who feel that this is best. They seem to think that the Confessions only serve to hinder the church in her evangelistic outreach. They plead for a relaxation of confessional standards and a minimum requirement for church member· ship lest the uninitiated be discouraged and him away. But this is the first step that inevitably leads to the discard of the Confessions for all practical purposes, if not an actual repudiation of them except as a status symbol of the church’s antiquity. And so the Confessions become ecclesiastical antiques.

The church that suffers this fate is like the salt that has lost its savor. One might as well argue for the elimination of the doors of one’s house for the sake of easy access for the children, or for the relaxation of the rules of the home lest the children do not care to live there. But one knows only too well that the elimination of doors and the suspension of rules in the home will serve to destroy the home which one has sought to make accessible and pleasant for its occupants. A good house requires solid doors and a good home calls for parental discipline. So also the church that would have healthy members needs the diScipline of the Confessions. Her members must know the Confessions and honor them because they express the convictions of their hearts and the contents of their faith. In the measure that we as members make the Confessions of the church the personal expression of our faith and conviction, we shall be a living church, a strong church, a fruitful church. And there will be no danger of cherishing them merely as ecclesiastical antiques.

H.D.W.

TODAY’S SEX-MAD WORLD

The pressures under which young people nowadays Jive through the weight of evil suggestions from modem media of communication justify our calling the present age a perilous one for them. True, the earlier generations in our American culture had their pressures and were not ignorant of sexual drives. Nor was pornographic literature unknown to them. The situation today, however, is much worse. A useful indicator in the study of today’s moral situation is the V. D. index:. Venereal disease is linked with promiscuity. The reported increase of V. D. in recent years is disturbingly great. Most alarming is the increasing number of cases among the younger adolescents. A generation ago the disease was rare at this early age. Today it is being noted with rapidly increasing frequency. It has become a world problem.

One important factor in this lamentable development is the change in the climate of opinion. Much of the responsibility for this falls upon the adult community. We seem to have lost our capacity for high resentment. We are not disturbed as we should be by the loosening of moral relationships. Provocative dress, advertisements with a motif that is latently sexual, pornographic literature readily available and openly displayed, indecent theatricals channeled into our homes via television, do not produce the shock to our moral consciousness that one should expect. Illicit affairs headlined by a sensational press are coming to be regarded as normal. We are learning the hard way that when a Christian content is not given to sex, some other content will most certainly be given.

L. G.

MINIMIZING THE TASK OF TEACHING CHRISTIAN TRUTH

“A minimizing approach to the task of teaching Christian truth has infected Protestant clergy very widely. The modern minister does not usually ask, how much ought I to teach? but rather, how little need I teach? what is the minimum of doctrine that will do? One reason for this, no doubt, is the reluctance of those in the pews to learn. But this is no new thing. Baxter met it three centuries ago…and gave it short shrift. Were you but as willing to get the knowledge of God and heavenly things as you are to know how to work in your trade…But you account seven years little enough to learn your trade, and will not bestow one day in seven in diligently learning the matters of your salvation.”

Rev. P. E. Hughes, in How Shall They Hear?