DEACONS MAY EVEN HAVE TO VISIT THE WELL-TO-DO

In the Christian Reformed formulary used in the ordination of deacons we read that the work of the deacons consists of three things plus this: “the relief of the distressed both with kindly deeds, and words of consolation and cheer from Scripture.” The Church Order (old), article 25, says that the office includes “to visit and comfort the distressed.” Behind these statements stand the Scriptures where we are told that deacons shall be “of good report, full of the Spirit and of wisdom” (Acts 6). And, in I Timothy 3, “Deacons must be grave, not double tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre, holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience. For they that have served well as deacons gain to themselves a good standing and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.”

Thinking about these things, we are forced to conclude that the ministry of the deacons goes far beyond asking people if they need financial or other material help from the church and then gathering and giving it. It also includes spiritual visits and consolation, though this is usually reserved for the pastors and elders.

Therefore, it can and should happen that deacons make a visit without bringing along a check. Sometimes a well-to-do family may need a visit because of some sickness or disaster, even though they need no money.

This is what our form and Church Order say clearly. Yet it is an unusual diaconate which takes this seriously and exercises it.

Now, are we wrong in our theory or in our practice?

J.S.

MAN IN SOLITUDE

The medieval man of contemplation sought the refuge of solitude so that he might gain a beatific vision of God. The temper of the medieval recluse was such that he sometimes became ill-tempered in the presence of his fellow man. Peter Damian tells of a fellow monk, Romauld, who was so concerned with the “absorption of self in self with God” that he developed a harsh intolerance of other men.

Modem non-contemplative man has reached another extreme. He cannot be left alone. He has no God to whom he can turn in his moments of solitude. He must seek the crowds. He has a loneliness anxiety. He will take endless measures and devious pathways to avoid loneliness. He must be out on the highways and byways. He must be out seeking some sort of company though perhaps degrading. He cannot tolerate the company of his own shallow self. He is one of Riesman’s other-directed types. In the words of the existentialists, he is incapable of finding authentic being. He lives on the surface of things. Even the crowds cannot cure his loneliness because his association does not bring him meaningful communication.

Modern contemplative man, by contrast, seeks the meaning of his deeper self in an existential loneliness. Clark E. Moustakas in his recent book, Loneliness, relates the experience of Admiral Byrd in his Antarctic vigil. Byrd in the extremity of his loneliness and suffering, presumably caught a feeling for the rhythm of the universe. Byrd states, “In that instant I could feel no doubt of man’s oneness with the universe.”

Moustakas sees great value in loneliness. “Loneliness has a quality of immediacy and depth, it is a significant experience—one of the few in modem life—in which man communes with himself. And in such communion man comes to grips with his own being. He discovers life, who he is, what he really wants, the meaning of his existence, the true nature of his relation with others” (Loneliness, p. 102).

The above is certainly arresting in that it demonstrates the extremes of man’s diversionary tactics. Man will be instructed concerning himself from various and devious sources but he refuses to go to the one source where he can find the truth. It should be obvious that if man goes to the vacuum of his loneliness with nothing he will come away with nothing. Much less will man there find true knowledge concerning himself, his world, and man about him.

Modern man has found a new use for solitude. He does not seek solitude in order to seek God. He sets himself apart so that in and through himself he may find himself and the meaning of the universe. In so doing modern man will also continue to find the wrong answers. As long as he continues to tune to the terrestrial frequency he cannot hope to get the celestial answers. When the Christian seeks solitude he does not go to find the truth within himself; he goes to find him who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

N.R.V.T.

WHY SHOULD THEY STAY?

The new Yearbook of the Christian Reformed Church informs us that 2, 438 members left our church last year

for other denominations. The Banner says that this hurts. It also says that we badly need the strengthening of our denominational consciousness and loyalty. These figures mean that every year we lose a number approximately equivalent to the membership of two of our largest congregations. Why do they leave? But let’s turn the question about. I submit that it is time to ask, Why should they stay? For there is a crescendo in the babel of voices inspired by the spirit of ecumenicity and doctrinal laxity and indifference which, in this writer’s opinion, can only accelerate the process of disintegration of our beloved denomination. It is denominational suicide. Permit me to present a sampling of the babel of confusion.

One writer says that we cannot expect the world to respect the church if the churches do not respect each other. That’s interesting. Who wants to belong to a church which the world respects? That happens only when the church exhibits the spirit of the country club. I want to belong to a church which the world despises. “They have hated me, they will also hate you.” Editorially the Calvin College Chimes of December 1 informs us that the confession ‘1 am a Calvinist” is a shameful confession. Then follows one of the most disturbing articles about the church, our own included, that could be written. We have grown accustomed to having Reformation Day speakers extol this movement as a mighty work of God. Calvin Chimes makes it more nearly approach the work of the devil. Another speaker gives forth the utterance that perhaps our fathers were narrow-minded, but God has been willing to use us. Does this warrant the inference that we should never have done what we did, but that we can comfort ourselves with the fact that the Lord does not deal with us according to our sins? And then we are told from the pulpit that we must get out of our shell (whatever that may mean) and forget our complacency, that we need not think we are it, that God has his dear children in all churches, that we will meet many good Catholics in heaven, that we must respect and appreciate the Catholic Church much more than we do.

Over the last ten years this writer has been present at the examinations of some thirty to thirty-five candidates for the ministry. When the Centennial celebration was in the air we often checked their pulse with regard to our own history. That was a revelation. It soon came to light that not a few were not at all sure that the Christian Reformed Church had a right to exist. How well I remember that on one of these occasions a colleague said, “If this be the case we had all better get down on our knees and confess our sin of schismatic action, and humbly beseech the Reformed Church to receive the wayward sons back into the fold.”

Now if this sampling of voices represents a strong drift in the Christian Reformed Church, then it is perfectly proper to ask with regard to these 2,438 departees, not, Why did they leave? but rather, Why should they stay? If our church is to lose its resolutely Reformed character and its confessional distinctiveness in the muddy waters of ecumenical vagueness, then why should these people not depart for some similarly characterless communion? Or for one with more character? And furthermore, I am eagerly look· ing forward to having The Banner inform us how our denominational consciousness and loyalty is to be strengthened.

Meanwhile we continue to expand a multimillion dollar educational plant which bears what a student leader called “this shameful” name in the Chimes editorial already referred to. It is high time that all our consistories take a long, hard look at our present situation. Perhaps a conference representing all levels of denominational life where the relation between ecumenicity and denominational loyalty would be thoroughly aired could be beneficial. In fact it would seem that some such conference is becoming mandatory, at least if we wish to be honest with the people.

C.H.

FOR MINISTERS ONLY

I wish to tell of something that has meant a lot to me, which has been the source of many spiritual, good things.

This is the privilege of participating in a small ministerial prayer and Bible study group. We have tried to keep it to its purpose, and stay away from mere ecclesiastical questions.

Each Tuesday morning from nine until ten we meet. There are nve of us; one Conservative Baptist, onc independent (a Calvinist), one Orthodox Presbyterian, one Reformed, and one Christian Reformed.

We have carefully studied through I John. We have tried also to discover what the Bible tells us is the duty of civil government. Most recently we studied the charismata (special gifts ). All has been profitable, but we are agreed that the study of a book of the Bible has been by far most richly blessed to us.

And, the busier we are, the more we need it. Brethren, for the sake of your spiritual life, and the spiritual welfare of the Lord’s flock, I urge you to begin and to enjoy such a fellowship.

J.S.

OUR YEARBOOK AND THE WORLD COUNCIL

As in former years, the 1962 Yearbook of the Christian Reformed Church presents a rather lengthy review of the happenings and activities of the past year under the title: 1961 in Retrospect.

We feel impelled to express our keen disappointment with the following remarks which the author of that article makes about the attitude of our Church to the Assembly of the World Council at New Delhi, India:

‘While our sister church in the Netherlands sent official observers to the Assembly of the World Council of Churches in New Delhi, we viewed these proceedings only from It distance and with apparent indifference. If the World Council of Churches is of God, we ought to be part of it. Some say it is of Satan. The question is a confused one, and not to be settled by simply applying the labels of black or white. In the confused state of ecumenical relations it is wise to be cautious. But indifference is without excuse.”

Much could be said about these few sentences but we shall confine ourselves to a few remarks.

First, it is very apparent that the writer is dissatisfied with the fact that our Church has not followed the example of the Reformed Churches of the Netherlands in sending official observers to the meeting at New Delhi. His sympathies in the matter axe rather transparent in spite of his seemingly non-committal words. Considering the dominance of liberals in the World Council, its highhanded action in granting membership to the Greek Orthodox Church and the Russian Church without giving an opportunity for debate, and its virtual repudiation of the 16th century Reformation through its flirtation with the Church of Rome, we believe that the favorable attitude of some Reformed churchmen toward the World Council is an appalling thing. However, we have more respect for those who dare to be outspoken in their sympathies for the World Council than’ for men who try to maintain a semblance or appearance of caution in the matter while in reality inclined to favor it.

Second, on what does the writer base his assertion that “we viewed these proceedings only from a distance and with apparent indifference.” We claim there is no basis for this charge of “apparent indifference.” Surely, the fact that we did not send official observers to New Delhi is no proof of indifference. Indifference would mean that we have no interest in the World Council. But not sending official observers is no evidence of indifference. It may very well be the expression of a deep conviction that we should not give the Council any sort of recognition. But that is not indifference. Neither have the men who write in our papers and magazines shown indifference by failing to take note of what was done at New Delhi. In fact, considerable has been written about the World Council Assembly in our church papers and other periodicals. The fact that aU or nearly all of this was unfavorable to the WCC is no evidence of indifference. How could we be indifferent to a movement which, in spite of all its surface piety, is inimical in its very composition, spirit, and purpose to the principles of the Word of God? If there are among us those who do not agree with this they should be ready to present their views and answer all the objections that are being made against the WCC.

The writer states that “The question is a confused one” and mentions “the confused state of ecumenical relations.” We should like to ask our brother why this question of our relation to the World Council is a confused one. Of course, there are problems in connection with our relation to some other denominations. But we know of no “confusion” with respect to our relation to the WCC. Perhaps the statement must be understood in the light of the assertion that the question is “not to be settled by simply applying the labels of black and white.” We assume this means that there is both good and bad in the World Council. Those who believe this might do well to explain what in their opinion is good about it and what they believe to be bad. Let us not be afraid of discussing the issue, openly and frankly.

Meanwhile we are very sorry that the President of our Seminary has written so vaguely and equivocally on so important an issue.

H.J.K.