North of the border which separates Canada and the United States we find considerable activity by Calvinists in the field of labor-relations.

Recently the Christian Labour Association of Canada addressed an open letter to Parliament. It stated “that the laws of the land are partly responsible for abuses within unions and the failures of many unions to observe the law.” These serious charges were confirmed by references to the take-over of jurisdiction by the S.L.U. and its Canadian president, Mr. Hal Banks.

This document was highly praised by the editor of the Kingston Whig-Standard, who wrote, “There were other recommendations, all of them carefully considered and like the rest of the document—clearly and accurately worded. This labour document is a most impressive indication that there are sections of labour in Canada with high standards of integrity and the ability to express these standards. It would be a good thing if the Government were to look carefully at this plea from the Christian Labour Association of Canada.”

Meanwhile in the western provinces a similar testimony was given.

The position of this Christian organization was also clearly stated at a three-day Labour-Management Conference convened some months ago by the Honorable R. Reierson, Minister of Labour for the province of Alberta.

The group representing a Christian, Biblical approach to labor presented a six-page brief. Among other propositions it submitted that: 11m abolition of compulsory unionism will oblige the union to earn support where it had formerly demanded or extorted it. The multiple-union bargaining agent removes monopoly, and the incentive for a destructive and demoralizing inter-union warfare. It cultivates cooperation and enables men to exercise their responsibility in freedom through the union of their choice….We submit that the Government has the God-given duty to protect the freedom and rights of all the citizens of the Province of Alberta. It is our sincere wish that the Government of Alberta may see Bt to pass the appropriate legislation.”

This witness precipitated a sharp debate. But such is to be expected, when the Christian in the name of Almighty Cod and in obedience to the Scriptures testifies. The Christian Reformed Church through its several synods has always encouraged such positive witness in the field of labor on the part of its members. This is the struggle for integrity, justice and freedom which has become peculiarly acute again in recent years. And Christian witnessing is needed here just as much as in the field of race relations. Is this, too, being emphasized from the pulpits, in the catechetical classes and in family visitation? Failure to do so will cripple the impact: of the full-orbed gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ in the lives of his people and in the world at large.

THE POWER OF GOD UNTO SALVATION…

Every Christian who takes witnessing seriously realizes that the followers of Muhammed are exceedingly difficult to reach. Among a Muslim population the number of converts to the Christian faith is comparatively few. This situation has long engaged the attention of the church. It raises the question: How can we best bring Christ to such people?

Dr. W. A. Bijleveld has given his answers to some of tho pertinent questions which people ask about missionary work among the Muslims. His replies are worthy of most serious attention. He was born of missionary parents in Indonesia and for a time associated with Christian Reformed missionaries in their thriving field in Northern Nigeria. As an authority on Islamics he is highly respected by leaders in world Christian missions.

In the Church Herald for January 17, 1964, he has answered some of the questions.

One of the most striking concerns the use of Scripture in this difficult work. Says he, “I try to get my Muslim friends to read the Bible. This is the most important starting point. Out of a dozen leading Muslims whose stones of conversion to Christianity I have read, there was only one who did not say that his starting point was reading the Scriptures.”

This should be more strongly emphasized, in our churches, schools and homes. The gospel is and ever remains the power of God unto salvation. Without a doubt the secularization of today’s church, the defection of many a pulpit from the true faith and the indifference of multitudes in the pews stem from a refusal to honor God’s Word for what it is—the infallible self-revelation of God in Jesus Christ which alone makes men wise unto salvation.

WHEN TWO SAY THE SAME THING…

When two people say the same thing, they aren’t by any means always saying the same thing.

This is also true today within the church. Her calling is to expound and defend and propagate the truth of God’s Word. Often those who no longer take the church’s confessions seriously employ the vocabulary of the creeds nonetheless. That this betrays basic dishonesty can hardly be argued. But even worse, it leads many well-meaning people astray. They judge sermons, articles and religious periodicals only by the superficial sound of the words.

In the Presbyterian Journal—always clear-cut and refreshing in its loyalty to the creeds—we find an article which everyone ought to read. It is short. It is challenging. It is entitled: “It Is! It Isn’t! It Is! It Isn’t!”

That, of course, sounds like double-talk. And the point of the writer is precisely this, that we’d better be wide awake when listening to preachers and professors tell us that the Bible is “witness and instrument of revelation.”

Several who champion this notion insist that they are merely repeating Calvin. It is true that Calvin used words such as these. But his position differs as radically from that of the neo-orthodox of our day who make this claim as day differs from night. Here is the conclusion of the editor: ‘What is the danger of this view? It’s just a viewpoint, isn’t it, at the worst a theory?

“It is more than just a viewpoint. It is an attitude towards the Bible. It is a way of saying, ‘The Bible is not a divine Book, it is a human book.’ It is a way of reducing the unique authority of the Bible to an authority which is common to all Christian inspiration: ‘Moses witnessed mighty acts of God, today we also witness mighty acts of God; Moses had his insights, we have our insights; the Holy Spirit spoke to him, the Holy Spirit speaks to us.’

“…And thus men are enabled to believe as they please and find sufficient excuse to teach as they please.

“The next time someone tries to dismiss this whole subject by telling you that it is no more than a tempest in a tea-pot, ask them if they accept the Bible itself—this book—as a revelation of God. By their answer ye shall know them.”

CHURCH AND CLASSIS IN CONFLICT…

Reformed churches throughout the world sooner or later face similar issues. What disturbs the one often at the same time or some years later also disturbs and even disrupts another.

One of the most crucial issues deals with the problem how “reprehensible teachings” can be excluded from a congregation and denomination. This is never a simple matter in practice for a church which is presbyterially-governed. Not only the consistory but also classis and/or synod have something to say. And when these two voices (that of the local and of the broader assembly) don’t say the same thing, a difficult and dangerous crisis arises.

Something of this sort has disturbed the “Gereformeerde Kerken, art. 31” (often called the Schilder group or “Liberated” churches) in recent years.

The church at Beverwyk had a pastor who apparently proclaimed “reprehensible teachings.” His consistory requested but did not receive assistance in prosecuting the matter from either its neighboring consistory or its classis. Hence with a sizable group in the congregation the consistory severed connections with its pastor and the classis. After quite some time the (Particular) Synod. of North Holland acted. It justified the doctrinal position of the consistory but apparently recognized the minister in question with his new consistory as the legitimate continuation of the original church.

From this distance and with only a few reports on hand we dare not speak on the precise issue. Yet such a crisis can and does arise at times, when a consistory takes seriously its responsibility towards Christ to maintain soundness of doctrine and discipline.

A fairly detailed report of the decisions of the (Particular) Synod of North Holland appeared in De Reformatie (Dec. 1963 issues). Included is a clear·cut analysis of certain aspects of the problem and an accompanying criticism by Prof. J. Kamphuis. His warning is worthy of careful reading. “Here one sees with his own eyes, how church polity deteriorates, when it is exercised apart from the confession of the truth. It becomes a club with which brethren, who have stood for the truth and are still recognized as doing such, are beaten before they are driven out.”

Such has happened within the Presbyterian and Reformed family of churches before. There is always the temptation to elevate ecclesiastical rules and regulations at the expense of sound doctrine. And a church assembly which makes itself guilty of this, wittingly or not, will reap a tragic harvest. For the church of the living God is “pillar and ground of the truth.” In proportion as this is ignored, the church loses the God-given right to call herself true church of our Lord Jesus Christ.

North of the border which separates Canada and the United States we find considerable activity by Calvinists in the field of labor-relations.

Recently the Christian Labour Association of Canada addressed an open letter to Parliament. It stated “that the laws of the land are partly responsible for abuses within unions and the failures of many unions to observe the law.” These serious charges were confirmed by references to the take-over of jurisdiction by the S.L.U. and its Canadian president, Mr. Hal Banks.

This document was highly praised by the editor of the Kingston Whig-Standard, who wrote, “There were other recommendations, all of them carefully considered and like the rest of the document—clearly and accurately worded. This labour document is a most impressive indication that there are sections of labour in Canada with high standards of integrity and the ability to express these standards. It would be a good thing if the Government were to look carefully at this plea from the Christian Labour Association of Canada.”

Meanwhile in the western provinces a similar testimony was given.

The position of this Christian organization was also clearly stated at a three-day Labour-Management Conference convened some months ago by the Honorable R. Reierson, Minister of Labour for the province of Alberta.

The group representing a Christian, Biblical approach to labor presented a six-page brief. Among other propositions it submitted that: The abolition of compulsory unionism will oblige the union to earn support where it had formerly demanded or extorted it. The multiple-union bargaining agent removes monopoly, and the incentive for a destructive and demoralizing inter-union warfare. It cultivates cooperation and enables men to exercise their responsibility in freedom through the union of their choice….We submit that the Government has the God-given duty to protect the freedom and rights of all the citizens of the Province of Alberta. It is our sincere wish that the Government of Alberta may see fit to pass the appropriate legislation.”

This witness precipitated a sharp debate. But such is to be expected, when the Christian in the name of Almighty Cod and in obedience to the Scriptures testifies. The Christian Reformed Church through its several synods has always encouraged such positive witness in the field of labor on the part of its members. This is the struggle for integrity, justice and freedom which has become peculiarly acute again in recent years. And Christian witnessing is needed here just as much as in the field of race relations. Is this, too, being emphasized from the pulpits, in the catechetical classes and in family visitation? Failure to do so will cripple the impact: of the full-orbed gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ in the lives of his people and in the world at large.

THE POWER OF GOD UNTO SALVATION…

Every Christian who takes witnessing seriously realizes that the followers of Muhammed are exceedingly difficult to reach. Among a Muslim population the number of converts to the Christian faith is comparatively few. This situation has long engaged the attention of the church. It raises the question: How can we best bring Christ to such people?

Dr. W. A. Bijleveld has given his answers to some of tho pertinent questions which people ask about missionary work among the Muslims. His replies are worthy of most serious attention. He was born of missionary parents in Indonesia and for a time associated with Christian Reformed missionaries in their thriving field in Northern Nigeria. As an authority on Islamics he is highly respected by leaders in world Christian missions.

In the Church Herald for January 17, 1964, he has answered some of the questions.

One of the most striking concerns the use of Scripture in this difficult work. Says he, “I try to get my Muslim friends to read the Bible. This is the most important starting point. Out of a dozen leading Muslims whose stones of conversion to Christianity I have read, there was only one who did not say that his starting point was reading the Scriptures.”

This should be more strongly emphasized, in our churches, schools and homes. The gospel is and ever remains the power of God unto salvation. Without a doubt the secularization of today’s church, the defection of many a pulpit from the true faith and the indifference of multitudes in the pews stem from a refusal to honor God’s Word for what it is—the infallible self-revelation of God in Jesus Christ which alone makes men wise unto salvation.

WHEN TWO SAY THE SAME THING…

When two people say the same thing, they aren’t by any means always saying the same thing.

This is also true today within the church. Her calling is to expound and defend and propagate the truth of God’s Word. Often those who no longer take the church’s confessions seriously employ the vocabulary of the creeds nonetheless. That this betrays basic dishonesty can hardly be argued. But even worse, it leads many well-meaning people astray. They judge sermons, articles and religious periodicals only by the superficial sound of the words.

In the Presbyterian Journal—always clear-cut and refreshing in its loyalty to the creeds—we find an article which everyone ought to read. It is short. It is challenging. It is entitled: “It Is! It Isn’t! It Is! It Isn’t!”

That, of course, sounds like double-talk. And the point of the writer is precisely this, that we’d better be wide awake when listening to preachers and professors tell us that the Bible is “witness and instrument of revelation.”

Several who champion this notion insist that they are merely repeating Calvin. It is true that Calvin used words such as these. But his position differs as radically from that of the neo-orthodox of our day who make this claim as day differs from night. Here is the conclusion of the editor: ‘What is the danger of this view? It’s just a viewpoint, isn’t it, at the worst a theory?

“It is more than just a viewpoint. It is an attitude towards the Bible. It is a way of saying, ‘The Bible is not a divine Book, it is a human book.’ It is a way of reducing the unique authority of the Bible to an authority which is common to all Christian inspiration: ‘Moses witnessed mighty acts of God, today we also witness mighty acts of God; Moses had his insights, we have our insights; the Holy Spirit spoke to him, the Holy Spirit speaks to us.’

“…And thus men are enabled to believe as they please and find sufficient excuse to teach as they please.

“The next time someone tries to dismiss this whole subject by telling you that it is no more than a tempest in a tea-pot, ask them if they accept the Bible itself—this book—as a revelation of God. By their answer ye shall know them.”

CHURCH AND CLASSIS IN CONFLICT…

Reformed churches throughout the world sooner or later face similar issues. What disturbs the one often at the same time or some years later also disturbs and even disrupts another.

One of the most crucial issues deals with the problem how “reprehensible teachings” can be excluded from a congregation and denomination. This is never a simple matter in practice for a church which is presbyterially-governed. Not only the consistory but also classis and/or synod have something to say. And when these two voices (that of the local and of the broader assembly) don’t say the same thing, a difficult and dangerous crisis arises.

Something of this sort has disturbed the “Gereformeerde Kerken, art. 31” (often called the Schilder group or “Liberated” churches) in recent years.

The church at Beverwyk had a pastor who apparently proclaimed “reprehensible teachings.” His consistory requested but did not receive assistance in prosecuting the matter from either its neighboring consistory or its classis. Hence with a sizable group in the congregation the consistory severed connections with its pastor and the classis. After quite some time the (Particular) Synod. of North Holland acted. It justified the doctrinal position of the consistory but apparently recognized the minister in question with his new consistory as the legitimate continuation of the original church.

From this distance and with only a few reports on hand we dare not speak on the precise issue. Yet such a crisis can and does arise at times, when a consistory takes seriously its responsibility towards Christ to maintain soundness of doctrine and discipline.

A fairly detailed report of the decisions of the (Particular) Synod of North Holland appeared in De Reformatie (Dec. 1963 issues). Included is a clear·cut analysis of certain aspects of the problem and an accompanying criticism by Prof. J. Kamphuis. His warning is worthy of careful reading. “Here one sees with his own eyes, how church polity deteriorates, when it is exercised apart from the confession of the truth. It becomes a club with which brethren, who have stood for the truth and are still recognized as doing such, are beaten before they are driven out.”

Such has happened within the Presbyterian and Reformed family of churches before. There is always the temptation to elevate ecclesiastical rules and regulations at the expense of sound doctrine. And a church assembly which makes itself guilty of this, wittingly or not, will reap a tragic harvest. For the church of the living God is “pillar and ground of the truth.” In proportion as this is ignored, the church loses the God-given right to call herself true church of our Lord Jesus Christ.