In a recent issue of The Banner (7/18/83) an article appeared that brought my thoughts back to an incident that happened in our family life. In a family of ten children my brother just before me was a baby of a few months old. My parents had a bedroom upstairs where the chimney rested on a base built for it there. They had gone to rest and the baby was asleep with them.
A cloud formed in the west. It followed a path leading directly over our home. And when overhead it released an electrical charge that sent a bolt of lightening down the chimney, demolishing it, and with frightful effect crashed its way down through the bedroom where my father and mother with the baby were sleeping. Recovering themselves from the shock mother immediately turned her attention to the baby. There he lay in deep slumber; and from the contented little face covered with the dust of shattered mortar and bricks seemed to flow the consoling words, “Mama, why are you and Papa so upset? Everything is alright!” And so it was! The rebuilding of the chimney presented no problem.
The Banner article that I am referring to above is that of Dr. Vos, very much alarmed over the wording of the (old) marriage form, especially of that of the introductory paragraph. He says that being present at a marriage ceremony where the form was read he was shocked as though a bolt of lightening had struck him. Then he goes on to say when he was so struck by placing the following, “Wasn’t woman created in the likeness of God? Wasn’t woman endowed with many blessings? Wasn’t woman given dominion over all things? From the marriage form it would be difficult to infer that the biblical answer to these questions is yes.”
For placement in Voices I replied that according to my understanding the very opposite is true of Dr. Vos’ understand ing of this introductory paragraph he so vividly calls into question. I gave several reasons fo r my position; but all that appeared in The Banner (9/12/83) was this: “As I read the paragraph under question, I find that in that brief statement woman is given the high honors Dr. Vos says are denied her.” Why The Banner editor should have denied his readers the reasons for my position I do not know. Here they are, based upon a statement in the introductory paragraph of the marriage form which reads: “God created woman of man’s own substance.”
What is this substance? In Genesis 2:17 we read, “And the· Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul.” Going back to chapter 1:27 we read, “So God created man in his own image.” Here we have three aspects of man’s being–body, soul , and the likeness of God. All this belongs to man’s substance. And the charge that God gave man to “fill the earth and subdue it” is inseparably connected with his substance. Out of this substance the form says, God created woman. There is therefore no escaping the conclusion that she became the recipient of all that the substance of man consisted of. And when the form says that God “Making man in H is own likeness, He endowed him with many blessings and gave him dominion over all things,” applies to the woman as well as to the man. All this is further substantiated by the marriage form when it quotes Scripture in these words: “and they shall be one flesh” which means that the image of God and the endowment of many blessings together with the charge to have dominion over all things are to be equally shared by both parties to the marriage bond. I therefore can say an unequivocal “yes” to the questons of Dr. Vos as quoted in the beginning of this article.
And so, Dr. Vos, there is no need to become so overly upset. “Everything is alright!”
Ring Star
Church Order or Disorder?
“This Church Order, having been adopted by common consent, shall be faithfully observed , and any revision thereof shall be made only by synod.” So says Art. 96 of our present Church Order. There is considerable evidence however among the churches of the CRC, which casts doubt on the “faithfulness” of our observance of its regulations. And that is not only dishonest, it also abets the trend toward congregationalsim in the CRC and helps to undermine the authority of the Church Order.
Let me give a few examples.
Art. 4 states that in calling to an office, the consistory shall present a nomination of at least twice the number to be elected. Only in special circumstances may there be less than twice the number, and then the consistory must give reasons for the exception. However, at least on this side of the border it is becoming a regular custom to present a single nomination when calling a minister to a vacant church, and seldom is any explanation given for this procedure. And the counselors, who are to see to it that the regulations of the Church Order are faithfully observed, appear to go along with this irregularity.
What is more, the Rev. P.M. Jonker pointed out some time ago in De Wachter that the exception of Art. 4 was never meant to apply to the calling of a minister by single nomination, for the article speaks about a nomination “which totals less than twice the number to be elected.” One can never be a “total.”
Art. 52b states that the synodically approved liturgical forms are to be used in the worship services, and Art. 55 again reiterates that the sacraments shall be administered “with the use of the prescribed forms.” But here again , there are several churches who are very lax and haphazard in the use of these forms. Sometimes only small sections of the forms are used; other times they are forgotten completely.
Art. 54b prescribes this preaching of the Word as summarized in the Heidelberg Catechism at one of the services on .the Lord’s Day. But this prescription is taken very lightly in too many churches, and sometimes the Catechism is ignored for weeks on end. It appears that consistories are reluctant to call the minister to task about this. I was glad to note that Rev. Haverkamp urged the candidates for the ministry not to neglect “catechism preaching.” But if older ministers don’t take it too seriously, why should candidates?
One might also question how faithfully the articles on Church Discipline, and the synodical regulations pertaining thereto, are adhered to? Though the procedure is spelled out quite explicitly, discipline is at a low ebb in many congregations. At times it is hardly exercised at all.
In conclusion, if this is the way we treat our Church Order, what can we expect in the future and what must we think of our vows of ordination? What is more, such treatment only invites further disrespect for the Church Order. Just as in society, laws that are not enforced are worse than no laws at all, so it is here. If we don’t like certain stipulations of the Church Order, then there is a way to try to get them changed, by way of proper ecclesiastical procedure. But simply “doing our own thing” is unworthy of any officebearer in the Christian Re formed Church, and a violation of the promise we made before God and his people.
J. Tuininga Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada.
Catechism to Learn or Discuss?
More than a year ago I expressed my concern about much of the catechism teaching that is taking place in our churches (cf. “Catechism Without Learning,” June ‘82). I said that in too many classes very little actual learning is taking place. Nothing that I have seen or heard has changed my mind in this respect. As the catechism season begins again, it is well to be reminded of the crucial importance of solid instruction in and through learning of the creeds of the church. And that should include the actual memorization of the Heidelberg Catechism, particularly in the younger and intermediate classes. Nothing can replace such thorough acquaintance with the confessions.
During the last several years, we have gotten away from memorization and “lecturing” in class. Following modern educational methodology, we too opted for “discussion” instead. But more often than not, such “discussion” became a kind of a free-for–all for all kinds of opinions, and in the end no one had really learned very much. Too often it was a matter of “sharing our ignorance.” We went overboard on the “discussion” binge, and the results were disastrous many times.
Students have to learn before they can discuss. That means the teacher must instruct them in the ideas and concepts of that which is to be learned. A bit of discussion now and then can be beneficial, especially in the older classes, and there should always be room for questions, but I have found out by experience that most learning takes place when I explain the lesson in a thorough way (by “lecturing” if you will!) and the students take notes , just as they do in school. And then they are expected to learn the notes, because they will be tested on them. I have also found that older people in post-confession. classes much prefer a good deal of actual teaching and lecturing to a kind of seminar-type discussion format. They learn much more by way of the former than the latter.
It is time we stop being so enamoured by the modern idea of “discussion,” and being frightened by the bugaboo of “lecturing.” Secular educational theories and methodologies change like the wind. But we don’t always have to follow them. As Prof. C. Van Til once said, as Christians we ought to have a measure of independence and sure-footedness in our educational theories, rather than following every whim and fancy that comes along. That is true for our catechism program too. Real learning takes hard work—on the part of the teacher and catechumen both.
J. Tuininga Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada.