The Gospel and the Poor

It would be beneficial if we in the CRC would do a bit of reflecting on the nature of the gospel, particularly as it relates to the “poor” in this world. We easily slip into a kind of horizontalism or “social gospel” approach when we think about all the hungry and destitute people in the world. We are influenced more than we care to admit by the philosophy of society around us. The “rich” West is largely to blame for the “poor” in underdeveloped countries. Before we know it, the church starts reading the Bible in somewhat similar categories without even realizing it. But meanwhile we have seriously distorted the message of the Scriptures.

Last year the Rev. J. Timmer wrote in a meditation designed for the “day of prayer and fasting” that Jesus “completely identifies himself with the needy. He unconditionally chooses their side. Hunger and poverty is the place where he is and where he wants to be.” In a similar meditation this year Dr. C. Plantinga writes: “The poor have God’s ear, God’s concern, God on their side. God’s care for the poor is so intense, his ‘identification’ with them so strong, that any of us who oppresses the poor insults not only them, but God himself!”

I must honestly say that such undiscriminating writing, such failure to make some proper distinctions, amazes me, especially when it comes from a seminary professor. For such statements, taken by themselves at face value, are simply not true. God is no more on the side of the poor per se than he is on the side of the rich. The poor have no more “clout” with God than do the rich. The poor must be saved by grace as well as the rich.

Both Timmer and Plantinga should have done some biblical word-study; they should have looked at the concept “poor” as that is actually used in both the Old and New Testaments. And then they would have come to quite another conclusion. For the “poor” in the Bible are not just “the poor” in general. Not at all. As the article in the New Bible Dictionary puts it, “‘the poor’ became almost a synonym for ‘the pious’ (Ps. xiv. 5, 6).” A careful reading of the section entitled “Het evangelie der armen” in H. Ridderbos’ De Komst van het Koninkrijk (pp. 167–173) would have prevented the making of such generalized, unsubstantiated statements.

Ridderbos says that the concept “poor,” “before all else, receives its meaning from the fact that these ‘poor’ and ‘meek’ from of old were, in a special sense, the bearers of the promises of salvation, because among them the true people of God were to be found.” (Orig. ital.) They are the same people Jesus had in mind in the beatitudes. The poor are also the poor in spirit. Elsewhere he says that the difference between the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16) was one of an “integral-religious antithesis.”

Even a quick look at the Scriptures ought to make this plain. See especially the Song of Hannah (I Sam. 1, esp. yss. 5, 8) echoed in the Song of Mary (Luke 1, esp. vss. 51–53). One could mention here also Ps. 37, esp. vss. 11, 14, 16, plus many other Psalms. Also Isa. 61:1–3 (cf. Luke 4:16–21).

To cite just one more authority: F. J. Pop, in his Bijbelse Woorden en hun Geheim, says regarding “arm” (poor):

The Psalms and the prophets mention the righteous and the poor in one breath; they see them as synonymous parallels. The poor are then not merely a social phenomenon, but also a religious one . . . . The poor Messiah is not only one with the poor of God in this world, but they are also taken up into him. . . . These poor have nothing in and of themselves and are completely and totally dependent upon God and his free grace. They form one category with those who mourn, the meek, those who hunger and thirst after righteousness, the merciful, the pure of heart, the peacemakers, the persecuted and mocked designated in the beatitudes.

It is well for the CRWRC and the entire church to keep these things in mind, for the good of ourselves and those we seek to help. Christian mercy indeed extends beyond the church—the “all men” of Gal. 6:30. But it must be done in the name of Christ and not in the name of some romanticized notion concerning the poor. And meanwhile let‘s keep in mind the second part of Gal. 6:30: “especially to those who are of the household of Faith,” and also “the least of my brethren” of Matt. 25:40.

Students in a Land of two Currents

De Reformatie is a small unpretentious weekly publication issuing from the (Liberated) Reformed Churches of the Netherlands, which often contains material of unusual interest. In the Sept. 25, 1982 issue, one of the editors, W. G. De Vries, writes an article about a festival day of t he theological school under the above title. H e points out that a hundred years ago there was considerable amount of discus· sion about theological students but their numbers were very few. The University of Leiden, for example had four, Groningen had one, and the new Free University at Amsterdam had seven, while the (Reformed Churches’) Theological school at Kampen had eighty. In 1882 Dr. Abraham Kuyper spoke at Leeuwarden on the subject, “What are the prospects for students of the Free University?” He was speaking about students in what the speaker has called a “land of two currents.” The “two currents” were the (earlier, 1834) Secession and Kuyper’s movement of a half century later (the “Doleantie”). These later merged to form the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands, but this merger had not yet occurred and there was still separation and vehement argument between the two. The Reformed in the state church (Kuyper’s following) and those who were then called Christian Reformed (the Secessionists) acknowledged one another as people who, in opposition to the “ethicals” and the Modernists of that time, wanted to stand up for the trustworthiness of God’s Word and the binding commitment to the Reformed confession. Despite this agreement, they still found themselves in spiritually separate currents. Kuyper in 1883 published his Tract on the Reformation of the Churches in which he characterized the Secessionists as too inclined toward independentism. He was opposed by Dr. Herman Bavinck, who in 1882 had been appointed a professor at the Kampen theological school. Kuyper cited the example of the Reformed who had remained in the state church as a protest movement before the Synod of Dordt. Bavinck observed that they had remained there in anticipation of the synod which would set matters right. He maintained that if the Synod of Dordt had not done so they would have unitedly left the Remonstrant Babylon, declared it a false church and set up their own. When, later, the state church did choose a course of freedom of doctrine and violation of the creeds, the seceders did exactly that. Bavinck saw in their action a powerful testimony against continuing fellowship with those who oppose the truth. He considered it a weakness in Kuyper and his followers that they maintained this wrong fellowship in the state church. Kuyper wanted to establish protesting churches, but Bavinck considered it far too late for such measures since all of the church administrations maintained the false doctrine. They ought to move to independent organization, that is, secession. Bavinck was glad that Kuyper had finally conceded a measure of legitmacy to the Secession although this acknowledgment was not, in his opinion, generous enough. According to Bavinck, Kuyper fixed his hope on the Free University and the principle of the indepedence of the local churches and wanted to wait and see whether these did not give a hopeful ecclesiastical future.

On the other hand, Kuyper charged the Christian Reformed Church with being too “collegialistic,” giving the synod too central and large a place. Bavinck would not deny that this was possible. At the prayer service before the 1882 synod Rev. W. H. Gispen, who later became its president, spoke of the divine character of a true Christian synod extending over everything that concerned Christian life and doctrine. Although he was opposing the independentism and minimizing of office that was already then common among the Darbyites and other “free” groups, he was assigning the synod a somewhat heirarchical role. And so the two positions opposed each other. Kuyper pointed to a way of reformation which the seceders could not share, and the seceders assigned to the synod a place that Kuyper could not accept. In the conflict the two parties moved toward the desired union. This finally took place in 1892 when the two currents merged to form the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands.

The writer went on to observe that this living in a land of two currents of a hundred years ago was not as remote from the present as one might expect. Are there not now many who maintain fellowship with churches who in their larger assemblies have long tolerated Biblical criticism and minimizing of the creeds? Both the conservatives in the state church and those in the Reformed Churches maintain such a wrong fellowship. They have returned into the bondage from which the Seceders and later the Kuyperians (“Doleantie”) had emerged.

After discussion of some criticisms of theological training of a century ago as being too academic and some observations on the importance of that training and especially of the need to ascertain that it be faithful to Scripture and Confession, the article remarked on the plight of the seven theological students of Kuyper’s little new university. The prospect for that handful of students seemed bleak. Where would they go? The state church scrupulously excluded them. The seceders had stated that they would be admitted to their church examinations, but Kuyper was not yet ready to endorse a secession, because the seceders, in his opinion had too hastily and wrongly left the state church. Kuyper pointed his students to the scorn and foolishness of God’s gospel. Those who attended the Free University were marked men who would find themselves at a disadvantage. They were maligned and ridiculed as fanatics and unenlightened. They would encounter hatred and opposition. To dare to come with the name of Jesus, that old Bible, and even with the stupid Canons of Dordt in the realm of science, wasn’t that too foolish? These are reproaches that we today encounter not only from the side of un· belief, but also from the present Free University. We feel ourselves attached to Kuyper who as a father encouraged his students with the Beatitudes, “Blessed are you when men revile you, and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely, on account of me” (Matt. 5:11). Kuyper prayed that they would have surrendered themselves to the Lord Jesus and reminded them of the Bible warning that all who would live godly in Christ Jesus would suffer persecution (2 Tim. 3:12). Kuyper shouted that he wanted to rear men steeled and hardened like the old Puritans to be stedfast and immovable. He sought men who were not looking for ease and comfort, who dared to take up the Lord’s service and would rejoice at being counted worthy to endure hardship and scorn for the sake of His Name. Both Kuyper and his some-time opponent, Gispen, in the other current, urged prayer that the Lord would raise up such leaders for His church.

P.D.J.

Children at the Lord’s Table

Mr. Syrt Wolters has long operated a barber shop in the prestigious Empress Hotel in the heart of Victoria, British Columbia’s capital city. He also speaks his mind in Dutch in a regular column in Calvinist Contact entitled “Als je’t mij vraagt” (“If you ask me”). In the November 26, 1982 issue he expressed his dissatisfaction with a recent conference sponsored by the Association for the Advancement of Christian Scholarship which he attended. Dr. Hendrick Hart of the Association’s Toronto Institute led the conference on the subject, “From Communion to Community.” Mr. Wolters was, to put it mildly, disappointed. He had expected that the conference would deal with the relationship of the communion (of saints) with the community (society) of the world. That did not turn out to be the subject at all.

Dr. Hart busied himself with the question of how we must express our communion of saints among ourselves. Although we confess “the communion of saints,” what do we actually do with it in our church life? All kinds of problems were brought up to illustrate the question. Is a minister really necessary? Can’t the “laity” handle things just as well? Shouldn’t the children also take part in the Lord’s Supper? Must the congregation not take a larger part in our worship services? etc., etc.

On the Sunday of the conference the lunch was used to celebrate the Lord’s Supper (including the children). That was more or less of a surprise; it had not been clearly announced. Mr. Wolters felt that he had really been somewhat “taken in” (“beet genomen” or “deceived”). He felt that this should have been clearly announced. He had participated more because he did not want to be an obvious “spoil sport” then from sense of desire or need to do so. He knew of others who knew what was coming and deliberately stayed away.

This affair provoked a variety of questions for him. Isn’t such a church service during a conference an official church service? Of what denomination? Was it a Christian Reformed church service? He assumed that because a Christian Reformed minister (Rev. B. Nederlof of Victoria) led it.

The Christian Reformed denomination has not (yet) reached the point of admitting children to the Lord’s Supper. It seemed to the writer that every congregation in that denomination ought to abide by the current rule as long as it is not changed. To run ahead in anticipation of possible future changes he judged was out of order and intolerable.

Quite apart from this curious celebration of the Lord’s Supper he felt that the subject did not merit devoting a whole conference to it. He could not escape the impression that Dr. Hart was simply propagandizing the individual practice of a congregation in Toronto (St. Matthew’s Fellowship) which was repeatedly held up as an example.* The problem of “from Communion to Community” was presented and handled as though it were vital to the churches that they experience a similar “reformation” in their fellowship.

This Mr. Wolters could not accept. It seemed to him that it was “putting the cart before the horse.” It seemed to him that a better and richer communion of saints must be the result of the life of faith, not a precondition for it. The more we live our faith in the world the richer our Sunday meetings will become as we feel the need for the nourishment of that faith. He would have preferred that the theme had been handled with a view to our task in the world as “communion of saints.” If we manifest the “spirit of Christ” there and do not conform to the secular pattern of the world, we will see and be surprised at the reaction in the world. And our church services will change.

Mr. Wolters is right in his criticism of this incident because it is a violation of proper church order. But there is a still more serious objection to it. The Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 11 had to point out a misuse of the Lord’s Supper and the disastrous consequences in the form of the Lord’s judgments which that would have for the church if it were not decisively corrected. The Apostle’s enjoined corrective was (v. 28) “Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.” It is that Biblical and reformatory directive that was established in our churches’ order and practice regarding the Lord’s supper, particularly in such things as preparatory services and consistory supervision (cf. also 1 Cor. 5). Children cannot exercise that self examination which the Bible prescribes and they are therefore obviously excluded. When one sets this aside he is not merely violating a church rule but rejecting God’s Word, in favor of his own or someone else’s opinions.

When a conference is set up with the evident purpose of breaking down the churches’ Biblical faith and practice, although it may be called “reformational” it really contributes not to the reformation, but to the destruction of the church and its testimony. Should our consistories and other assemblies continue to promote and support this kind of activity? P.D.J.

Note: *The 1982 denominational yearbook reports that Toronto’s St. Matthew’s Fellowship has been without a pastor since 1978 and has women in leading positions such as that of clerk.

Reflections Aruther Besteman

This morning I attended the funeral service of a man of God. He was 72 years old. He had served as a minister of the Word and sacraments in the Christian Reformed Church for forty-five years. His ministry and example had been an inspiration to me for many years.

During the past several months as colleagues and I exchanged comments about his failing health and increasing suffering, the remark most often made was. “He is such a godly man.” The fruit of the Spirit was richly manifested in his life.

He took seriously the call which had come to him to preach the Word. Because he believed that the Bible is the inspired Word of God and is God’s power unto salvation, he preached that Word with conviction and zeal. It could be said of him that the people heard him gladly.

He loved the Reformed faith and was concerned that those who came under his preaching and teaching should love it also. With enthusiasm and persuasion he confronted his hearers with the great truths of sovereign grace.

The church was dear to him. He was concerned about her purity. Several years ago the Classis in which he and I were both serving delegated him to Synod. The Classis had also sent an overture to Synod asking for the strengthening of the catechetical program as we have traditionally known it in the Christian Reformed Church. One of the younger delegates to Synod sought to dismiss the overture and the concern of Classis by saying that the overture represented the mind of the “colonie” and therefore didn’t have to be taken seriously. The brother about whom I am writing was not afraid to stand up and be identified with the Classis which he represented. He reminded the delegates that the overture had not come out of any particular mentality but was born out of a love for the church and the instruction of her youth.

He knew the Church Order and desired that it be upheld. When he spoke at Classis regarding proper procedure the delegates listened to him and recognized the wisdom of what he was saying.

Now his voice has been silenced at least in the church militant, but his influence will continue and his ministry will still bear fruit in the years to come even as he prayed that it might.

Today my heart goes out in sympathy to his family, who will miss him sorely. Today I also grieve for the church because another one of her stalwart defenders of the Faith is being laid to rest. It would be easy to become discouraged as a generation of men of God whose influence for good in the church has been so great passes away. But I remind myself that the King of the Church who called Enno L. Haan to the ministry of the Word and Sacraments is still calling men into the service of His church. May the number of those who follow in the tradition and footprints of our departed brother in the Lord be multiplied.