Transmitting False Signals

J. Tuininga

One can’t help but wonder sometimes what has happened to our biblical and Reformed sensitivities in the CRC, to our “Geref voelhorens” as our fathers used to say.

What prompts me to say this on this occasion is the report on the recent assembly of the World Council of Churches in Vancouver Canada, found in The Banner of Sept. 12 (cf. “Coming Home From Vancouver” by A. James Heynen). Though the report points out many weaknesses of the W.C.C., the Christian Reformed delegation, with the exception of one man, the Rev. R. Sikkema, appears to have been rather favorably impressed with the assembly , and believes it is moving in a favorable direction. “I came away from the Assembly thinking more highly of the WCC than I’d intended to,” says Heynen. Dr. Paul Schrotenboer, Executive Secretary of the Reformed Ecumenical Synod, helped organize a meeting of a group of evangelicals which drafted a letter stating that they claim to have seen “signs of growth and renewal” at this Assembly. Though the letter stopped short of advocating union with the W.C.C., it did decry “the distortions in the popular evangelical understanding” of the Council.

A trio of those present at this meeting (one from Germany, one from the U.S.A., and one from Korea) wished to be much more critical of the W.C.C., stating that it was ” in danger of becoming a mouthpiece of false prophecy.” But, reports Heynen, “Schrotenboer and others sounded a very different note.” Later Schrotenboer did admit that he wished the drafted letter “were a little less laudatory, a little more critical.” The letter received several hundred signatures. “It pretty well reflects my thinking ,” said Prof. H. Zwaanstra of Calvin Seminary.

The highpoint or climax of the entire Assembly was the “two hours of worship on Sunday morning, when Christians from hundreds of denominations bridged centuries of division by celebrating the Lord’s Supper together.” (No matter that this violates all biblical standards for the Lord’s Supper.) It was the experience of being together that appears to have impressed Heynen and Vander Stelt the most about the entire Assembly. “I must confess,” says Heynen, “The experience was impressive.”

Now it is one thing to say all these nice things about the W.C. C. in general. I would have trouble enough with that. But to say these things after all that Heynen reports to have heard and seen at the Assembly is the more amazing. Listen to this:

When one thinks of ecumenical struggle, one thinks of serious theological differences seriously discussed. And, in the public meetings, it was easier to trip over a Muslim than to find such struggle in this assembly . . . .

When the lights came back on, there’d been no rational outline of concerns, no exegetical background for discussions, no listing of issues to be tackled . . . . The agenda for the World Council of Churches was being shaped by a model drawn from the world of therapy rather than the world of theology.

When the eight issue groups brought their reports to the floor during the final week, they were disappointingly fuzzy . . . .

The Russian delegation succeeded in making the resolution on Afghanistan as bland as yesterday’ s oatmeal . . . . Since the American Presbyterians (among others) didn’t mind castigating Ronald Reagan’s diplomacy in El Salvador, and since they got their way, the USA definitely got nailed . . . . The result is always the same: Russia 1, Yankees 0 . . . .

Bishop Desmond Tutu . . . didn’t need to convince the WCC to condemn apartheid or the white South African government, of course. Condemnation was a foregone conclusion.

Now how in the world it is possible, after all that, to come away from the Assembly with a rather favorable impression, is beyond me. I surely would have expected something better from a man with the caliber and position of Dr. Schrotenboer. When theW.C.C takes its agenda from the world, and when it leans considerably to the left of center in politics, and when serious theological differences are not seriously discussed, then it strikes me that those evangelicals who claimed that the W.C.C. is in danger of becoming a mouthpiece of false prophecy are much closer to the truth than the rest care to admit. What is more, Heynen reports that the morning when several evangelicals led a modest revolt on the floor, “there wasn‘t any Christian Reformed delegate on that floor to join their protest.”

The whole thing doesn’t add up in my book. If that’s all the CRC delegation can do, it isn’t much. And what is more, they don’t represent me and a host of others. What kind of a wishy–washy hodgepodge of theology do we have here?

Schrotenboer and his colleagues should spend more time pursuing real biblical ecumenicity by trying to unite the CRC, OPC, Canadian Reformed churches, Free Reformed churches, etc. I know, that is much harder work, and perhaps not as glamorous. But it is much closer to real confessional ecumenicity. A report such as the majority of delegates (observer delegates, not official) from the CRC are here putting forth is only going to make it more difficult to obtain the confidence of those with whom we should be one.

In conclusion, I would like to suggest the reading of the little brochure. Op Weg . . . Waarh een? Wie Maakr Alle Dingen Nieuw? by the Rev. G. Zomer (Publisher “De Vuurbaak”). That was written in response to the 1968 assembly of the W.C.C. in Uppsala, Sweden. But much of what he writes is still very applicable today. Here is a prophetic, biblical testimony at its best.

TEXT-TWISTING in World Relief

J. Tuininga

The C.R.W.R.C. has done it again: In its zeal to impress upon church members the plight of the poor in this world, the Bible is made to say what it never intended to say. One would think that after this had been pointed out a couple of times, it would be more careful in its use of the Scriptures. But it doesn‘t appear that way. In its booklet, World Hunger: Hope Amid Pain, one again finds a rather superficial and invalid use of Scripture. Under the general heading of “Biblical View of the Poor,” one finds these two subheadings: “God is concerned about the poor” and “God identifies Himself with the poor.” A number of biblical passages are referred to , but no attempt is made to really come to grips with those passages, in order to try to understand what the Bible really means by “poor.” (Let me say it again: A reading of pp. 167–176 in Ridderbos’ De Komst Van Het Koninkrijk, entitled “Het Evangelie der Armen” would have helped a great deal and would have prevented such glib identifications.) Does God identify Himself with the poor per se? Do they have a special standing with God just because they are poor? And who are the poor? Just anybody and everybody in general? A bit of biblical-theological word-study would do wonders here.

Then comes another sub-heading: “Our responsibility to help the poor extends beyond the believing poor.” I have no trouble with that statement as such (cf. Gal. 6:10). But one rubs his eyes in disbelief when he looks up the Scrip. passages which are supposed to prove this, viz. that one “should give not only to fellow believers but to any who bad need.” Note that last phrase: to any who had need. That phrase is taken from Acts 2:45, where we read that the believers sold their possessions and goods and distributed them to all, as any had need. The whole context makes abundantly clear that the “all” who had need were fellow believers! The group to whom the Lord added daily those who were being saved (vs. 47). How that is supposed to prove that we must give to those outside the church too is beyond me. Then there is a reference to Acts 24:17, where Paul tells Felix that ‘“after some years I came to bring to my nation alms and offerings.” Again it has nothing to do with helping those who are not believers.  Then Paul relates that these three brothers reminded Paul and Barnabas to “remember the poor,” something Paul was eager to do. But here again, the reference is clearly to the poor among the Christians. Says Hendriksen: “The difficult situation of the Judean poor required that special measures be taken to help them .” But there is not a word about the poor in general. Then finally Gal. 6:10 is mentioned, the only text that can in any way be used to justify the heading of the paragraph. I just don’t understand such a use of the Bible. It is time the CRWRC does some exegetical homework, before putting such material into print.

I also have trouble with the next sub-heading: “Our response to the poor lies at the heart of our commitment to Christ.” But enough. I mentioned these things not to be nitpicky, but precisely because there is so much confusion about this matter today. In the face of all that confusion, and in view of the strong horizontalistic tendencies in the churches today, we may expect and demand that this agency of the Christian Reformed Church blows a trumpet which is unmistakable in its clarity. We ought to do away with this “Hunger Sunday” business altogether , but if we are to have it, let there be some good Scriptural guidance at any rate. We ought not to be satisfied with less than that.

A Wrong and Dangerous Step

Recently the CRWRC sent a letter to “pastors and other leaders in the church” requesting them to write letters to President Reagan and other government leaders in the U.S. about the violence in Central America. A cover letter explains that this is a “first” for the CRWRC, after having struggled with these issues for several years.

I am not at all happy with this development, and believe it is only abetting a wrong trend in the church. During the last number of years synods of the CRC have been treading in areas where the church as church has no business or competency. To use church funds for the purpose of writing books and establishing task forces on world hunger is wrong. It is a step in the direction of having ecclesiastical assemblies becoming involved in all kinds of economic and political issues. I say (and the Church Order too): Let the church stick to the business of the church. It must proclaim the Word and administer the sacraments. It must call men to repentance and build the church of Jesus Christ. No matter what the political or economic circumstances, that is the unique task of the church. The apostle Paul did not consider it his task to abolish slavery or to change the structures of society. He knew that the gospel itself would have an affect on society (cf. e.g. I Cor. 7:17–24; Philemon).

Today it is becoming commonplace for the church to neglect its real task in order to get involved in all kinds of social and political activities. We see it in the World Council of Churches, in several of the larger “main-line” churches, and we are also affected by the trend. I see this latest effort of the CRWRC as another unwarranted and dangerous step . As far as I can see, it is this trend in the ranks of the CRWRC that contributes to the problem that exists between it and the World Missions Board.

In an accompanying document, Jim Boldenow, Latin American Director of the CRWRC, tries to give an overview of the situation in the countries of Guatemala and Nicaragua. What is interesting but also disconcerting is statements like the following: “We claim no certainty as to the exact political and economic courses to be followed.” “. . . it needs to be realized that accurate and reliable information is almost impossible to obtain.” “Much more difficult to ascertain is the amount of military help the U.S. government has given to the counter revolutionary guerrillas . . . I have no means of assessing the amount of aid given to the Somocistas . . .” Reports of torture and massacres are described as “quite reliable” and “fairly reliable.”

Yet, notwithstanding all these uncertainties , leaders in the CRC are urged to write U.S. government officials about the situation. And presumably they are then supposed to know what they are talking about.

What is more, Canadian pastors and deacons are supposed to write letters to the government of a foreign nation! Suddenly these Canadians are experts in the political activities of the U.S. government in Central America. I think it makes the CRC look very foolish in the eyes of the government.

Let’s retrace our steps and get back to the main business of the church. Christian citizens may and must let their voice be heard in the political arena of their country. But let not the church as church get involved here. Her task is spelled out in Matt. 16:17–19 and Luke 24:47–48.

Christian Surrender to Evolutionists

Peter De Jong

The October 1983 issue of Dialogue, a student publication of the Calvin College Communications Board, contained a well-written and revealing article by its editor, Mary Boerman, entitled “Creating Evolutionary Links” under a heading “The Beginning of the World” It dealt with Calvin’s biology department’s Saturday seminar for junior and senior high school teachers, mostly from Christian schools, who teach the earth and life sciences. The article reports especially the views of one of the seminar leaders, Professor VanDragt of the biology department .

“Creation is God’s project and science is man’s project,” said the professor. Many Christians become upset at the suggestion of evolution because their belief depends on the historical events of creation and fall and the coming ofChrist. If the event of creation is given up and man is made the result of an evolutionary process sin becomes a myth and redemption by Christ unnecessary. The professor objects to this line of thinking because it confuses men’s (evolutionary) theory with facts. In the discussion of how teachers should teach these subjects the professor addresses the subject of evolutionary “intermediates” or “missing links.” Despite long search such “links” have not been found. While creationists have long pointed to this as an evidence against the evolutionary theory, VanDragt plainly disagrees. “When a creation scientist decides that there are no intermediates and there never were any, there’s a dismal prospect of ever resolving the issue.” “Negative data never supports anything.” Although “not immediately swallowing all of evolution, “VanDragt has chosen to assume that intermediates are a reasonable possibility,” Because various species of birds can interbreed , he sees no clear cut lines between species. At the conclusion the professor is quoted, “Scriptural accounts must be the basis of our faith commitment, not the accounts we have created.” “We must rely on the Holy Spirit to guard the truth or we’ll have to work very hard to guard it ourselves.”

Reading the article recalled a conference mostly of Christian teachers of science which I once attended at Seattle Pacific College. One of the speakers observed that although he was a Christian, in the laboratory he worked just “like an atheist.” Another prominent speaker, obviously disturbed, interjected that he felt that was the trouble with most of the body. In the same vein and on a broader scale, Harry Blamires in his little book, The Christian Mind, (p. 117) has pointed out that the problem of Christians in today’s world is that we have (consciously or unconsciously) surrendered to the secularism of our age. “We have accepted secularism’s challenge to fight on secularist ground, with secularist weapons and secularist umpire, before a secularist audience and according to the secularist book of rules. Having done so, we look around in dismay at the discovery that our followers are few, our predicament misunderstood, our cause misrepresented.” It is apparent, however , that in the article in question matters have moved somewhat beyond the stage that Blamires saw. There is no talk of “fighting” at all , but rather of capitulation to the dominant trends of our time. At the end there is the pious-sounding, comforting reassurance, “We must rely on the Holy Spirit to guard the truth or we’ll have to work very hard to guard it ourselves.” Are these alternatives? Can we think and teach people to think like atheists and then expect the Holy Spirit to deliver us and them from the consequences of that teaching?

Professor Dean who for a time taught philosophy at Geneva College once remarked that he had long been asking himself why orthodox Christians had permitted Liberals to steal their churches (and he might have added schools). He thought that he had uncovered three reasons: (1) They are lazy; (2) they try too hard to be “nice”; and (3) they lack “guts.” If we are not to be totally swept along with the unbelief of our age we will not only have to “rely on the Holy Spirit to guard the truth”; we will have to learn to “fight the good fight of the faith” (I Tim. 6:12) for it is not only in church but also when we get into the laboratory. There are many Christians today who are trying to speak there for “the Lord who made heaven and earth.” We ought to stand with them, recognizing their cause as ours. If their efforts are imperfect, let’s try to improve them. But let us not stand aside to merely criticize and support the Lord’s enemies, as some seem to be doing. God’s Word calls us to maintain in school as well as in church that, “By faith we understand that the worlds have been framed by the Word of God, so that what is seen bath not been made out of things which appear” (Heb. 11:3).

Note: Readers who are especially interested in this subject may refer to the article by Mr. John B. Ham in our March, 1983, issue and that by Dr. Gary E. Parker in the April issue. These have since then been cleared for reprinting in the journal of The Biblical Creation Society (51 Cloan Crescent, Bishopbriggs, Glasgow G64 2HN) in Scotland.

WHAT HAPPENED to the VOTUM

C. Van Schouwen

In the May issue of the Outlook two very fine articles appeared relative to church worship. The one by Rev. Allan Dykstra was entitled, “What Happened to the Salutation?” The other article was entitled, “The Church in Worship” and was written by Hans Kloosterman. Considering the tremendous variety in orders of worship in many churches, it might be pertinent for consistories to re-study the nature and essence of a worship service. In the very beginning of a worship service in some of our churches, the minister asks, “Congregation ofJesus Christ, in whom is our help?” And the congregation in unison responds, “Our help is in the name of the Lord, who made heaven and earth.” The question arises: who must pronounce the votum—the minister or the congregation? Does it make any difference?

A Worship Service

There is no meeting upon the face of the earth that is so important and solemn as a worship service. For it is the only meeting where God and His people are so intimately united in holy fellowship. It is God who calls the congregation together on the Sabbath Day through divinely ordained officebearers. It is God who speaks in a worship service directly through the reading of His Word and indirectly through the preaching of the Word. God is present to listen to the songs that are sung , the prayers that are offered, and to bestow His blessing through all the elements of the service. He who does not reckon with these facts, simply does not understand what a worship service is all about (Matt. 18:20).

Religious Services

In view of these facts, a worship service is altogether different from any other kind of a religious service, even though Scripture may be read, hymns are sung, and a word of edification is spoken. Why? A worship service can only be held by an organized group of believers under the direct supervision of a duly ordained consistory. And since the consistory is responsible for public worship, it is only the consistory that can determine the order of worship. This may not be left to the arbitrary choice of the minister.

Consistorial Preparation

Considering the sacredness and the solemnity of a worship service for which the consistory is responsible, it is very necessary for the consistory to meet before the worship service takes place. No worsh ip service can be held without being called by the consistory or without the consistory being present. In this meeting, the consistory asks God to be present in this worship service by His grace and Spirit and to bless all the elements of this service so that a rich Sabbath Day blessing may be received by all the members of the church. It also prays that God may give him who leads the worship service all what he stands in need of and that all things may be done to the honor and the glory of God. Thus in this pre-service consistory meeting, the worship service is placed in the hands of God (Hab. 2:20).

The Consistorial Procession

The orderly procession of the members of the consistory into the auditorium signifies that the worship service is about to begin. It reminds the congregation that the service will be conducted in an official manner by duly ordained office bearers. Thus the impression is created that the service is divinely appointed, and that it cannot be held without the office being present. We must never forget that God bestows His Sabbath Day blessings through the instrumentality of the office.

The Importance Of The Votum

The votum is pronounced when the minister says, “Congregation ofJesus Christ, our help is in the name of the Lord , who made heaven and earth.” This is the actual call to worship. It not only begins a worship service but also places its sacred stamp upon every element of the service. It is a solemn declaration that all the people who are present are now constituted as a congregation of Jesus Christ, who has promised that He will be in the midst of them (Matt. 18:20). The loose gathering of people which previously assembled in the auditorium has now been changed into a unified body of believers in which God is present.

The Problem

The question arises: who must pronounce the votum? In some of our churches the minister pronounces the votum and in others the congregation . If the congregation pronounces the votum, it means that the congregation begins and conducts the worship service and testifies in doing so, it needs the help of God. Actually, however, it is the Lord who conducts the worship service and does it through divinely ordained consistory members. When the congregation pronounces the votum, it arrogates unto itself the authority of the consistory. This is another deviation from the objective to the subjective and from the vertical to the horizontal, and it weakens the solemnity of a worship service. When the consistory through the minister pronounces the votum, it tells the congregation, “in conducting this sacred service, we of the consistory are aware of our inability to do so, and so we have, and do invoke the help of God, who made heaven and earth.” Consequently, the votum tells the people: “just sitting in church has ended and from now on you must become spiritually active in all the elements of this worship service for God Himself is among you.” Only ordained men of God—the elders—can pronounce the votum.

Biblical Background of the Votum

The votum was and is taken from Psalm 124 verse 8. The nation ofIsrael had been in great danger. Their enemies had almost overwhelmed them. However, the Lord was on their side and prevented their defeat. Therefore the psalmist jubilates, “Our help is in the name of the Lord who made heaven and earth.” This was their salvation. So also the votum reminds the congregation that before they were saved they too were under the controlling power of the enemy. But through the suffering and death of the Lord Jesus Christ you were delivered from the power of sin and you became heirs of eternal life. And throughout this past week, you were in the midst of all the burdens and problems of this earthly life and surrounded by many forces of evil. But that same God who delivered you from the power of sin and satan is present in this worship service and He is able to give you grace upon grace for every burden and every trial and to forgive your sins. He will deliver you from the snare of the fowler. Thus the votum pronounced by ordained office bearers is a soul inspiring beginning for a worship service.

The Elements of a Worship Service

The elements of a worship service must follow, logically, spiritually and liturgically from the votum. The congregation responds to the votum by singing a psalm of praise. But the congregation must not forget that it has sinned grievously in the previous week. Therefore the law is read to remind the congregation of its sinfulness. The congregation confesses its sin by singing a penitential psalm or hymn. The absolution naturally follows in reading a passage from Scripture, which indicates if confession has been made from the heart, our transgressions will be forgiven. Now the congregation can stand in the presence of the Lord with clean hands and a pure heart. Thus the congregational prayer follow s naturally, in which all the problems and burdens of the people can be brought to the throne of grace. The congregational prayer is concluded with a thank offering and a hymn of thanksgiving. Then God speaks to the congregation directly through the reading of His Word and indirectly through the preaching of the Word. The sermon is concluded with a prayer, asking God for grace to keep His commandments and precepts, as indicated in the sermon. A hymn or psalter number and the benediction conclude the worship service. All the elements of a worship service flow logically and spiritually from the meaning and implications of the votum. Therefore only the members of the consistory, as appointed, qualified, and ordained by God may pronounce the votum.

“In The Name of The Lord”

The votum states, “Our help is in the name of the Lord.” The name of the Lord refers to the complete revelation of God’s majesty and grace, in the salvation of His people. Through that name believers have the assurance that they will have the victory over sin and satan, and ultimately will enter the many mansions of the Father’s House.

“Who Made Heaven and Earth”

This expression unites the church on earth with the church in heaven. It emphasizes the omnipotence of God and assures the people of God that He is able to provide for all their needs for time and eternity.

Conclusion

How much more meaningful and more blessed a worship service becomes when the members of the church are spiritually involved in all the essential elements of a worship service. Nothing should be permitted to interfere with the dignity and the solemnity of a worship service. It must remain a meeting of God with His people. Nothing else is needed. The richest blessings of God are provided for, when the dignity and the solemnity of a worship service is maintained throughout.