Vol. 80; No. 20; September 1, 2004
One-year's trial subscription—1/2
price!!
EDITORIAL POLICY
Every editor is solely responsible
for the contents of his own articles. Contributions of general interest from our readers
and questions for "The Reader Asks" department are
welcome. Contributions will be
limited to approximately 300 words and must be neatly written or typewritten, and must be
signed. Copy deadlines are the first and fifteenth of the month. All communications
relative to the contents should be sent to the editorial office.
REPRINT POLICY
Permission
is hereby granted for the reprinting of articles in our magazine by other publications,
provided: a) that such reprinted articles are reproduced in full; b) that proper
acknowledgment is made; c) that a copy of the periodical in which such reprint appears is
sent to our editorial office.
SUBSCRIPTION POLICY
Subscription
price: $17.00 per year in the US., US $20.00 elsewhere. Unless a definite request for
discontinuance is received, it is assumed that the subscriber wishes the subscription to
continue, and he will be billed for renewal. If you have a change of address, please
notify the Business Office as early as possible in order to avoid the inconvenience of
interrupted delivery. Include your Zip or Postal Code.
BOUND VOLUMES
The
Business Office will accept standing orders for bound copies of the current volume. Such
orders are mailed as soon as possible after completion of a volume year.
l6mm microfilm, 35mm microfilm and 105mm
microfiche, and article copies are available through University Microfilms international.
For new subscribers in the United States to the Standard Bearer, there is a special offer: a ½ price subscription for one year--$8.50. Those in other countries can write for special rates as well to: The Standard Bearer, P.O. Box 603, Grandville, MI 49468-0603 or e-mail Mr. Don Doezema.
Each issue of the Standard Bearer is available on cassette tape for those who are blind, or who for some other reason would like to be able to listen to a reading of the SB. This is an excellent ministry of the Evangelism Society of the Southeast Protestant Reformed Church. The reader is Ken Rietema of Southeast Church. Anyone desiring this service regularly should write:
Southeast PRC
1535 Cambridge Ave. S.E.
Grand Rapids, MI 49506.
Meditation - Rev. James Slopsema
Editorial - Prof. David J. Engelsma
All Around Us: - Rev. Gise J. Van Baren
When Thou Sittest in Thine House – Abraham Kuyper
Understanding the Times – Mr. Cal Kalsbeek
Marking the Bulwarks of Zion – Prof. Herman Hanko
Go Ye Into All the World – Rev. Jason Kortering
Taking Heed to the Doctrine – Rev. James Laning
Book Reviews:
· Measuring the Music: Another Look at the Contemporary Christian Music Debate, by John Makujina. Willow Street, PA: Old Paths Publications, repr. 2002. 369 pages. $16.99 (paper). [Reviewed by the editor.]
· Justification, by Francis Turretin. Tr. George Musgrave Giger. Ed. James T. Dennison, Jr. Phillipsburg, New Jersey: P&R, 2004. Pp. xxvi + 115. $9.99 (paper). [Reviewed by the editor.]
· Why I Left the Contemporary Christian Music Movement: Confessions of a Former Worship Leader, by Dan Lucarini. Webster, MY: Evangelical Press, 2004. 141 pages. No price given (paper). [Reviewed by Prof. Robert D. Decker.]
News From Our Churches - Mr. Benjamin Wigger
Meditation:
Rev. James Slopsema
Rev. Slopsema is pastor of First Protestant Reformed Church in Grand Rapids, Michigan.
All the Land to You and Your Seed
And the Lord said unto Abram, after that Lot was separated from him, Lift up now thine eyes, and look from the place where thou art northward, and southward, and eastward, and westward:
For all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed forever.
And I will make thy seed as the dust of the earth: so that if a man can number the dust of the earth, then shall thy seed also be numbered.
Arise, walk through the land in the length of it and in the breadth of it; for I will give it unto thee.
Then Abram removed his tent, and came and dwelt in the plain of Mamre, which is in Hebron, and built there an altar unto the Lord.
There are three things worthy of note in this passage.
First, the Lord reaffirmed His promise to Abram to give the land of Canaan to him and his seed. This promise had been made earlier, as the Lord led Abram into Canaan initially (Gen. 12:7). But there had been a division between Abram and Lot. Lot had left for Sodom and Gomorrah. This was a low point for Abram. And so the Lord reaffirmed His promise.
Secondly, the Lord instructed Abram to journey through the land of promise.
Thirdly, after touring the land, Abram built an altar to worship the Lord.
As we meditate on this passage, we must bear in mind that God’s promise to Abram is essentially the same promise He gives to us. He will give to us and our children the land of Canaan. We too must tour the land of promise as Abram did. And we must take our children along with us. As we make that tour we must, with our children, build an altar in order to serve the Lord.
A wonderful promise!
How desolate Abram must have felt. He and Sarai had no children. His only relative, Lot, had left. And Lot had taken the best of the land, near Sodom and Gomorrah. The Lord appeared to Abram, instructing him to lift up his eyes (were his eyes downcast in discouragement?) and look from the place where he was northward, and southward, and eastward, and westward. Abram was on a ridge between Bethel and Ai. This was a high point of the land, from which he could see a great distance. Northward he could see the mountains that one day would divide Samaria from Judea. Westward and southward he could see what later were Benjamin and Judah. Eastward were the dark mountains of Moab.
A twofold promise was given to Abram. First, the Lord would give to Abram and his seed all the land that Abram could see. Second, the Lord would make Abram’s seed to number as many as the dust of the earth, i.e., an innumerable throng.
This promise arose out of God’s covenant with Abram. Soon God would promise to establish His covenant with Abram and his seed, for an everlasting covenant (Gen. 17:7). That covenant was an intimate relationship of friendship and fellowship, a beautiful relationship that God Himself establishes, maintains, and preserves. In that covenant of friendship the Lord would be the God of Abram and his seed. As their God, the Lord would live with them in intimate fellowship, save them, protect them, and provide for all their needs. This wonderful promise concerning Canaan and Abram’s seed arose out of that covenant.
We must be careful to understand the meaning and extent of this promise.
God promised Abram that his seed would be a great number.
It is important to understand who are the seed of Abram. They are not all the Jews, as many claim. The seed of the covenant is not a natural seed but a spiritual one. The great seed of Abram is Christ (Gal. 3:16). It is in Christ that the promises of God’s covenant to Abram are realized. In turn, all that belong to Jesus Christ are the seed of Abram. “And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise” (Gal. 3:29). We belong to Jesus Christ by faith. Consequently, “they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham” (Gal. 3:7). And behind that faith stands God’s eternal election. Where is this believing seed found? In the Old Testament this seed was found almost exclusively among the natural descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Since the coming of Christ, this seed is found among all nations.
The promise to Abram was that this believing seed would be an innumerable throng. “And I will make thy seed as the dust of the earth: so that if a man can number the dust of the earth, then shall thy seed also be numbered.”
But there was more to the promise. God promised that He would give to Abram and his seed the land of Canaan as an everlasting possession. And in Canaan He would live with them, care for them, provide for them, and bless them forever. This promise was fulfilled, in part, about 400 years later, when God gave to the nation of Israel the land of Canaan for her possession. There the Lord lived and dwelt with Abram’s seed for many generations. However, the earthly Canaan was a picture of a heavenly Canaan, i.e., of heaven itself in a new creation. Abram himself understood this, so that, according to Hebrews 11:10 and 16, he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God. He desired a better country, that is, an heavenly. This heavenly Canaan was ultimately what Jehovah promised to Abram and his seed.
This promise is to us and our children. As believers we are the spiritual children of Abraham. We too belong to this same covenant. The heavenly Canaan is promised to us in the great seed of Abraham, Jesus Christ. What is most wonderful is that this promise is also to our children. God promises to give us His elect children, with whom He will also establish His covenant. The promise of the heavenly Canaan is to them as well. We can expect to live forever with our covenant children in Canaan under God’s blessing.
An important tour!
God called Abram to “Arise, walk through the land in the length of it and in the breadth of it; for I will give it unto thee.” Abram was to do so at that time. During the course of his life, as he sojourned in Canaan, he would traverse much of this territory. However, he was also to take this tour now, which evidently he did.
The purpose was to strengthen Abram’s faith. What a wonderful promise God had given to Abram. Yet, at this point, he had none of what God had promised. He had no seed. He owned not one piece of land. It was owned by others, mightier than he. And so it would remain for a long time. It took a strong faith to believe God’s promise and live in the hope of its fulfillment. Abram had faith by the work of grace. But his faith needed to be strengthened. This was accomplished at this time by going through the land to see what God had promised.
We are in the same situation. God has promised to us and our seed the heavenly Canaan. We have neither seen it nor do we have a clear conception of what it is like. We have in God’s covenant a foretaste of it in the salvation we enjoy. Yet, what awaits us belongs for the most part to that which eye has not seen. We can believe God’s promise of the heavenly Canaan and look forward to it in hope only by faith. As members of the covenant we have such a faith. It has been given us by God. But that faith must be strengthened.
We strengthen our faith in God’s promise by taking a tour of Canaan. No, we don’t take this tour by going to the holy lands. This is a spiritual tour through the Bible, in which we consider the promises of God as well as the works of God in Christ to secure these promises. This tour takes us to the battle scenes of the Old Testament, where God in His power preserved His people in Canaan with great victories over their enemies that were often far superior in strength. This tour takes us to the manger of Bethlehem, where we witness the birth of the Son of God in our flesh. This tour takes us to the cross, where we witness the atoning work of Christ that obtained for us the heavenly Canaan. This tour takes us to the empty tomb, to witness the resurrection and Christ’s exaltation into the glory of the heavenly Canaan. This tour takes us to signs of the times, which assure us that Jesus is coming again to judge the living and the dead.
This is a tour that we must take daily and continually.
This is a tour we must take with our children. Abram did not have any children at this time. But we have children. And the promise is for them as well as for us. We must take them on this tour by teaching them the Scriptures. And where we are not equipped to teach, we must have them taught by the church and, whenever possible, in the Christian school.
The result of such touring will be that we and our children will become strong in faith to believe the wonderful promises of God, to live in hope and to enjoy a rich foretaste of what is to come.
An appropriate altar!
When Abram finished his tour of Canaan, he built an altar. The location was in the plain of one named Mamre and in what later would be the city of Hebron. This would become one of the centers for Abram’s life in the future.
The altar that Abram erected was to worship the Lord. Wherever Abram stayed for a while, he built an altar. At that altar he would call upon the name of the Lord (Gen. 13:4). To call on the name of the Lord is an act of worship. When one calls on the name of the Lord, he thanks and praises God for all the blessings and promises of the Lord. He also seeks the Lord’s blessing. This was done in the Old Testament around the altar and the sacrifices that pointed ahead to the great sacrifice of the cross.
This worship was in response to the promise that God gave to Abram. What wonderful promises Jehovah had given to Abram. Abram had toured the promised land to confirm his faith. The response of faith is to call upon the name of Jehovah in worship, especially to thank and praise the Lord.
This we too must do.
What wonderful promises Jehovah God has given to us His people.
As we tour the promised land in Bible study, our faith in His promise is confirmed.
Let us, then, call on the name of the Lord in worship. Calling on the name of the Lord no longer involves the altar but centers now on the preaching and the sacraments. Let us in gratitude call upon the name of the Lord to praise and thank Him.
Let us do this in our homes and in public worship.
Let us do this also with our children.
Editorial:
Prof. David Engelsma
The Assuring Spirit
Who is it now that actually assures me, a believer in Jesus Christ, not only that the Bible is true and that Jesus Christ is a complete Savior from sin for everyone who trusts in Him, but also that Jesus Christ is my Savior? Whence comes the certainty—the infallible certainty (which alone is certainty)—that I, even I personally, am saved, have been saved from eternity, and will be saved everlastingly?
Must I assure myself?
Is it the church that assures me?
The answer of Scripture to our question is clear: the one who gives assurance to the children of God is the Holy Spirit. Romans 8:1-17 identifies the Spirit as the worker of assurance. Verse 15 teaches that all those who believe the gospel that the apostle has been setting forth in the book of Romans cry, “Abba, Father,” to the triune, true, and living God.
This is confidence!
This is confidence that God is our Father. We call upon God as our Father in two languages. We call upon God as our Father with the certainty that Jesus Himself had when He cried, “Abba, Father,” in Gethsemane (Mark 14:36). We call upon God as our Father with a loud, bold cry.
Our confidence that God is our Father includes, of course, the certainty that we are His children. We cannot cry, “Abba, Father,” without knowing ourselves as the children of this Father.
All believers have this confidence: “we cry”—all of us who believe the gospel of sovereign grace as revealed in Romans.
We all have the confidence that God is our Father, that we are His children, and that we are saved. The apostle does not exhort the congregation, or even many in the congregation—the majority according to the Puritans—to undertake a quest after confidence, to try to obtain it, to work agonizingly for it for many years. But he says we have the confidence of salvation.
The explanation of this assurance is that we have “received the Spirit of adoption.” This is the Spirit of God and of Christ (v. 9), who makes us know our adoption as God’s children in the cross of Jesus Christ.
The one who gives certainty, or assurance, is the Spirit.
That the Spirit is the one who gives assurance is further emphasized and explained in verse 16 of Romans 8: “The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God.” This may well be the most outstanding text on assurance in the whole Bible. There is a witness, a living Word, of the Spirit within us, “with our spirit,” that is, with our human spirit. This wonderful Word of the Spirit to us is, “You are a child of God.”
This is assurance!
When I hear this witness, I cannot doubt.
And it is the Spirit who witnesses and thus assures.
One other set of passages concerning the assuring Spirit must be mentioned. These are the passages that describe the work of the Spirit within us as His sealing of us (II Cor. 1:19-22; Eph. 1:13; 4:30).
On the basis of these and other passages of Scripture, the Reformed creeds repeatedly ascribe the believer’s assurance of salvation to the Holy Spirit. The Heidelberg Catechism is representative. Q. 1 has every Reformed believer confessing that “by His Holy Spirit He [Jesus Christ my faithful Savior] also assures me of eternal life.” Q. 21, as we have seen in earlier editorials, defines true faith as “an assured confidence.” The twenty-first answer immediately adds, “which the Holy Ghost works by the gospel in my heart.”
Qualified
If the regenerated believer who is at the same time a doubting sinner is to have assurance of salvation, the Holy Spirit must work this assurance in him. I do not here intend to teach the doctrine of the Holy Spirit. But I point out what it is about the Holy Spirit that enables Him, and Him only, to assure us. First, the Holy Spirit is God. Only God can assure a human of salvation. Only God has the right to assure a human of salvation.
Who else knows with absolute certainty that someone is saved? Who else can work so powerfully in the heart of the elect sinner that all doubt and fear are overcome? Who else has such authority—authority in the matter of salvation from sin and entrance into heaven—that a sinner could possibly dare to receive the assurance?
If another human or even the church must assure me, I will respond, “No doubt you mean well, but you do not know with certainty that I am saved; I cannot depend on your testimony, not with absolute certainty; you are not God.”
The Holy Spirit is God, the third person of the blessed Trinity. He is the God who knows all, because He determined all, particularly the number of the elect. As God, He is almighty, able powerfully to save us by assuring us, even as He is able to save us by regenerating us, by preserving us, and by raising our body from the grave. The testimony of God the Holy Spirit is authoritative and dependable. His assuring witness with our spirit is infallible. Upon His Word and witness we can depend.
Second, the Holy Spirit is now the Spirit of Jesus Christ. When Jesus ascended, God gave Him the Spirit to be His Spirit. On the day of Pentecost, Jesus gave the Spirit, who had become His Spirit, to the church. The one who works assurance is the Spirit of Christ, as He is called in Romans 8:9. Only as the Spirit of Christ can He assure us. I dare say that the Holy Spirit simply as the third person of the Godhead could not assure us. It is Jesus who assures all of His own. Assurance, after all, is a work of salvation, and Jesus is the complete Savior. Jesus Christ assures us by the Spirit, who is His own Spirit.
Besides, the Spirit assures us by giving us Jesus Christ and by showing us Jesus Christ in all the riches of His redemption. There is no assurance for us sinners apart from Jesus Christ. And the Spirit can give and show us Christ because He is the Spirit of Jesus Christ.
Third, the Spirit is the Breath of God. “Breath” is the meaning of the Hebrew and Greek words for “Spirit” in the Bible. The Breath of God, who is now the Breath of Jesus Christ, penetrates into the deepest recesses of our heart, where none else can come, there to convince us that, although we are guilty, depraved sinners, God loves us, Christ died for us, and we are adopted children of God.
If it is true that the one who assures us of salvation is Jesus Christ, the risen, glorified man on God’s right hand, it is also true that Jesus does not assure us apart from the Spirit. Indeed, if Jesus were bodily in the room where I am typing this editorial and were to say to me, “David, you are one of my own,” without the inner work of the Spirit in my heart I would not believe Him. I would not, and could not, be assured of my salvation.
Jesus taught this very truth about the necessity of the Spirit for the comfort of His disciples on the occasion of His departure from the world. “It is expedient for you that I go away.” Why? “For if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you, but if I depart, I will send him unto you.”
A fourth characteristic of the Spirit that qualifies Him to assure us of our salvation is that He is a person. He is a thinking, knowing, willing, feeling subject. He is not a mere force, or power, like electricity, or the wind, or love. This person comes into each elect child of God in such a way that the Spirit personally dwells in us. Acting as a person, He teaches us and overcomes our doubts, as only a person can do. He makes us certain of salvation by truth, logical reasoning, and argument. This is the idea of His bearing witness in Romans 8:16. A person bears witness with intelligible testimony and with convincing, conclusive argument based on truth.
I illustrate.
Convincing
Christ comes to me in the gospel. The Spirit makes me believe the gospel and trust in Christ for salvation. With the gospel and by faith, the Spirit assures me, “You are saved.”
Then, perhaps, I begin to question my salvation: “But I am a wretched, vile, totally unworthy sinner.” The Spirit responds, in my heart, “This is the only kind of sinner Jesus came to save. Besides, the very fact that you confess your sinfulness is itself evidence that you are saved.”
I may argue (for I am really desperately wicked, far worse than I know): “But my sorrow for sin is not nearly what it should be, and my love for God is pitifully weak.” Responds the Spirit, patiently, in my heart, “This has nothing to do with your salvation. Salvation is of grace alone. Trust in Christ presented in the gospel, not in your sorrow for sin or your love for God. But as regards sorrow for sin and love for God, the least sorrow is sign of salvation, as is the weakest love for God.”
Finally, I might, foolishly and wickedly, raise my last-ditch objection: “But I am not sure my faith is genuine. Perhaps it is merely a historical faith, like the faith of the devils.” “Oh,” replies the Spirit, in my heart, “I will not let you get away with this clever lie! Stop scrutinizing your faith, inside yourself, and rather scrutinize the Christ outside yourself in the gospel of the Scriptures! Do not become a practical Arminian by grounding your salvation and its assurance upon your faith! There is no assurance in Arminianism! Be Reformed practically, as you are Reformed in confession! Ground your salvation, including the assurance of salvation, upon Christ Jesus in the doctrine of the gospel!
“With regard to your faith, though, you do believe the gospel, don’t you, not spurning it, but holding it for truth precious to you? You love and honor Jesus Christ, don’t you, not saying, ‘Cursed Jesus! Crucify Him!’ but at the very least, ‘I wish He were mine’? You grieve, don’t you, at the thought that He and His salvation might not be yours? And you desire Him and His salvation. This is salvation. The desire for Christ and salvation is salvation. All these spiritual activities are evidences of salvation, the marks of a child of God.”
So witnesses the Spirit of Christ, convincingly.
Grieved
Because the Spirit is a person, if a believer is plagued with doubt, the cause likely is that he is grieving the Holy Spirit. (The widespread doubt due to the Puritan doctrine that faith is not assurance and that therefore most believers must expect to doubt much, if not all, of their life is another story. In this case, it is the doctrine itself which does not so much grieve as anger the Spirit.) “Grieve not the holy Spirit of God,” the apostle admonishes in Ephesians 4:30, adding, “whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.” The Christian can cause the Spirit grief, which, of course, is true only of a person. And when the Christian grieves, or offends, the Spirit, the sealing work of the Spirit is affected. But sealing is this, that the Spirit makes the believer sure of his salvation, certain of God’s love for him, confident that Christ and His redemptive work are his own.
Am I living in unconfessed sin?
Am I bitter against God because of disappointments and troubles in my life?
Do I harbor hatred in my heart for a brother or sister?
Am I living an unspiritual, careless life—hardly ever praying, hardly ever paying attention to the Word of God (even in church), hardly ever meditating on God and eternal things, hardly ever talking about the doctrines of the gospel (even in my family), hardly ever reading a theological book?
I must not be surprised then that I lack assurance. I am grieving the Spirit.
I cannot hide these otherwise secret things from Him. He is the all-knowing person in the depths of my heart and at the center of my life. I am an open book to Him.
He makes me feel the grief I cause Him by withholding His sealing of me in my consciousness.
I must stop grieving Him, by repenting of my sin and again yielding myself to Him to work in me the holiness of obedience to the law. And the Spirit will work this conversion exactly by afflicting me with the intolerable grief of doubt concerning the love of God and my salvation.
“Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation,” I will then pray—confidently, “and uphold me with thy free spirit” (Ps. 51:12).
All Around Us:
Rev. Gise VanBaren
Rev. VanBaren is a minister emeritus in the
Protestant Reformed Churches.
What Is “Marriage?”
A petition drive was held recently in the state of Michigan that, if sufficient signatures were obtained, will require the issue of “gay marriages” to be placed on the November ballot. If the desired amendment passes, the Michigan constitution will define marriage as that only which is between a man and a woman. Though the state already has adopted a law declaring marriage to be only between two people of opposite sex, activist judges could conceivably declare this unconstitutional. The ground would be that the law denies “equal rights” to the homosexual individual.
Such a judgment was made in the state of Massachusetts when its supreme court declared (by a 3 to 4 decision) exactly that. One vote made the majority decision that now is the law of that state. A large number of the citizens of Michigan wish to avoid such happening in their state. In fact, a drive is now on to amend also the Constitution of the United States by likewise defining marriage.
Those who wish to legalize “gay marriages” insist that it is a question of “equal rights.” The argument is appalling if carefully considered. Does one have “equal rights” to marry more than one of the same or opposite sex? Some say so. Does one have “equal rights” to a marriage involving young children? (The law would currently define such as “pedophiles.”) Some say so.
Presumably these supposed “equal rights” would be limited or defined by amended Constitutions.
Still, will marriage be defined as the vows (and Scripture) express it? At least in past years the vows declared this marriage to be “…in sickness and in health till death do us part.” But it is already a “right” of individuals to obtain “no fault” divorces. One wonders if amendments such as those proposed will serve only to postpone the inevitable—each will do what is right in his own eyes.
Cal Thomas, writing in the Loveland Reporter-Herald on May 20, 2004, expressed it well:
Cultural tsunamis, like those that begin under oceans, are caused by something deep within. When high water hits the shore, it is the result of a subterranean earthquake. When the state of Massachusetts last Monday began offering marriage to people of the same sex, this “wave” was preceded by a seismic shift in the moral tectonic plates.
The Old Testament Book of Judges — part of a wisdom and truth long discarded by the “In Dow Jones we trust” crowd — said it best: “In those days there were no kings and everyone did what was right in his own eyes.” Once that shift has taken place in sufficient numbers, once we become indifferent to immutable truths, the floodtide is not a matter of if but when.
Legally, the shift began in 1993 when the Hawaii Supreme Court ruled that barring same-sex couples from “marrying” might violate the state constitution’s prohibition on sexual discrimination and must be justified by a compelling reason. Morally, the earthquake occurred much earlier.
The shift from personal responsibility, accountability, putting the greater good before personal pleasure, affluence and “feelings,” and what once was known as “the fear of God” began following World War II. Consumption and pleasure replaced self-control and acting on behalf of the general welfare. Trying to remind us of the benefits of restraint in 1979 (when it was already too late), the late Bishop Fulton J. Sheen delivered an address in Washington in which he asked how a football field is defined. “By its boundaries,” he said. There are now no boundaries in America. Any rule is potentially viewed as oppressive, and any law — whether legal or moral — is up for debate, negotiation and overturning if it impedes a single individual from fulfilling his or her desire.
Who is to say the polygamist, Tom Green, is wrong when the boundaries have been removed? On what legal or moral basis will people who wish to marry more than one person, or a close relative, be denied their wish?
What is the future for “marriage” in the land? Does it make any difference whether or not there
is “marriage” of the homosexual? Some
advocate the philosophy, “Live and let live.”
There are, however, perceptive journalists who “tell it like it is.” One such is Lori Borgman of the Indianapolis Star,
as quoted in the Grand Rapids Press:
If you want to peer into the crystal ball to see what family life will be like in the event we redefine marriage, look to Scandinavia. The equivalent of same-sex marriage has been legal for more than a decade, and the verdict is in — same-sex marriage has eroded the already rusty link in the chain between marriage and family.
Marriage is passé in Norway, Denmark and Sweden. Marriage is so out of fashion that among those who do marry, some choose to keep it private to avoid embarrassment. Even more surprising, few homosexuals are taking advantage of same-sex unions. The heterosexual and homosexual marriage pool has shriveled so much that marriage and divorce statistics are difficult to interpret.
Author Stanley Kurtz, who has been parsing the data coming from Scandinavia, says this much is crystal clear — any form is acceptable.
Marriage is no longer seen as a precursor to parenthood. When heterosexual marriage is no longer seen as the norm, and marriage and parenthood are no longer seen as going hand-in-hand, married parenthood becomes an oddity. Disassociating heterosexual marriage from parenting is like splitting up the salt and pepper, but that’s exactly what has happened.
In Scandinavia, marriage has ceased being a big event in the lives of most young men and women. Many Nordic beauties have bid farewell to chunky issues of Bride’s magazine, engagement rings and bridal showers. Marriage once signaled the hallmark of maturity in the journey of life. Today the mark of maturity in Scandinavia is having a baby….
(The article concludes:) Our own nation’s link between marriage and family has been showing signs of rust for several decades. Less than half of our 20-somethings believe it is immoral to have a baby out of wedlock. We already lead the world in single parenthood and divorce. So is now the time to dismantle marriage even further? All quite possibly at the expense of our kids? One small step for man, one giant tumble for the children of tomorrow.
Marriage under the best of circumstances is a mystery. Oh, let’s be honest. Some days it’s an outright miracle.
You do not tinker with a social, legal and religious institution that has stood as a foundation to nations and cultures for centuries without risking serious repercussions.
Whichever path we choose, we will all — married or unmarried, heterosexual or homosexual — live out the consequences, as will our children, our grandchildren and their children.
In the words of Margaret Mead, “As the family goes, so goes the nation.”
More ought to be said. It is not merely a question of what the nation, particularly its unbelievers, say is their definition of marriage. One can see behind all of the feverish activity the fiendish, devilish attempt to destroy marriage. Satan is not concerned with the destruction of the marriage of the ungodly merely. He is quite well satisfied with his success regarding those. He is rather intent in undermining if not destroying the whole concept of scriptural marriage within the churches. He has gone far in that direction already. Consider the decisions of the churches concerning divorce and remarriage; concerning the place of women within the home; concerning the marriage of those of the same sex. He would seek to advance this cause further. Ultimately it is a matter of the destruction of the covenant of God with His people. The covenant is continued in the line of spiritual descendants. But if marriage is finally destroyed, what happens to this “line of generations”? It is not only “as the family goes, so goes the nation,” but “so goes the church.”
One might be inclined to throw up his hands in despair. We can hardly stop the development of these sad activities. So…why not allow people to do as they see fit, while we maintain the demands of Scripture? It will not be that simple. The consequences of “gay marriage” will likely be persecution for the church soon. Columnist Kathleen Parker of Tribune Media Services, as quoted in the Grand Rapids Press of June 29, 2004, has pointed that out in an interesting and thought-provoking column. After presenting a brief analysis of the current state of affairs, she writes:
Whatever one may think of homosexual marriage in the abstract, the idea that a redefinition of marriage will have “no effect” is laughable, but not funny. After the nosegay has faded, the issue is neither solely about love nor affirmation, but about serious legal consequences that all Americans may wish to consider before tuning out preachers or embracing gay activists.
For the sake of argument, let’s stipulate that this is not personal — it’s not about you, in other words — and acknowledge that heterosexuals have royally mangled marriage without any help from gays. Nevertheless, that fact doesn’t mean that marriage is doomed or that expanding the definition of marriage to include homosexual unions will make marriage stronger. Or be harmless.
Of particular concern even for the nonreligious is the effect gay marriage could have on two of our founding principles — religious freedom and freedom of speech. Once the courts recognize gay marriage as equal in all ways to heterosexual marriage, then everyone else — including churches — has to recognize gay marriage as equal, too.
Any opposition will be deemed hateful by definition, and anyone who opposes gay marriage will be a hatemonger. Given that many religions and denominations teach that homosexuality is a sin, church attendance alone could suggest you’re homophobic. To the extent that one believes or preaches scripture, one is a bigot.
Hence some of the deep concern among legal professionals, as well as theologians. A secular world that ratifies homosexual marriage would provide a legal foundation that would open the floodgates to civil litigation against religious leaders, institutions and worshipers.
In such an environment, churches might be sued for declining to provide their sanctuaries for gay marriages, for example. Ministers could be sued for hate speech for giving a sermon on moral behavior. Churches that protest homosexual unions could face revocation of their tax exemption status.
The delicate balance between church and state, in other words, is teetering on a high ledge at this moment. It’s ironic that those who oppose churches’ involvement in state concerns nonetheless have no compunction when it comes to the state dictating what churches can do. Even nonreligious folk should be concerned.
Either we believe in separation of church and state or we don’t, but you can’t have it both ways….
Inevitably the church will be involved. In all likelihood, this matter will result in grounds for silencing or persecuting the church. It was what Christ prophesied. We need not, then, be too surprised when it takes place. May God grant grace to be steadfast despite threats.
When Thou Sittest in Thine House:
Abraham Kuyper
Reprinted from When Thou Sittest In Thine
House, by Abraham Kuyper, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, Michigan. 1929. Used
by permission of Eerdmans Publishing Co.
Male and Female Created He Them
There are a few simple but extremely important facts in life that mock at all human self-willedness and scorn all arbitrariness. One of which is the great creation-fact that when God created man, He created them man and woman.
Think these three small words out of existence, and imagine that it would have pleased God to create man after the rule that applies to the angels, of whom Jesus said, that they neither marry nor are given in marriage — and all history, all life, yea, the fashion of the world would be irrecognizable.
Imagine a world of men only, and everything that in barracks, offices, and in great throne gives offense by reason of the absence of what is gentle and tender would weigh on all of our human life with the heaviness of lead. The whole world would be nothing but one great barracks, one endless market-place, one concourse that would never end.
Or imagine a world of women only, and by lack of firmness and strength, endless mobility, softness and tenderness, and the never-ceasing hum of talking lip, making all life seem as a soft undulating sea, with the evening wind dancing and moving upon its waters.
In either case it would be a life without marriage, without family-homes, without brotherly fidelity and sisterly love, without ties of blood, without wooing and repelling, without change and antithesis, one monotonous human sameness.
Of course, we pass the inquiry by, how in that case the child of man would have been created. Why He who created Adam from the dust of the ground and formed Eve from a rib of Adam could not have been able to call us one by one into being without cooperation on the part of the woman and without the will of man.
Did not He so create the world of His angels and seraphim, the world of His cherubim?
With conception and birth, as now it proceeds by His ordinance, it is He and always shall be He who creates the soul of every one and “embroiders the body” from the still “unformed substance” (see Ps. 139).
Such a world without distinction of sex is indeed thinkable.
And it has its use, for one moment, to lose oneself in such a world of endless ennui, because nothing lifts us up to praise and thanksgiving more than this, that in reality it is not so, but that God created us man and woman.
But that antithesis should then be taken in its deep sense, and not, as often is the case, exclusively in connection with the body.
It is by no means true that man and woman differ merely by longer or shorter hair, by more or less muscular strength, by greater angularity or more roundness of form.
It is not written: “God created, male and female, as to body”; but it reads: “God created man in his own image,” and then follows immediately: “male and female created he them” (Gen. 1:27).
Thus the distinction between man and woman refers, even first of all, to the soul, the hidden inner being. And that the body differs is not least because the real distinction lies in the body, but also because in the body, if it shall be well, must lie the expression of our inner existence.
He who is not entirely weaned from knowledge of man and faces observes this again and again.
Though we may know nothing of a person, the outward appearance of one will inspire us with confidence and open our heart toward him, and the face of the other, as well as his bearing, will repel us and close our heart against him.
Body and soul are strongly distinguished, and it is not true, as reported even among Christians, that our soul itself has formed its own body; and neither can it be said that there is no relation between the two.
God gives to every one his own body, and, apart from sin, every one would have just such a body as would suit his soul and be adapted to his inner existence.
Thus when it reads: “God created them man and woman,” it is first of all our duty to think of the difference that marks the inner being. The inner disposition of the soul of a man differs from the inner disposition of the soul of a woman.
On either harp the same number of strings are strung; but they are differently arranged; they differ in length and weight; and they are differently played upon by the soul of a man than by the soul of a woman.
This antithesis runs now no longer true.
Here, too, sin has come in between the two and worked disharmony.
On the harp of the soul, of man and woman both, strings have been loosened, other have been covered with rust, and some have snapped.
And since with one this went this way and with the other that, the mutual relation at times is so strongly modified that you meet women who make you think of dressed up men, and men who have much in common with a disguised woman.
So sin always does.
It tears us out of our standing. It breaks equipoise. It disturbs harmony.
Hence all the discords that the ear continually catches and that presently pass your own lips.
There is no longer beautiful and pure accord.
It is all become chaos.
It is evident with children, for when they are together you hear more than one girl say that she would rather have been a boy. When they grow up as boys and girls, not infrequently you find a girl who behaves as a boy. And among married women, it is not rare for a woman to think: I will be what my husband ought to be.
Altogether lack of reverence for divine ordinance.
And yet, even in this aberration the trace of the divine ordinance still shows itself.
For almost never do you find a boy who wants to be a girl, but the girl a boy; thus in their folly confirming the divine appointment that God created them, not woman and man, but man and woman.
Adam first, and only after him and from him, as his helpmeet, Eve.
For, of course, in that simple statement, “God created them male and female,” there is order.
Where there are two, as long as these two stand side by side as equals, there is neither tie nor junction.
You can plant two poplar trees side by side, but you cannot put two animals together, and far less two people.
To create a tie and a connection between these two, order must be established over both. One must be first, and the other second. Two cannot simultaneously occupy the same place. One stands in the front, and therefore the other stands behind.
With two, one must always have the precedence.
No ship has two steering wheels or prows, but one prow and one rudder, and in the ship each has a place and calling of its own.
In the world of music there are high and low notes, and each as such has its own place and order.
In the world of colors, one color precedes the other.
An ordinance of God for His entire creation, which also applies to man and woman, because God created them male and female. The man first, and after that the woman.
But here, too, sin has worked effects.
With the man, from his precedence to borrow a cause for despotism and to assume an authority to which he has no right, since it is stolen. And on the other hand with the woman, in that she takes no pleasure in the second place according to the rank of order, and is bound to take the first place, which God has withheld from her.
Especially in our days this tendency is strong.
Still to believe that God said to the woman: “Your husband shall rule over thee” (Gen. 3:6), our modern age turns into ridicule.
And in this respect also the harmony, originally ordered by God, and broken by us, shall once be restored, and when in eternity the redeemed shall enter upon that new state in which there shall no more be given or taken in marriage, from the two-sided disposed human heart, after its male and after its female fundamental type, God’s honor shall be changed in purest accord.
Then the subjectivity of the woman to the man shall cease. For that subjectivity is not original in the creation, but follows from God’s judgment after the fall into sin.
Then there shall merely remain precedence, but a precedence like that of Christ to His church, the less to seek self and the more to give self.
Mutual completion. Two halves of one whole that belong together. Fusion and solution of duality in higher harmony.
Of this the prelude can already on earth be enjoyed.
Not in the way of the chivalric gallantry of the Middle Ages, which in semblance elevated woman, only to humiliate her the more deeply, but in the way of Christian wedlock and of the Christian family.
Then from the side of God there is authority over both.
Then both man and woman feel a deep sense of their own calling. Of manly calling the man, of womanly calling the woman.
Then both know their own place and have no desire to vacate it, neither will they allow themselves to be driven from it, and the life of faith itself tends to develop in man strength, fidelity, courage; in woman gentleness and tenderness.
So does God’s ordinance provisionally revive again, and begins again to bless the partners in holy wedlock.
Not the married alone. The relation between brothers and sisters also becomes different and better. And in these circles, blessed of God, even the general intercourse and relation of man and woman mutually become measurably again what they should be.
Then the foolish notions of the world lose flavor and taste. Healthy relationships according to the Scripture obtain power again and consecration.
And in the end, both become richer and happier, because they act together again after the ordinance of Him who created us man and woman.
Understanding the Times:
Mr. Cal Kalsbeek
Mr. Kalsbeek is a teacher in Covenant Christian High
School and a member of Hope Protestant Reformed Church, Walker, Michigan.
(Previous article in this series can be found in the
May 1, 2004 issue, p. 351.)
Islam (1)
A Little History: Jihad Without End (cont.)
“And the children of Issachar, which were men that had understanding of the times, to know what Israel ought to do; the heads of them were two hundred; and all their brethren were at their commandment.” I Chronicles 12: 32
…On this account I, or rather the Lord, beseech you as Christ’s heralds to publish this everywhere and to persuade all people of whatever rank, foot-soldiers and knights, poor and rich, to carry aid promptly to those Christians and to destroy that vile race (Muslim, c.k.) from the lands of our friends. I say this to those who are present, it is meant also for those who are absent. Moreover, Christ commands it. [1]
Anti-Jihad Jihad
This clarion call from Clermont, France by Pope Urban II in 1095 aroused Western Christendom to action. The thousands of people assembled to hear Pope Urban’s speech responded with shouts of “God wills it! God wills it!” To fuel their enthusiasm further, the pope had red cloth cut up into strips, which were sewn together in the form of little crosses to be affixed to the sleeve of everyone who agreed to take part. Thus began the two hundred-year period of the “crusades.”
While there were a number of motives for the crusades, high on the list were the more than four centuries of conquests during which Islam had taken control of two thirds of the old Christian world (see SB, May 1, 2004), and the pressure of Islamic jihad on Europe.
Four years after Pope Urban’s call to arms, in April of 1099,
…the Crusader army marched on to Jerusalem, and on June 7 besieged the city. The attack began July 14, 1099—the date destined to live in anti-Christian infamy centuries later — and the next day the Crusaders entered Jerusalem from all sides and slew its inhabitants, regardless of age or sex. The soldiers of the Church Militant, as it turned out, could not only outfight but also out-massacre their Mohammedan foes. [2]
However, ninety years later the Muslims retook Jerusalem under the able leadership of Salah-ed-Din (Saladin). This devastating loss to Christendom produced the Third Crusade, which succeeded in regaining Jerusalem in 1229. But by this time the strength and unity of the crusading cause was waning, and in 1244 the city fell again to the Muslims, never to be regained, even though numerous other crusading armies were deployed for that purpose.
Jihad vs. Anti-Jihad Comparisons
It would be futile to attempt to justify the Western church’s involvement in the crusades. It was, no doubt, wrong for the church to make territorial gains its goal, especially in light of the Lord’s clear pronouncement that “His kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36). And it was in seeking territorial gains that the crusades were similar to Islamic jihad. Having said that, however, we must point out that an honest comparison of Muslim jihad with Christian jihad (crusades) does reveal a striking difference. While it is true that both claimed to be fighting holy wars, and both were often merciless in the process, the Scriptures forbid such activity by the church, while the Qur’an demands it of its Islamic adherents.
Declare war upon those to whom the Scriptures were revealed but believe neither in God nor the Last Day, and who do not forbid that which God and His Apostles have forbidden, and who refuse to acknowledge the true religion until they pay the poll-tax without reservation and are totally subjugated. The Jews claim that Ezra is a son of God, and the Christians say, “The Messiah is the son of God.” Those are their claims that do indeed resemble the sayings of the infidels of old. May God do battle with them! [3]
Serge Trifkovic explains this passage of the Qur’an as follows: “The Muslims are obliged to wage struggle against unbelievers and may contemplate tactical ceasefires, but never its complete abandonment short of the unbeliever’s submission.’ [4]
Further, it should be noted that while the pope and various Protestant groups have recognized the error of and apologized for the role of their spiritual forefathers in the crusades, “no major Muslim group has ever repudiated the doctrines of armed jihad.” [5]
Post-Crusades Jihad
While defenders of Islam are quick to blame Christendom and her crusades for all the problems between Islam and the West, it should be noted that Islamic jihad both predated and postdated the crusades. In other words, the crusades had a beginning and an end, whereas Islamic jihad has been constant since its beginnings with Mohammad. The great Muslim historian Ibn Khaldun acknowledges this and even observes that this is one of Islam’s advantages over the other religions, when he writes, “The other religious groups did not have a universal mission, and the holy war was not a religious duty to them, save only for the purpose of defense. It has come about that the person in charge of religious affairs in (other religious groups) is not concerned with power politics at all.” He goes on to relate that Muslim leaders are concerned with power politics because Islam is “under obligation (emphasis, c.k.) to gain power over other nations.” [6]
Therefore it is not surprising that Islamic jihad continued after the crusades. The crusades were, after all, only a temporary setback for the endless jihad of Islam. With the fall of Constantinople in 1453, Christian communities in the Balkans came under Muslim domination. The annual “blood levy” of Christian boys was but one price they had to pay:
On a fixed day, all the fathers were ordered to appear with their children in the public square. The recruiting agents chose the most sturdy and handsome children in the presence of a Muslim judge. Any father who shirked his duty to provide children was severely punished. This system was open to all kinds of abuse. The recruiting agents often took more than the prescribed number of children and sold the “surplus” children back to their parents. Those unable to buy back their children had to accept their being sold into slavery…. [7]
Only a spirited, persistent resistance by the Austrians during the Muslim siege of Vienna in 1529 prevented the exposure of the rest of Europe to similar abuses of Islamic jihad.
Although Islamic jihad was temporarily stymied in the West, it was making significant progress in the East. Already in the thirteenth century some rulers in Sumatra embraced Islam. From this beginning, widespread Islamic influence resulted throughout the Southeast Asian region. Java, the Malay Peninsula, and the Philippines proved to be fertile areas of expansion. At present, Indonesia is home to more Muslims than any other country in the world.
Unlikely as it might seem, Christian Europe and Islam would clash next in such faraway places as Africa and the Far East. The scramble for colonies by the European powers would provide the occasion:
Historians speak of the “Grab for Africa” and the “Scramble for China, “ with vast areas carved up between leading European powers. In fact, over half the world’s population, including almost all of Africa and Asia, passed under varying degrees of control by Britain, France, Germany, Belgium, Holland, Italy, and new imperial powers such as Japan and the United States. The colonized peoples included many of the world’s Muslims….
Thus Christian Europeans were threatened by Ottoman expansion (in the Balkans, c.k.) and incursions from the east. Meanwhile Muslims throughout much of the world were threatened by Christian European colonialism in India, Africa, and other locations. The complex legacy of rivalry and enmity between Christianity and Islam was being fueled even further. [8]
For the most part, during this period of colonial expansion by the European powers, Islam was forced to give ground. This was not because Islam had given up on jihad, but rather because she was at this time no longer able to challenge the West. Islam’s glory days were over. Stuck in the past she could no longer compete with the developing industrial West. That she had not given up on jihad can readily be seen, for example, by the first 9-11 type experience of the United States with Islam. This confrontation was initiated in the Mediterranean area by the “Barbary pirates.” However, they weren’t