The children of Israel had come to Kadesh in the desert of Zin.  This was the same Kadesh from which Moses had earlier sent out the twelve spies to spy out the land of Canaan.  Ten spies had came back with an evil report, which the children of Israel believed.  In response to Israel’s murmuring and rebellion, Israel was sent to wander in the wilderness until all those who were twenty years and older had died.  Now, after thirty-seven years of wandering, the whole congregation was again at Kadesh.

            At this time a sad event took place in the life of Moses.  There was no water in Kadesh.  The people began to murmur and complain.  The Lord instructed Moses to speak to the rock and God would give them water.  But in disobedience Moses struck the rock.  In anger, he addressed the people, “Hear now, ye rebels, must we fetch you water out of this rock?”  The outcome of it all was that God gave Israel water from the rock.  But as a consequence of their disobedience, God forbad Moses and Aaron from leading Israel into Canaan.

            This whole account is very significant.  One might wonder why one failure on Moses’ part disqualified him from leading Israel into Canaan.  The answer is that Moses failed as mediator of God’s people.  This brings us to the glorious gospel of salvation in Jesus Christ.  In Jesus Christ we have a Mediator who will not fail like Moses.

            A wicked unbelief!

            We are confronted here first with the unbelief of the nation of Israel. 

            The lack of water in Kadesh became the occasion for Israel to level horrible charges against Moses and Aaron.  They charged Moses and Aaron with leading them out of the goodness and abundance of Egypt and into the barren wilderness exactly so that they would die.  They indicated that Moses and Aaron had accomplished their purpose with many of their brethren.  (Remember, a whole generation had already died in the wilderness.)  And now Moses and Aaron had brought them to this Kadesh so that the rest of them would die.  What horrible charges!

            These charges were ultimately leveled against Jehovah God.  This becomes clear from the name that was subsequently given to this place and the explanation given for that name, “This is the water of Meribah (striving); because the children of Israel strove with the Lord.”

            These horrible charges arose out of wicked unbelief.

            The people of Israel had God’s promise.  The Lord through Moses had proclaimed His purpose to lead them from Egypt into Canaan.  The Lord had also demonstrated His faithfulness to this promise through many mighty miracles.  Through the ten plagues He had destroyed the power of Egypt and gained the release of the people of Israel from 400 years of slavery.  At the Red Sea He had made a way of escape for them, while at the same time destroying Pharaoh and his pursuing army.  During their many years in the wilderness, the Lord had fed them with manna every day.  Again and again He provided water from the rocks of the desert.  Miraculously, neither Israel’s shoes nor their clothing wore out.

            But now in their disgust they lose sight of all these things and foolishly charge God with leading them into the wilderness to die.  This arose out of wicked unbelief.  This unbelief certainly was to be found in the carnal, reprobate element that was always present in Israel and sometime even dominated the nation.  They were not all Israel that were of Israel.  But even the believing element of Israel was often weak in faith.  They too were a part of this foolishness.

            This sad situation was made worse by the reaction of Moses and Aaron.  Theirs was a reaction also of unbelief.

            In response to the people’s complaint, Moses and Aaron went to the door of the tabernacle.  There they fell on their faces to inquire of the Lord.  The glory of the Lord appeared to them and to Israel.  And the Lord gave instruction.  Moses and Aaron were to gather Israel before the rock in Kadesh.  Moses was to take the rod that was laid up in the tabernacle and that had been used to perform other miracles of salvation.  This rod symbolized the power of the Lord to save Israel.  But in this instance Moses was not to strike the rock with the rod, as before, but to speak to the rock.  And the Lord promised that the rock would give forth water.

            Moses, however, did not carry out the Lord’s instructions.  Moses did gather Israel to the rock.  But instead of speaking to the rock, he hit the rock twice in anger.  And when he spoke, he spoke to the people.  In anger he rebuked them, “Hear now, ye rebels, must we fetch you water from this rock?”

            According to the Lord’s own words, Moses and Aaron responded this way “because ye believed me not” (v. 12).  What did Moses and Aaron not believe?  They did not believe that God would at this time give them water from the rock but would instead let Israel perish in the desert.  It is striking that always before, when Israel provoked the Lord to anger with their rebellion, Moses would plead with the Lord to remember His promise to bring Israel to Canaan.  Repeatedly Moses turned away the wrath of God from Israel.  However, this time Moses’ faith in God’s promise failed.  All he could see was Israel’s rebellion.  He was convinced that now Israel had gone too far.  Surely the Lord, in weariness over their rebellion, would forsake them and allow them to perish. 

            Moses gave expression to this unbelief in his actions.  He was angry with Israel for offending the Lord.  Convinced that the Lord would not give them water from the rock, Moses refused even to try.  He did not speak to the rock as instructed.  He simply hit it with his rod.  In his angry question to the people, he made clear his opinion that there would be no water for them because of their rebellion.

            An appropriate penalty!

            For their unbelief the Lord penalized Moses and Aaron.  They would not be allowed to lead Israel into the land of Canaan.

            We may be inclined to question the fairness and correctness of this penalty. 

            Had not Moses and Aaron served the Lord faithfully for all these years?  Now, after this very human failure, the Lord would not allow them the privilege of leading Israel into Canaan?  Is not this a bit extreme?

            Besides, there was the fact that God allowed Israel to enter Canaan.  Their sin in this matter was far worse than that of Moses and Aaron.  In fact, Israel’s sin was the occasion for the sin of Moses and Aaron.  Yet, Israel was allowed into Canaan, whereas Moses and Aaron were not!  How could this be?

            To see the correctness of this penalty, we must bear in mind that through their unbelief Moses and Aaron had failed to sanctify the Lord in the eyes of the children of Israel (v. 12).

            We must remember that Moses was the mediator of God.  The book of Hebrews emphasizes that Moses was the mediator of God in the old covenant.  It was in this capacity that Moses led Israel from Egypt to Canaan.  And Aaron, the highpriest, was inseparably connected to Moses as mediator.  Without the altar, Moses could not function as mediator.

            As mediator, Moses and Aaron were called to sanctify the Lord in the eyes of the children of Israel.

            To sanctify someone in the eyes of another is to present that person as someone special and unique, someone to be revered and honored.  It was Moses’ calling to sanctify the Lord God in the eyes of Israel.  And he was to do this by representing the Lord in all His glory.  

            But Moses and Aaron failed to do this in this instance.  In the weakness of faith, they represented the Lord as someone who was about to break His promise to Israel because of Israel’s rebellion.  They portrayed the Lord as one who now was going to abandon His people.  Certainly this did not sanctify the Lord God to Israel.  Nor may this stand.  Moses and Aaron had made themselves unfit to bring Israel into Canaan.  Another must take their place.

            Interestingly, by laying this penalty upon Moses and Aaron, God sanctified Himself in the eyes of the people (v. 13).

            A blessed gospel!

            Moses and Aaron were types of Christ.

            A type is a person, event, action, or institution in the Old Testament that pointed God’s people ahead to Christ and the work of His salvation.

            As the mediator of the old covenant, Moses was called, along with Aaron, to bring Israel out of the bondage of Egypt, through the terrible wilderness, and into Canaan. 

            As such they pointed to a greater Mediator, who was to lead the church of God out of a greater bondage, the bondage of sin, through the wilderness of this world and into the heavenly Canaan.  Not only are we able to see this from the vantage point of New Testament revelation, true Israel was also able to see this.  In Moses they saw Christ leading them from sin and hell to heaven and glory.  And in the altar that Aaron tended they saw the atonement for sin, which alone could deliver them from the bondage of sin into Canaan’s glory.

            The blessed gospel we must hear is that, as our Mediator, Jesus succeeds where Moses failed.

            In response to Israel’s rebellion and murmuring, Moses lost sight of God’s faithfulness to His promise.  And so he failed also to sanctify the Lord God in the eyes of Israel.

            This Jesus will never do!

            Oh, we are no different from Israel.  How often don’t we complain?  In spite of God’s demonstrated faithfulness to us, repeatedly our faith in His promises fails.  We quickly despair and are even inclined to charge God foolishly!

            Yet Jesus Christ our Mediator always sanctifies the Lord God before our eyes.  He never despairs of God’s faithfulness to save us.  He does not despair because He has sealed the promises of God by His perfect payment for our sins at the cross.  At the cross He has covered and overcome all our miserable sins.  This is something Moses and Aaron did not and could not do.  On the basis of His perfect sacrifice at the cross, Jesus Christ has perfect confidence that the Lord will forgive us and lead us on all the way to Canaan.  In fact, He knows that in response to His highpriestly prayers the Lord God will provide us with Himself as the Water of life so that we may continue our way.  Not only is this the confidence of our Mediator, this is also His word to us through the preaching.

            This gospel, however, is not for the hardhearted who rebel without repentance.  Those whom the Lord Jesus leads to Canaan He also smites with His word, so that they humble themselves before God in repentance.  To them He gives the assurance that their sins are forgiven in Him and that the Lord their God will continue to lead them to Canaan.

            And the Lord God is sanctified in our eyes.  

Editorials:

Prof. Russell Dykstra

The Standard Bearer:  Past

            There is value in bringing to light the history of a religious periodical such as the Standard Bearer.  A study of its origins will reveal its purpose as intended by the founders.  The history demonstrates the character that the magazine has striven to maintain.  Familiarity with its origin and character will serve the readers well.  On the one hand, they will not be surprised by the content of the magazine that appears in their mailbox twice a month, so long as the content is in harmony with the history of the magazine.  On the other hand, if the magazine strays from the established course, the readers have the right to call the writers back to the original purpose, and to the historically established character.

            Knowledge of a publication’s history is important for the writers, too.  If the original purpose and character of the religious magazine is biblical and right, and the goals far-reaching, the staff of the twenty-first century, complete with a set of new editors, are well advised to “hew the line.” 

            For these reasons, the new editors are convinced that the history of the SB is important.  We consider it worth our time, and yours, to review past events in the history of the SB, and in that light to set forth our goals for the SB in the future.

            I must admit that the study of the SB’s history was more significant than I envisioned.  It was more than interesting; it was fascinating!  It was also sobering.

            The Standard Bearer has a rich and weighty history.  It was born in battle.  The conflict concerned the Three Points of Common Grace officially adopted by the Christian Reformed Church’s synod of 1924.  That same synod had requested its members, ministers, and seminary professors to discuss and develop the concept of common grace.

            Two of her ministers, the Revs. Henry Danhof and Herman Hoeksema, were ready and willing to discuss common grace.  They would describe its implications as completely as their capable minds and ready pens would allow.  Their openly stated intent was to demonstrate to their churches that the notion of a common grace of God to all men, elect and reprobate, was neither biblical nor confessional.  But they had no voice in their churches, that is to say, no means of printing their analyses.  They were cut off – the official church papers refused to print anything more that they wrote on the subject.

            Concerned members of the CRC formed an association for the purpose of publishing these two men in particular, starting with pamphlets.  The other intent was that a monthly magazine be published for the defense and promotion of the Reformed faith.  The Standard Bearer was born on October 1, 1924.

            One can scarcely imagine the excitement for those involved — the writers and supporters — to take in hand the first issue of the fledgling magazine.  On the cover of Vol. 1, No. 1, in bold print is the significantly descriptive title, “THE STANDARD BEARER,” with the subtitle, “REFORMED MONTHLY.”  There are found also the names of the four editors — Rev. H. Danhof, Rev. H. Hoeksema, Rev. G. Ophoff, and G. Van Beek.  The yearly subscription price is $1.50.  Everything about the first issue rings with the confident announcement:  We have weighty matters to treat, and we intend to publish this magazine for a good long time to come.

            The very first article, a meditation by Herman Hoeksema on Psalm 145:9 a and 20b entitled “Jehovah’s Goodness,” sets the doctrinal and antithetical tone for the magazine.  Inside, Rev. Danhof explains the appearance of the magazine (“The Standard Bearer”).  Next, he launches into dogmatical discussion of the nature of God (“God is God”).  H.H. follows with “The Antithesis in Paradise,” in which he also introduces the concept of the covenant.  And he begins a series on the history of the common grace controversy.  Mr. G. Van Beek fills out the rest of the sixteen pages.  Thereafter, the SB would be thirty-two pages.  The writing is straightforward, and it is Reformed.

            The second issue added B.J. Danhof to the staff of editors.  Rev. Ophoff launched into the sea of controversy with his first article, “A Declaration.”  He explains why he must join the ranks of those who oppose common grace.  He boldly takes issue with a professor in the seminary from which Ophoff had graduated a scant two and a half years earlier(!). Already in these early issues, G. M. O. never left one wondering where he stood on an issue.  In an article on the fall of man, he boldly subtitled one section “Dr. Abraham Kuyper’s view of the natural man condemned by Scripture.”

Changes Made

            The SB was a bilingual paper — “Holland” and English.  The editors decided that they would include both equally.  But the Dutch won out more often than not.  Over the years, readers sent in complaints on this — the older readers asking for more Dutch, and the younger readers, more English.  Occasionally the editors would publicly commit themselves to maintaining the balance.  In 1941, the staff decided that the ratio ought to be one-third Dutch, and two-thirds English.  And in February of 1953, the editor informed the readers that the “Holland” would be dropped from the magazine altogether.  Hence, Rev. Vos penned his last meditation in the Dutch — a bit wistfully, one suspects.

            Editors and writers changed over the years.  After January of 1926, the name Danhof was dropped from the list of editors.  In the September 1928 issue, the masthead revealed that the Editorial Staff was H. Hoeksema and G.M. Ophoff.  A new category followed:  Associate Editor, and listed were G. Vos and Wm. Verhil.  Seven years later the number of editors returned to four with the elevation of Vos and Verhil, and all the other ministers in the PRC (sixteen) were called “Associate Editors,” five of whom were assigned to write church news from their area of the country.

            Improvements would continue to be made in the form and content of the SB.  In the 1940s the staff appointed H.H. the editor in chief, with what he described as “dictatorial powers.”  He used the power (as they intended) to lay out each issue of the entire volume year, complete with writers’ assigned topics, and the language to be used — Holland or English. He did not assign easy topics.  The men had to study and take stands on such theological and practical “hot” topics as “The Theory of Soul Sleep,” “Hymn Singing in Public Worship,” and “The Angels and Salvation in Christ.”  Debates were also assigned to two ministers.  One such involved the proposition:  “Resolved That A Local Consistory Has The Right To Act Contrary To The Church Order.”

            And if a man did not write?  The editor’s public notice to one offender was: “I have not assigned new subjects to the Rev. (name given).  If the brother wishes to write, he may do so on the subjects assigned to him last year.” (!)  If the current editors are tempted to use similar methods to spur on neglectful staff members, it should also be noted that his public dressing down did not stir up the Reverend to write — at least I did not discover any articles from him.

            It was in this time that H.H. penned the (now) well-known editorial policy of the SB, “The Editor is not responsible for any other contributions that appear in our paper than his own.”

            G.M. Ophoff never got used to this new system.  The second time that H. H. laid out an entire volume year, he noted, “Rev. Ophoff prefers to select his own subjects rather than having them assigned to him.”

            A few years thereafter, the idea of rubrics was introduced, with a minister free to write in his particular area.  That practice has been carried on to the present day.

            We take note of a few other changes in the SB over the years.  In May 1926, the subscription price was raised to $2.50.  But the SB would announce itself no longer as A REFORMED MONTHLY MAG­AZINE; now it was “A REFORMED SEMI-MONTHLY MAG­AZINE” — of twenty-four pages rather than thirty-two.  However, the depression soon forced a reduction both in price and number of issues.  Subscription was reduced to $2.00, and the SB would be published semimonthly, except in the summer months, when it would come out only once a month, even as it is still today, though not at $2.00 a year.  (Consistent with the $2.00 subscription rate was the cost of mailing.  Affixed to each magazine was ... a one-cent stamp.)

Changes Not Made

            H. H. was surprisingly open to suggestions for improvements to the SB.  However, there was one thing to which he remained adamantly opposed, namely, making the SB a church paper.  The suggestion would be broached from time to time.  It came in a proposal form in 1935.  H. H. printed the whole proposal in the SB for all to read.  The two main parts are reproduced below.

Proposed Plan

1.         A paper to be published containing the following departments:

            a.         A short meditation.

            b.         Editorials.

            c.         A department:  Our doctrine.

            d.         Happenings in the Church-world.

            e.         The Sundayschool Lesson.

            f.          A Young People’s Department.

            g.         A Children’s Page.

            h.         News From Our Own Churches.

            i.          An Open Forum.

And:

4.         This paper to be entirely under the control of a central board to be elected annually by the association:

            a.         The board shall control the contents of the paper.

            b.         The board shall appoint the editors for the different departments.

            c.         The board shall control the finances of the publication.

        H. H. remained neutral in his comments, even pointing out that it had some positive elements.  As he wrote, “[T]he question arises, whether the time has not arrived to alter the entire character of our publication, and, instead of the semi-scientific theological paper it originally aimed to be, to offer the public a paper of a more popular and practical nature, somewhat like the well known church-papers.”  He asked to “hear, if possible, from all our readers what is their opinion of this proposition.”

            He was testing the readers and the membership of the PRC.  Were the days of the SB numbered?  It was only four years before that proposal that he had expressed his thoughts on the matter as follows:

            It must be remembered first of all, that our paper is no Church publication.  Neither was it the original purpose of the association that publishes the Standard Bearer, that our paper in its general contents should be exactly like a church paper.  To be sure, it was to be a religious periodical of the Reformed type.  But its contents were to be devoted to the specific purpose of developing the principles of the Reformed doctrine.…  It stands to reason, that the contents, in harmony with this original purpose, were to be chiefly doctrinal, though from the very beginning it was decided also to devote some space to the application of our principles to matters of every day life and current events.  It may be admitted, that in this last respect the Standard Bearer has been weak, partly due to our limited powers.  On the whole, however, it has been faithful to the purpose for which it was originally published.

            And if from now on the contents of the paper would be chiefly of a practical nature, its doctrinal material being limited to one expository article like the present meditation, the Standard Bearer would be greatly depreciated and certainly it would be far from realizing its original aim.

            It would become an entirely different publication.  Its contents would be more like those of an ordinary Church publication, like The Banner; though even its expository and doctrinal articles are not confined to the meditation.

            Personally, I would greatly deplore such a change.  At one of its last meetings the board of the association seriously considered this step.  I was, as I am now, opposed to the proposition, chiefly because I know that the contents of the paper will be changed radically if the Church instead of a free association should publish the Standard Bearer.

            The responses poured in, and the results were mixed.  But the main changes were not made.

            Years later (1949), H. H. looked back on these efforts to change the character of the SB and to limit the freedom of the writers.  He wrote:

            The term “Free” in this name (R.F.P.A.) denotes that the association in publishing its literature does not stand under any ecclesiastical jurisdiction.  It also means that the editors alone are responsible for the contents of their writing, and that they are not under the jurisdiction, either of the Church or of the board of the R.F.P.A.  The minutes show that, in later days, the board has sometimes attempted to change this relation and to acquire some jurisdiction over the contents of their writings, but the editors have always jealously guarded their rights in this respect, and they always will, at least as far as the original editors are concerned.

 

            That emphasis would continue to characterize the SB.  It is not light stuff, but, on the contrary, solid Reformed reading. H.H. was not opposed as such to a church paper.  He would later encourage Concordia to include more news and to be published weekly.  But that was not to be the role of the SB.  The material of the SB was, and would remain, weighty, with biblical exposition and doctrinal development, including polemical defense of the truth.

The SB and the PRC

            Although the Standard Bearer is not a church paper, it is inseparably connected with the Protestant Reformed Churches.  As a result, it records the history of the same. Even before the origin of the regular column “News from our Churches,” the SB reflected the major events of the PRC.  For example, the last page of the third issue contained a terse announcement (in Dutch) of the deposition of Rev. Hoeksema and the con­sistory of the Eastern Ave. Chr. Ref. Church.

            The June 1925 issue heralds the “First Annual Field Day of the Protesting Christian Reformed Churches.”  That indicates a significant move towards the formation of a new denomination.

            Interesting too are the reports on the new buildings, since the old church buildings were lost.  Kalamazoo (Rev. Danhof’s congregation) boasted of the latest “‘forced air’ verwarmingssyteem.”  Eastern Avenue Protesting Christian Reformed Church anticipated a cost of $100,000 for a sanctuary to seat 1300.

            J.B. Danhof reported on the dedicatory services of the new church edifice in Hull on December 3, 1925.  And what a dedication it was!  H. Danhof started at 1 p.m. and preached a “full ninety minutes” in Dutch.  G.M. Ophoff mounted the platform next, and finished his speech at 5 p.m.  At 7:30 p.m., H. Hoeksema addressed the audience (in Dutch) for ninety minutes on “Classical Hierarchy,” explaining the history of the controversy in the CRC and the wrongful deposing of officebearers.  The audience’s appreciation speaks volumes.

            More sobering is the sudden absence of any of the Danhofs’ columns in the SB from volume three on, indicating a significant schism in the already tiny group.

            Yet much joy is evident in the announcements (complete with a studio picture) of graduates from the seminary — two in 1927, and then two years later, six graduates ready to serve the growing churches.  The SB records the trios of the various vacant congregations.  It also reports on the “Zestal” formed by Waupun, WI — all six candidates on the nomination.  I wonder how long that congregational meeting lasted.

            One can also read discouragement between the lines of SB print from time to time — when the audience at the annual RFPA meetings was sparse; when subscriptions were down, and criticism was up.  No doubt this reflected somewhat the spiritual climate of the churches.

            From the mid-1930s into the 40s, the SB regularly directed the attention of the PRC to significant events in the Netherlands.  With some thirty exchanges with Dutch religious magazines, the SB was on top of the turmoil in the GKN — conflicts that would result ultimately in the deposition of officebearers, including Dr. Klass Schilder, and the formation of the Liberated Churches.  No faithful reader (of the Dutch, that is) of the SB in those days would have been unaware of the pressures building, though no one could have foreseen the ultimate effect on the PRC.

            The SB was a lightning rod in the conflict over conditions in the covenant that raged in the PRC in the late 40s and early 50s.  H.H. commented in those days that the future of the PRC did not look good to him.  He was right; the churches split in 1953.  The dreadful bitterness in the aftermath is all too evident in the pages of the SB.  It is not pleasant reading.  Even H.H., the giant of a man who could maintain proper Christian deportment even when criticizing the CRC, could not do the same, always, with the ministers who forsook the truth that Ophoff and he had impressed upon them.  That feelings ran high is understandable.  The ministers who left had nearly destroyed the Protestant Reformed Churches in the process.  The wounds were deep and painful.

            But the important thing is boldly announced in the SB, namely, the Reformed Semi-Monthly and the PRC had not forsaken the glorious heritage of sovereign grace and the unconditional covenant of grace.  God had preserved the Protestant Reformed Churches and the precious truth entrusted to them.

            The subsequent recovery of the PRC is also reflected in the SB.  The return to normalcy, the growth, the mission activity at home and abroad, along with the struggles that mission problems can bring, the announcements of new congregations being formed — it’s all recorded in the SB.  Surely it is a living, eighty-year record of a true church of Jesus Christ doing battle, struggling, wounded, yet persevering in the spiritual warfare.  It is a record, therefore, of God’s faithfulness.

…to be continued. 

An Interview with DJE (2)

        The October 1 issue of the SB carried the first part of an interview with Prof. David J. Engelsma, the magazine’s retiring editor.  We conclude, below, the transcription of that recorded interview, confident that our readers will find it as profitable as did the newly appointed editors.

Prof. Dykstra:  Are there any doctrines in particular that you consciously tried to develop in your editorials?  If so, why those?

DJE:           To my mind, in keeping with the purpose of the magazine as set up in the beginning (maintenance, development, defense, and promotion of the Reformed faith as known and confessed by the Protestant Reformed Churches), every editor of the Standard Bearer is committed to emphasize in a special way the doctrine of the sovereignty of God, particularly in the salvation of sinners; is required to emphasize and develop the doctrine of the unconditional covenant; and is required to emphasize the distinctively Reformed life that flows out of the truth of the sovereignty of God and that belongs to the doctrine of the unconditional covenant.  I am  referring, in general, to the antithetical life of the people of God and with particular, not special, reference to the sanctity of marriage as the symbol of the covenant as relationship between God and His people in Christ, in particular in reference to the family.  Now it so happens that at the same time the society or culture in which we live forced these very issues upon us, as every pastor knows (I’m talking about marriage and the family, now).  And it is also interestingly the case, and this to my mind is one of the most significant developments within the Reformed community in the past number of years, that the development of doctrine, which really amounts to apostasy in the Reformed church-world, forces those issues of the sovereignty of God and of the covenant as an unconditional bond upon us.  So, the purpose that we have out of our own tradition, and the calling that comes from developments in society and in the church world, come together as far as the Standard Bearer is concerned, and as regards the doctrinal developments.  I’m talking, of course, about the recent astounding spread of the denial of the justification by faith alone grounded in a conditional covenant!  That is one of the most significant developments, certainly, in recent times.

            But then there are also other doctrines.  We are Reformed, and, to paraphrase the church fathers, nothing Reformed is foreign to us.  Everything that is going on in the Reformed church world is something that we may want to address and often do address in our own way — because all of truth is of a piece.  So there were matters that I didn’t have any intention of addressing when I became editor that, for one reason or another, became issues that I thought I had to address.  I’m thinking now particularly of postmillennialism.

            You are led (as so often in life ministers are, editors of the Standard Bearer are too) by God’s providential ordering of things — areas that otherwise you wouldn’t have chosen yourself.  It makes the work interesting!

Prof. Dykstra:  Perhaps you have already answered the question then:  As you look back at sixteen years of editorials, what are the most significant, in your judgment?

DJE:                 The judgment as to what was significant is made by the readers.  The judgment of the readers may be different from my judgment.  But I think the most significant editorials I wrote were editorials during the time that what is now the United Reformed Churches were breaking with the Christian Reformed Church.  And this, by the way, goes back to your question earlier about addressing Protestant Reformed Churches and even addressing the Protestant Reformed denomination.  I was doing that when I wrote editorials about the developments that have resulted in the formation of the United Reformed Churches.  I wasn’t only or even mainly addressing them, even though the editorials might have been pointed that way.  But I was also attempting to give instruction and warning to the Protestant Reformed Churches.  I’m referring to such editorials as “Aloof From the Alliance,” “The Date Is 1924,” and “Jelle in Wonderland.”  I regard those as the most significant editorials that I wrote.  There certainly was the thinking in the leadership of the United Reformed Churches that the mere fact that they rejected women in office and were breaking with the Christian Reformed Church ought to be reason for the Protestant Reformed Churches to cozy up to them and even to engage in serious ecumenical discussions with them apart from the great issues that separate the Protestant Reformed Churches from the Christian Reformed Church.  And I thought it was possible that there might even be such thinking within the Protestant Reformed Churches.  I regarded that as calamitous if that would be the case. 

            So, by those editorials, I made an effort to show people who later became the United Reformed Churches but also to give a warning to the Protestant Reformed people that a common rejection of women in office serves as absolutely no basis whatsoever for any coming together of the Protestant Reformed Churches and the Christian Reformed Church.  The Roman Catholic Church also rejects women in office.  That doesn’t mean a thing as far as oneness in the faith is concerned. 

            I took the opportunity, at the same time, to give a word to the broader Reformed community that issues that are really issues of fundamentalism vs. modernism (that is what you have in the women in office matter — sheer modernism because it is based on a rejection of the inspiration and authority of the Word of God) do not constitute a basis for the union and communion of Reformed churches.  That union has to be on the basis of the three forms of unity, at the heart of which is the truth of the sovereignty of God in salvation.  Of course, time has shown that the United Reformed Churches simply carry on the denials of sovereign grace that are imbedded in the mother church.

Prof. Dykstra:  Every work in the kingdom of Jesus Christ has its trials and rewards.  What are some of the sorrows of these years as editor?

DJE:           I can’t really speak of sorrows.  I haven’t been sorrowful in the work. 

            I’ve been extraordinarily burdened simply because of the demand to get the editorials out and carry on the correspondence and do the other work that is connected with the Standard Bearer while at the same time I was trying to do the other work that I’m called to do (i.e., full-time work of seminary professor, RJD).  And I have been disappointed that certain things that I wanted to happen didn’t happen. 

            But I can’t say that I’ve had any sorrows in the work.  There have been sharp, bitter criticisms, and that is painful.  Maybe that would be one of the sorrows of the work.  And when that bitter, sharp criticism comes from within the Protestant Reformed Churches, that makes it all the more painful.  But, even then, that comes with the territory.  I knew that there would be that when I accepted the appointment.  I was, after all, a minister for twenty-five years before I became editor.  By that time, you are not a stranger to sharp criticism from within the Protestant Reformed Churches.

            I haven’t been able to develop the proverbial hide like the rhinoceros.  Some men say they have that — I envy them.

            I’ve been disappointed, too, that some of our able men haven’t written as we wanted them to write.  I would have liked that the subscription list had risen even more than it did.  But, that again is in God’s hands.

Prof. Dykstra:  Reflect on some of the benefits, from a spiritual point of view, of being the editor of the Standard Bearer.

DJE:           My joy, my gladness, is that, by the grace of God, the Standard Bearer has continued faithfully in the course laid out for it, rightly I believe, by my predecessors.  My joy is that I could participate in that way by carrying on the witness to the Reformed faith within the Protestant Reformed Churches and without — there is joy in that.

            And, after the article is written, there often is a joy in writing.  As far as the writing itself is concerned, after all these years I continue to find writing to be a very demanding and difficult activity — one of the most demanding and difficult activities that I know of.  I’ve heard the story that the famous sports columnist for one of the New York papers a number of years ago, a man by the name of Red Smith, who was a very good writer, was asked one time about the ease or difficulty of writing.  His answer was, “Writing is very easy.  You just put a blank sheet of paper in the typewriter, and then sweat blood.”  I can appreciate that description of writing!  But after you have finished it, occasionally you will find this, that you are satisfied with what you have written and how you have written it.  I believe that editors of the Standard Bearer ought to be concerned about style as well as about content.  There is a joy in writing.  Yes, that has been a joy for me, too.

            Maybe I could add this, too, to the joys of it.  There are contacts that are made with people in far-flung places.  Just about all of the correspondence that was negative and critical I have published.  Only if it was obscene (and there weren’t too many of those) or if the critic said, “I don’t want this published,” did I answer the criticism privately and not publish it.  But besides that, there were many favorable responses and many, many questions from people who did not want the questions answered in the Standard Bearer.  So there is more work involved than meets the eye.  I have boxes, by this time, of correspondence — letters that I took time to answer, questions that also required study and some research.  That’s a joy, that is, the contact with people, outside the Protestant Reformed Churches for the most part, but who are genuinely interested in the truth of the Christian religion.  Some of the questions are not distinctively Reformed, but have to do with some aspect of the Christian faith or life.  But to help people like that and to have contact with people like that — that’s refreshing.  And that is joyous.  So I would say that would be another aspect of the work that was gladsome.

Prof. Dykstra:  You touched on this earlier, but do you have anything to add concerning the question of why you decided to decline reappointment as editor of the Standard Bearer?

DJE:           My first and main reason was the conviction that — the fear that — I could stay too long in the position and lose my usefulness to the churches and to the witness and to whoever outside the Protestant Reformed Churches are listening.  It is healthy that other men — men with the same commitment but different views as to what the Standard Bearer must do within the churches and without — take over.

            A secondary consideration, one that wasn’t decisive — but if there needed to be any tipping of the scales it tipped the scales — was, I’d like to be relieved of the burden.  I recognize it’s a privilege, I recognize that.  But it’s also a burden.  I’m not talking now about the time mainly.  A lot of time has been expended over the last sixteen years to the wee hours of the morning and all day Saturday.  I doubt that there have been many days in the last sixteen years that I have not given some thought and usually some time to the Standard Bearer.  Every day.  But when I say I would like to be relieved of the burden, I’m talking about the fact that it weighs on me.  Not at all alone — all of the writers in the Standard Bearer share that, but still it falls on the editor in a special way.  It weighs on me that the magazine has to make a clear, wise witness twice every month most of the time.  After sixteen years, I’m ready to let that burden fall on somebody else’s shoulders.

            I don’t know where that comes in in your questions (maybe it doesn’t), but I want to insert something of my own.  That is to acknowledge, with greatest appreciation, the cooperation in the work of Don Doezema and of Judi.  As far as Don is concerned, I don’t even speak of assistance, but of cooperation.  The way I looked at it, and the way I look at it now in retrospect, is that Don and I simply worked together to make the magazine the very best magazine that we could make it.  Again, I am not at all excluding the tremendous contributions that every writer makes.  But the managing editor and the editor are in a position of leadership in the magazine.  And we simply cooperated to make it the best magazine we could make it, both in content and in appearance.

            And then Judi sets up the paper.  As far as I am concerned, she really has been a great help because patiently she has carried my penchant for revising right up until the manuscript is going out the door to the printer.  There are men (they have said this about themselves) who can write an article and after it’s written, the first edition is the final edition.  I am cursed with a different mentality.  I am revising steadily until the magazine flies off to the printer.  And Judi’s patience is helpful.  She is always willing, has always been willing, to drop this line, insert this line, correct that phraseology.  That’s been very helpful.

Prof. Dykstra:  Would you care to divulge some of your future plans for writing?  We trust the pen will not be set down.

DJE:                  I’ve asked to be excused for a year from the Standard Bearer, but I hope that I will be asked to write again after a year.  In the meantime, I am going to be working on a couple of books that the RFPA has asked me to write.  The two or three that are on the front burner are really books on Old Testament history, continuing the project that the RFPA has begun under the title of Unfolding Covenant History.  Prof. Hoeksema got as far as the book of Joshua, and I’m supposed to carry on from there.  I’m finishing off, right now, a volume on Judges and Ruth.

            Then I have a commentary on the Belgic Confession that I am writing out.  It’s handwritten, but in my writing, there are always two stages:  the first, I write it out long-hand and then type that manuscript, making revisions as I go.  I also have started, by way of some articles in the Standard Bearer, a book on eschatology.  If I’m asked to write in the future, I think I would like to be asked to pursue that rubric so that I can combine writing on eschatology with producing a manuscript that can be a book later on.

Prof. Dykstra:  What advice do you have for the new editors?

DJE:           My advice is probably superfluous because it is that you be thoroughly conversant with the purpose of the magazine from its outset and maintain that purpose as I’ve described it before and as you know well enough.  Because that purpose has to do with the sovereignty of God and His covenant, that isn’t limiting but it is as comprehensive as the whole of life, the whole of God’s revelation.

            Second, my advice is:  “Pray for wisdom.”  Pray for wisdom as editors of the Standard Bearer.  I may confess that very few days have gone by that I did not specifically make that request in my own prayers.  I did not want to do anything foolish, write anything foolish, that would be harmful to the churches or be harmful to our witness or be detrimental to the glory of God.  Without exaggerating the place of the Standard Bearer, it certainly has an important place.  And folly will be ruinous.  So pray for wisdom that you may see what has to be said and know how to say it in the right way.

            Thirdly, be, if not bold, courageous.  I think I mentioned to the committee that was looking for a new editor, that one of the requisites of the editor of the Standard Bearer is that he (or now they) must be tough.  There are pressures — sometimes pressures that are wrong.  We have to be open to criticism — consider the possibility that we might be wrong, too — and listen to others.  But at the same time, there comes the point at which, regardless of pressures even from one’s colleagues, he is convinced that a certain stand has to be taken, a certain stand has to be defended publicly, and he does that.  That calls for a certain courage.  Editors must have a certain courage.  So, my advice to you is to be tough in that sense of the word.

            Then, another thing that comes to mind is that you must be yourselves.  It’s crippling in this work, as it is in the ministry, if a man is constantly laboring with the notion that he has to be somebody else, be like somebody else, and do it like somebody else has done it.  It’s one thing to learn from our great predecessors.  It’s another thing to make the demand of ourselves, which God doesn’t do, that we have to be those people.  They were who they were in their time.  And I’m talking now about our predecessors in the Protestant Reformed Churches, but also in the Reformed tradition.  Many of those men were giants.  If I had to be a minister or a professor of theology or an editor of the Standard Bearer demanding of myself to measure up to their stature, why, that would destroy me.  God doesn’t demand that.  They were giants, but even we dwarfs, standing on their shoulders, can sometimes see a little farther than they could see.  So, be yourselves with your own style, your own insights, and then there will be life in the magazine and further development.

Prof. Gritters:  On behalf of the new editors and the staff, the whole denomination as well as all our faithful readers, we thank you for sixteen years of good work.  Just those few words don’t express what we feel but we are very grateful to God for you.  

Feature Article:

Prof. Barry Gritters

Prof. Gritters is professor of Practical Theology in the Protestant Reformed Seminary.

 “A Christian’s Self-Assessment”(2)

“Let your joy in God be stronger than your sadness in sin.” (Luther, on Philippians 4)

“The highest and best part of a happy life consists in this, that God forgives a man’s guilt, and receives him graciously into his favour.”  “The Holy Spirit has exhorted the faithful to continue clapping their hands for joy, until the advent of the promised Redeemer.” (Calvin, on the Psalms )

            Some unfaithful sons of the Reformation (preachers) have removed the ancient landmarks, so that their flocks wander about, doubtful of what is their spiritual heritage.  As we saw in the last article (October 15, 2004), our heritage is the ancient confession of our natural spiritual depravity.  Without Christ we can do nothing (John 15:5).   Based on Scripture, the Reformed confessions put this testimony in the mouths of the church’s children, on account of which depravity we all “often sigh.”  Though we are not naturally (!) inclined to this confession, we make it anyway in obedience to the Scripture’s description of us.  But many have lost this heritage.

            Confessing our depravity, we reap the copious harvest of a proper humility in our lives together, a sense of our need to mortify our flesh, a healthy wariness of ourselves, and a humble trust alone in Christ for our salvation.  Robbed of this proper assessment of myself, I will not live in humility, do not confess daily the source of my sinful deeds deep in my nature, neglect the painful work of mortifying the flesh “more and more,” and lose sight of the path to the cross.

            When a Reformed Christian witnesses a denial of our present depravity, especially in the name of “helping the poor man have a little self-worth,” he weeps, because the results are quite the opposite.  Rather than building him up in Christ, this new thinking builds him up apart from Christ.  But when a man is driven to the bottom to see himself as he is, God’s mercy lifts his head up, to consider Jesus Christ and to find his “worth” in Christ.  Strange contradiction.  But not to one who knows Scripture:  The last shall be first.  To live you must die.  To seek one’s life is to lose it, but to lose one’s life is to find it.

            Then the Christian can live (and die) happily (Heidelberg Catechism, Lord’s Day 2)!  I am a happy Christian only when I live so.  I am happy in my relationship to God.  I am happy in my relationship with others.  I am happy as I live with myself.  I am happy under the blessing and favor of God, who makes the humble happy (see the Beatitudes).  Contrary to the thinking of some, the confession of depravity—assessing myself properly—does not produce the fruit of a depressed, gloomy man.  It creates a happy man, whose happiness is deep, solid, and lasting.  A Reformed believer is a happy believer.  Sorrowful (indeed, often), yet always rejoicing (II Cor. 6:10).

            To our great dismay, we have found how shallow is the happiness that comes in other ways, especially the ways that take an end run around penitence.

            To make that clear, I want to show more than what are the bitter fruits of refusing to confess the depravity of my nature.  True, the believer must have vital interest in the danger of neglecting to come clean with regard to what his flesh really is.  But I am interested in the danger a Reformed believer faces at this point when he maintains his Reformed theology intellectually, but denies it practically.

            For the danger is very real that, unable to put a chink in the theological armor of the Reformed believer, the Adversary finds the opening where the theology must be lived.  To confess the truth is one thing; to live it from the heart is quite another (“they confess me with the mouth, but their heart is far from me”; cf. Is. 29:13; Matt. 15:8).   The great Adversary loves folk whose lives contradict their confession, who are “holy blasphemers” rather than “pious sinners” (to use the language of the colorful Reformer).  Or who have not assimilated the lessons of James:  “Show me your faith.”

            Reformed Christians, heavily fortified against the theological denial of depravity, must pray for thick bulwarks all around the city.  The way of salvation to which we have been chosen is belief of the truth; it is also a holy life (II Thess. 2:13).

            Let me ask myself, in my relation to God, whether my daily happiness truly comes in the right way.  The “right way” starts with a deep sorrow “towards God” and faith in Christ.  Our gracious God then thoroughly cleanses our soul with the blood of His Son, delivering us from the excruciating misery and awful shame of sin.  This is the joy and peace that surpass understanding.  In this way, and no other way, we find what Luther calls the “joy in God” that is “stronger than our sadness in sin.”  When he explained his 95 theses, Luther worked out the theology of Romans 5:1:

The confidence of Christians and the joyousness of our conscience (are) that through faith our sins become, not ours, but Christ’s, upon whom God laid the sins of us all and who bore our sins….  All the righteousness of Christ, in turn, becomes ours.  For He places His hand upon us, and it is well with us; He, the Savior, blessed forever, spreads His garment and covers us.

            When I “own transgression,” then God forgives me ( Ps. 32).   Then the floodgates of God’s blessings open, and I am swept away in the consciousness of His love.  Then I know myself to be chosen by God, precious to Him, purchased by the blood of Jesus Christ.  Then I experience the real beauty of being renewed by His regenerating Spirit, an heir of all things, and even holy with the goodness of His Spirit.  But only when I confess transgression.

            Is this the experience of the Reformed Christian?  Do I stand in public, quietly thanking God that I am not like “those others.”  Or am I on my knees, begging mercy?  Do I trust in Jesus Christ for God’s approval of me, or in my own faith or holy life?  Do I yearn for God’s “approval from on high” ( Ps. 17), or do I love someone else’s judgment of me more?  Those are the tests of an orthodoxy that is alive.

            When we go off track here, the wheels come off quickly. 

            How does it go between me and my neighbor?  Is the blessedness of our relationship that I, in lowliness of mind, esteem him better than myself (Phil. 2:3), because I truly understand myself?  Is this the life of the communion of the saints for me:  that in deep thankfulness to God for loving such a wretch as I am, I use my gifts for the advantage and salvation of others?

            What a delightful life together (to say nothing of how God-honoring it is!) when this is the first battle we wage: to live so!  What joy, when God gives us such a good beginning, that others see us not thinking of ourselves more highly than we ought to think (Rom. 12:3).   What safety when such perfect love casts out fear of others (I John 4).   What a delightful life among the brethren when the knowledge of God’s love for us proves itself in a charity that is not puffed up, seeks not her own, is not easily provoked, believes all things, bears all things, hopes all things, endures all things (I Cor. 13:4-7).

            And what relief for the poor, tired believer, who has spent his life trying to find significance in himself and in things, rather than in Christ.  Then the rich man who has found his way to Christ (remember: because he’s first traveled to the bottom) can truly imagine driving to church in a rust-heap, wearing an old pilled suit, or go home to a crooked, leaking bungalow, without the means to improve it…and be happy.  He’s learned to sing, “And, having thee, on earth is naught that I can yet desire.”  Or, retaining his riches, he can come to church and honor the poor member whom he formerly despised as “lazy.”  Then the educated man will lay aside his arrogance in his degreed erudition, and use his knowledge to bless the “least” of Christ’s brethren (Matt. 25:40).   Then the capable athlete will not exalt himself over the klutz, the pretty girl will humbly love the Leahs among her peers, and the successful businessman will shed his corporate conceit for humble charity.

            Why?  Because they have all assessed themselves according to Scripture, found themselves “wanting,” and fled together for shelter to the cross of the One “altogether lovely.”   Then our winters will be past, the rain over and gone, the flowers will appear on the earth; the time of the singing of birds will come, and the voice of the turtle will be heard in our land (see Song of Solomon 2:11-12).

            What a faith is the Reformed faith!  Lived!

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.

The Grass Withereth, the Flower Fadeth

Autumn

            In some parts of England autumn is still called “fall.”  The common word used overseas for the waning part of the year is the familiar word “autumn,” an expression derived from the French.  But however widely this French word gained the field, the original word is by no means passed away, and in ordinary conversation one still uses the descriptive, significant word of “fall,” precisely the same word that is used for the fall of Adam and Eve in paradise.

            Autumn is the fall, the slow insinking of the season, the time of year of the failing series.  Spring climbs and goes upward, in summer to reach its highest point; autumn, on the other hand, goes down to seek its lowest point in winter.

            If winter is the delineation in nature which God gives of death and of the grave, autumn shows us on the part of God the languor of disease, which pulls down and consummates itself in dying.

            This delineation of God in autumn images the decline of vital forces in the visible.  “As for man, his days are as grass:  as a flower of the field, so he flourishes.  For the wind passes over it, and it is gone; and the place thereof shall know it no more” (Ps. 103:15).

            It images the decline of the spiritual life in the soul.  “He shall be like a tree, whose leaf shall not wither.  The ungodly are not so, but are like the chaff which the wind driveth away” (Ps. 1:3).

            It images the decline of well-being and prosperity:  “Ye shall be as an oak whose leaf fadeth” (Is. 1:30).

            Yea, it even images the decline that awaits all the glory of the world:  “The heavens shall be rolled together as a scroll:  and all their hosts shall fall down, as the leaf falleth off from the vine” (Is. 34:4).

            And finally it is the image of the judgment that cometh:  “I will surely consume them, saith the Lord, there are no grapes on the vine, yea, the leaf is faded” (Jer. 8:13).

            Though thus, with the exception of Jude, verse 12, the Scripture does not mention autumn by name, because in Israel the seasons were differently divided, yet Scripture knows well the nature-image which we call autumn, and describes it by like terms, as the fall, falling, the falling off of the leaf.

            According to one’s age, impression differs, which spring and autumn make upon us.

            When we are young, for the language, for the speech of spring, we are all ear.  We drink in with full draughts the fragrance of spring.  We perceive how really, in spring alone, nature outside of us tunes in perfect accord with the speech of our own heart.  Autumn, on the other hand, fills everyone who is not young with sadness.  The appearance of autumn is not the expression of his life.  He lives through the fall as a necessity from which there is no escape, but not as a pleasure.  Because spring still sings in his own heart, autumn cannot accompany him in the song of his soul.

            But when you are in the decline of your days, and your locks grow thin, even as the foliage of the oak, your impression is quite the opposite.  Then spring still refreshes you, but more as a joy that has had its day, that comes upon you strangely, and you are in your element only when the leaves begin to turn yellow, presently to fall.  Then autumn is to you the significant season of year, which agrees with your own life and condition.  And more than from spring and summer, from autumn there goes out to you a language to which, of itself, the echo resounds in your own state of mind and heart.

            Yea, as in autumn you see the fall before your eyes, so actually it happens in your own life.

            You were child, and have been young:  the summer of your life is come; and now you are getting old.  Not at once, but imperceptibly and slowly.  The eye sees no more so sharply, your movements are less quick and easy.  You seek a place to sit down, where before, when you had to sit down, you longed to stand.  The mind unfolds less luxuriantly.  For what used to give you pleasure, you have no more taste.  The blood once so young flows more calmly through the veins.  You feel how the yellowing of the leaf in nature is the image of your own withering.

            This continues till the wind lifts itself, and the autumn storm in accident or sickness drives through your branches.  And then with you, too, falls the leaf, and the foliage begins to be transparent.  And time and again it tells you that, from the period of decline, you have passed over into that of demolition.

            Till finally the last autumn days come, which will presently lead you into the sleep of winter, those cold, anxious days, of which the preacher sang:  “When the keepers of the house (i.e., the hands) shall tremble, and the strong men (i.e., the legs) shall bow themselves, and the grinders (i.e., the teeth) shall cease, and those that look out of the windows (i.e., the eyes) shall be darkened.  When the doors shall be shut to the street (i.e., the ears), and you shall be afraid of that which is high, and fears shall be in the way, and the almond tree (i.e., the gray head) shall blossom, and as a grasshopper you shall be a burden to yourself.  For man goeth to his long home, and the mourners go about in the streets” (