heading.jpg (20383 bytes)

Vol. 81; No. 13; April 1, 2005

Table of Contents

 

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 ˝ 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.

Table of Contents:

Meditation - Rev. Ronald VanOverloop

Editorial - Prof. Barry Gritters

Letters:

Marking the Bulwarks of Zion – Prof. Herman Hanko

·        René Descartes and Rationalism (1)

In His Fear: -- Rev. Daniel Kleyn

Church and State – Mr. Brian VanEngen

All Around Us – Rev. Michael DeVries

When Thou Sittest in Thine House – Abraham Kuiper

Go Ye Into All the World – Rev. Douglas Kuiper

Book Reviews:

·  Doctrine according to Godliness:  A Primer of Reformed Doctrine.  Ronald Hanko.  Grand Rapids: Reformed Free Publishing Association.  2004. xiii + 338 pages.  $28.95 (Hard cover).  [Reviewed by Prof. Russell Dykstra.]

Report of Classis West – Rev. Daniel Kleyn

·        The Report

News From Our Churches – Mr. Benjamin Wigger

Meditation:

Rev. Ronald VanOverloop

Rev. VanOverloop is pastor of Byron Center Protestant Reformed Church in Byron Center, Michigan.

The Lord Is Risen Indeed

 

            “The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon.” Luke 24: 34

 

This exclamation of joy was made by Jesus’ disciples sometime in the evening of Resurrection Sunday.  The simple and powerful way in which these words are presented indicates that Jesus’ followers were rising out of the grief they had experienced the previous two days.

            The occasion for this statement is the arrival of Cleopas and a companion at the place where the eleven had gathered.  These two had left Jerusalem earlier in the day to go to the nearby town of Emmaus.  As they walked the approximate seven miles to Emmaus, a “stranger” joined them.  They talked together extensively.  It seems that the “stranger” did most of the talking.  “Beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning” the Messiah.  “As he sat at meat with them, ...their eyes were opened, and they knew him.”  And then “he vanished out of their sight.”  They immediately returned to Jerusalem in order to tell their friends that Jesus had appeared to them.  But no sooner did they enter the room where the eleven were gathered together than someone, with unrestrained joy, blurted out the words of our text.

            It is necessary to believe the fact of the resurrection before one can understand the significance of the resurrection.  The disciples of Jesus did not yet understand what it meant that their Lord was risen.  But at this time on Resurrection Sunday, the disciples of Jesus were coming to the conviction that Jesus was indeed risen from the dead.

            Their belief in the fact of Jesus’ resurrection was based on the many things that had happened that day, culminating in Jesus’ appearance to Simon Peter.  It began early in the morning with the alarming words of Mary Mag–dalene, who saw that the stone had been rolled away from the tomb and assumed that Jesus’ body had been taken away (John 20:2).   Mary Magalene’s words sent John and Peter immediately running to the tomb.  They returned with the information that the body could not have been stolen, for the grave clothes were still there (John 20:3-10).   Shortly after, a group of women who had gone to the tomb to care for Jesus’ body came back to Jerusalem with some exciting news: the stone was rolled away and Jesus’ body was not there.  They also relayed the words of the angels that, “He is ... risen:  remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee” (Luke 24:1-9).   And the women wanted especially to inform their fellow-believers that Jesus Himself appeared to them as they were coming back to Jerusalem (Matt. 28:9,10).   And then Mary Magdalene arrived, telling them that “she had seen the Lord, and that he had spoken these things unto her” (John 20:18).

            It was around this time that Cleopas and his companion had to take their leave of their friends in Jerusalem and go to Emmaus.  After they left, the eleven and their friends spent the rest of that day talking together, trying to make sense of what had happened.  Later in the afternoon Simon Peter rejoined the others, telling them that the risen Lord had appeared to him too.

            What they heard and saw of Jesus’ resurrection was unique, which made it difficult for them to understand it.  The disciples of Jesus had witnessed Jesus raising a few people from the dead.  Those persons whom Jesus raised stood before them as proof that they had been raised.  But Jesus’ resurrection was not witnessed.  Also, something was different about Jesus’ resurrection — He was not the same.  Mary was told not to touch Him.  The reports of all the witnesses to Jesus’ resurrection testified of two things:  the reality of the bodily resurrection, and the wholly otherness of His resurrection.

            For us, the bodily resurrection of our Lord is a well-established fact.  In addition to the witnesses on that resurrection Sunday, there were many others to whom Jesus appeared later.  Also, the fact of His resurrection was evidenced in the things Jesus left behind:  the grave empty of His body, and the position of the grave clothes that had been wrapped around His body.  We also accept the testimony of the angels as fact.  We know that Jesus lives because His resurrection from the dead was established objectively by the gospel preached by the apostles and recorded in Scripture.

            It is important that our Lord’s resurrection be a well-established fact, because it is the heart of the gospel.  Without the resurrection of Jesus, our faith would be vain.  Without His resurrection, the cross would be without value, and there would be no salvation and no hope.  So with the disciples we say, assuredly and joyfully, “The Lord is risen indeed!”

            The significance of Jesus’ resurrection from the dead rests on the foundation of the reality of the resurrection.

            God’s power is displayed in His ability to create all things out of nothing.  There is an even greater power of God at work in making the dead to live.  Jesus was raised by the exceeding great power of God (Eph. 1:19,20).

            Additional significance is grasped when we remember what death is.  Death is not an accident, nor merely a “natural” event that ends all earthly life.  Rather, death is the revelation of God’s wrath against sin.  The judgment of death was what God promised to Adam if he disobeyed (Gen. 2:17).   Death is the punishment for sin.  If death is the just wages earned from God by every sin (Rom. 6:23), then the resurrection from death is the declaration that He who brings to death is also able to raise from the dead.  And then, second, the resurrection reveals that the punishment has been completely borne and that God’s wrath is fully satisfied.

            This significance is immediately applied to a very specific case.  In our text the disciples excitedly tell the two travelers to Emmaus, “The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon.”  Jesus’ resurrected appearance to Simon Peter evidences that God has justified His chosen sinners, having fully paid the penalty their sins deserve and declaring them to be perfectly righteous.  “Simon” is Peter’s natural name.  It was used deliberately.  When Simon denied that he knew Jesus on Thursday night, he forfeited his right to the name “Peter.”  But that morning, when the angels told the women at the grave to tell Jesus’ disciples that He was risen, they singled out Peter (Mark 16:7).   And now Jesus had appeared to Simon.  There need be no doubt that the purpose of Jesus’ appearance to Simon was to inform him that he was forgiven his shameful denial.  That Jesus had forgiven Simon was a cause of great joy to Peter, but also to the other disciples.  If Simon was forgiven so shameful a deed, then they could be assured that all their sins were also forgiven.  The excitement in the news that the Lord is risen was also in the news that He had appeared to Simon.

            The Lord’s resurrection indeed is also to us the good news of salvation.  The faith that accepts the facts of the Lord’s resurrection for truth is the faith that also trusts that His resurrection means our justification.  He who was delivered to death on account of our sins was raised from the dead on account of our justification (Rom. 4:25). When God raised Jesus from the dead, then He set His seal of approval on Jesus’ word, “It is finished.”  The punishment earned by our sins has been fully paid, and our eternal righteousness has been completely merited.

            Christ arose by going through death to glory.  He did not come back to the earthly.  Until Jesus arose from the dead, the only way out of the grave was to go deeper — to hell.  But Jesus made a passage out of the grave, which the natural, physical eye cannot see.  This passage out of the grave is to a glory that is seen only with the eye of faith.

            The faith that sees our Lord’s resurrection takes hold also of the hope of our bodily resurrection to eternal life.  The gospel of our Lord’s resurrection is one of great joy because it gives the hope of the resurrection of our bodies unto eternal life.

            The Lord is risen indeed!  Can you hear the excitement in that statement?  They who had known deep sorrow, now have reason to rejoice.  This joy in His resurrection is made even greater when we know that He appeared to a forgiven sinner.  The Lord is risen indeed!  

Editorial:

Prof. Barry Gritters

 

The Churches’ Need for Preachers

            Christ’s church needs preachers.  She is no employment agency or recruitment center that uses flashy ads and promises of earthly bonuses.  She is the church.  As church, she sends out the cry:  “We need preachers!”  She urges the Head of the church, the Lord of the harvest:  “Send labourers!”  (Matt. 9:38; Luke 10:2).   She asks, seeks, and knocks, so that God will give her what she needs.

            The church needs preachers.

            The PRC feel this (enduring) need in a sharp way at present.  With five vacant pulpits, over a thousand members are without an undershepherd.  In addition, the Lord has removed some ministers and missionaries in various ways, at the same time that He gives more pulpits to fill.  When this summer’s synod meets, she will confront the policy:  call another man to the seminary because our eldest faculty member will, by that time, be sixty-six years old—emptying another parsonage.  And, though a decision to postpone implementing that policy is not impossible, it would only briefly put off the crucial process of preparing the next professor of dogmatics and Old Testament.

            The seminary has students, but only five of them for the PRC.  Two more are applying for admission next fall.  But only one graduates this year (Mr. John Marcus).  Two the next (Mr. Andrew Lanning and Mr. Clayton Spronk).  One each of the following two years (Mr. Nathan Langerak and Mr. Heath Bleyenberg).  All this, subject to the Lord’s disposition.

            The church needs preachers.  Soon.

            Because of this need, more than a couple of the PRC synods in the past decade have asked the churches to “note the urgent need for ministers and remind the churches and consistories to press this need upon capable young men”  (Acts of Synod, 2004, p. 24). 

            Besides, another not unimportant consideration: the church always needs missionaries.  Even if the pulpits were all filled, there is still need to hear Jesus’ call: “Pray ye therefore … that he will send forth labourers into the harvest.”  The harvest is “truly plenteous.”  Now, as much as or more than ever before, the PRC membership have the financial means to support missionaries.  Till the end of the age, God’s elect must be drawn into the church—the harvest’s ingathering.

            The church needs preachers.  Always.

            The laborers are few.  “Sovereign of the harvest, send them!”

            Preachers are vital for the church because, by their work, God’s church is gathered, defended, and preserved.  There is high regard for preachers, and earnest desire for one on every pulpit, because the preaching is the fundamental means of grace for sinners.

            The PRC member has high regard for preachers, not first of all because the young people need a role model, not because they want others to think well of their congregation and be attracted to join, not because the elders can hardly shoulder the weight of teaching catechism.  Though who would deny the importance of each of these?

            Rather, the Reformed church member has highest regard for preachers and entreats God for them because of their primary work:  preaching.  Preaching is the power to gather the harvest, from within and without.  By preaching, God lives covenantally with His gathered family.  Preaching is the heart of the church’s worship.  By preaching, God is glorified.  Nothing is more important to the believer than this.

            We pray that God will use the Standard Bearer to maintain in the PRC (and the rest of the Reformed church world) the living and clear consciousness that the church needs preachers because:

 

            By preaching, the elect come to faith (“faith cometh by hearing…”), believers receive the gift of justification (“the just shall live by faith”), the righteous are made holy (“sanctify them by thy truth: thy word is truth”), and saints are preserved to the end (“holy Father, keep through thine own name…”).  Because the gospel is covenantal, God not only befriends believers through preaching, He also draws their elect children to Him by it.  Knowing this, Reformed churches will never allow the preaching to be replaced by games or gimmicks, films or programs, bands or music.  Preaching saves.

 

            Calvin taught his flock that “the office of teaching is committed to pastors for no other purpose than that God alone may be heard there,” and that “Christ acts by ministers in such a manner that he wishes their mouth to be reckoned as his mouth, and their lips as his lips.”  To believe anything less of preaching is to dishonor Jesus Christ who says, still in 2005:  “My sheep hear my voice.”  The Spirit-inspired Paul told the church, “when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God”  (I Thess 2:13).   Reformed believers confess, “The preaching of the Word of God is the Word of God”  (II Helvetic Confession, Chapter 1: emphasis mine: BLG).

 

            God forbid that Reformed believers get the sense that preaching is politicking for earthly influence or, worse, for establishing an earthly kingdom in the “city.”  Faithful preaching—let us never lose this sense—proclaims the kingdom of God in the church, and over against the kingdom of Antichrist, the threatening and powerful kingdom of this world.  Reformed believers seek preachers who antithetically focus on God’s glory in the church.  They train preachers to be “churchmen.”  These men of the church feed the flock “with knowledge and understanding” (Jer. 3:15) that every member is a pilgrim here, for the church’s sake.  “The time is short…the fashion of this world passeth away.”  So we call our preachers to resist the thousand distractions and keep up with their essential work:  1)  public preaching, 2) teaching the youth, 3) ministering the Word “from house to house,” and 4) evangelism to gather the lost sheep into the fold of the church.

 

            Not all preaching saves.  In much preaching is heard the growl and howl of wolves (Acts 20:29,30), the roar of devouring lions (I Pet. 5:8), and the voice of a dragon (Rev. 13:11).   With foul breath, these herald a “salvation” that is by man, and for man.  This preaching scatters rather than gathers, destroys rather than saves!  Reformed believers pray that their ministers are willing, with Luther, to “let goods and kindred go, this mortal life also,” for the sake of true doctrine.

 

            “Nothing is more ruinous for the church than for God to take away faithful pastors,” Calvin wrote in explaining God’s good promise in Jeremiah 3:15:   “And I will give you pastors according to mine heart….”  He knew the ecclesiastical wrecks caused by infidel pastors.  Pray the Lord provide us with believing preachers.  May He deliver us from members whose itching ears cannot endure them.  May He create in us the spirit to “receive (our) minister in the Lord with all gladness,” and to “let the feet of those who preach the gospel of peace…be beautiful and pleasant unto” us (Form for Ordination of Ministers).  And may He maintain among us a church-run seminary where the professors truly know God (with all that this implies).

            But the church must do more than pray.

            She must be busy “exerting herself…that there may be students …to be trained for the ministry of the Word” (The Church Order, Article 19).  The church should seek out good men.

            The church would never expect a man to ask for the office of elder or deacon.  But she does expect a man to propose himself for the preacher’s office.  Of course, the process is different because the office of minister requires lifetime commitment and extensive training before a call.  Yet the church could be more forward in encouraging capable men (even “pressing” them, according to Synod 2004) to go forth to study for the ministry.

            The church begins this work through the parents.  Christian parents will present to their believing sons the high calling of the ministry.  They will count the costs, for they are high for the parents too.  As they ask God for wisdom not to exert undue pressure (with disastrous results!), the parents pray for their sons and encourage them to do God’s will with the gifts they have.  “My son, the Lord’s beloved church has great need for preachers.”

            Because the Christian school teachers represent the parents, teachers will notice the capable and spiritual young men and ask them to consider the ministry.  Has not the seed of desire for this “good work” at times been planted by a respected teacher?

            Then there is the work of the minister himself, whose opportunities with the young men are so many.  How I quietly delighted to observe the serious silence descend on the catechism room when I applied the lesson to the need for preachers…and silently prayed, “Lord, use this word to move one of these young men!”  What delight when a pastor mentions at family visitation the great calling of the ministry, and the maturing boy responds, “I have given it serious thought.”  And the girls?  At times, the young girls may be reminded that Christ’s church needs godly, willing pastor’s wives, too, to support the ministers in their sacrificial giving of themselves.

            Elders, take every opportunity to get to know the young men of the church so that you can observe gifts and see who ought to be “pushed” a little.  Recently your calling has increased.  Early on, you must be active in the process of evaluation (Acts of Synod, 2003, pp. 51, 52, #13).  Then, with confidence, you can write the (weighty!) letter of recommendation to the Theological School Committee.

            Especially, treat the preachers well.  I did not say, “Pay them more.”  As far as I know, our ministers are sufficiently supported.  But treat them honorably.  Pray for them at meal time.  Esteem them highly in love for their work’s sake (I Thess. 5:13).   Speak with joy of the church’s labors on the mission fields.  Let your children observe this in you.  They are watching.

            If parents can drive children out of the church by speaking evil of the church, how much easier to drive young men away from the ministry by a critical attitude toward the preacher.  But how a godly home that supports the preacher and the missionaries can be a good influence of God to lead men to say, “Lord, here I am, send me.”

            (Young men, next time the question is for you:  Does God call you to this rewarding work?)  

Letters:

 

A “Personal” view on drama

            I was happily surprised to see the editorial in the SB on the subject of drama and the inherent sinfulness of it.  This has long been the stance of the PRC, and though there are those within the churches who are not in agreement with this position, it nevertheless is easily proven to be correct.  I would like to commend the editor for an excellent series of articles on this vital and much forgotten aspect of the antithesis.  I would like to add something with regard to what I believe is the fundamental sin of drama, namely impersonation.  I fully agree that the issue of performing acts of sin or of performing sacred acts is a serious matter and indisputably places drama outside of Christian liberty.  Nevertheless, the matter of impersonation presents no less serious a matter for the conscientious child of God.

            All drama is an attempt at impersonation, that is, the subverting of one’s own God-given person, nature, personality, etc., in order to take upon oneself that of another, fictional or real.  This is what acting is all about.  This is why during the years I spent as an actor in city productions I would often hear other cast members say things like “You know, I just wasn’t in character tonight.”  It is simply a fact that one’s proficiency as an actor or actress is dependent upon how well he is able to subvert his own God-given personality and take on the character of the one he is portraying.

            To see the sin in this, one need go no further than our covenant God Himself.  I refer specifically to the fact that God is a covenant God by virtue of His subsistence in three distinct persons, in which and as which He lives that divine, Trinitarian love life of the covenant.  The personal properties of these three persons are that the Father begets the Son, the Son is begotten of the Father, and the Holy Spirit proceeds or is breathed forth from the Father and the Son.  Ever and always do these persons of the Godhead remain distinct.  To put it in confessional language:  “…the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost have each His personality, distinguished by their properties; but in such wise that these three persons are but one only God.  Hence then, it is evident that the Father is not the Son, nor the Son the Father, and likewise the Holy Ghost is neither the Father nor the Son” (Belgic Confession, Article 8).  God’s glory consists in this reality.

            With a view to the reflection of Himself in His works internal and external, God has created all things.  Also, we are called to be imitators of God.  In fact, all men have this calling.  In everything, wicked man attempts to deny this calling and to fashion the most ugly and perverted “image” of God that he can.  But this doesn’t change the fact that it is his calling.  Such a denial of this calling must not be so for the child of God.  Thus we find in Ephesians 5 the calling to be followers (imitators) of God.  And so it is with regard to the covenant of marriage, which is to imitate the covenant of God in His Trinitarian life, as well as to reflect the covenant as it is manifest in its highest revelation in Christ and the church.  Our family life, our work life, our begetting of children — all these are to be guided by that one principle that we must be imitators of God Himself.  Or, to put it differently, our calling is to do all that we do for the glory of God.  And we do this when, in our whole conversation of life, we imitate God not just in His works externally but in His life internally.

            Impersonation is a blatant refusal to do so.  We are to remain distinct in our persons as God created them, as imitators of the God who is distinct in His persons.  Is it really any wonder that sodomy is Hollywood’s sin, since sodomy partakes of the same sin-principle as drama?  A sodomite has the calling to be, sexually, who God has created him to be, namely, strait.  Instead he becomes, or at least attempts to become, someone that he is not created to be.  Though he may, because of his depravity, have this propensity, man was originally created good and upright in covenant with his God.  He, by his refusal to walk sexually pure, defiles the reflection (not image) of God that he ought to manifest in his sexual orientation.  He in sin subverts his true sexuality and seeks to take upon himself another in blatant rebellion.  The subverting of that sexuality involves the character as well.  He changes his voice, his body movements, his likes and dislikes.  It is for this reason that drama, a subverting of one’s true character, is so appealing to the homosexual.  It is really an extension of his whole life of sinful subversion.

            This principle of imitation also sheds light on the often-brought objection that, logically, novels must also be condemned if drama is to be condemned.  The simple answer to this is that God is the great writer of history.  Writing or telling a story as such, therefore, is not wrong, because we cannot actually make history.  It is in this light that all legitimate art forms find their place in the life of the Christian.  One may paint or write or compose as an imitator of God, but one cannot deny and subvert his God-given person as an imitator of God to His glory.  Of course, being an imitator of God is much broader than this, but it definitely includes this aspect.  Drama is the devil’s art.  Those who practice it sin grievously against the third commandment.  We must remember that God will not hold such a one guiltless.  Nor may one partake of this sin by watching it, since our catechism includes in the third commandment partaking of this sin in others by “silence or connivance.”  As Prof. Dykstra has made clear, what the Devil cannot accomplish by the introduction of false doctrine like common grace into the pulpit in order to destroy the Protestant Reformed Churches’ distinctive witness to the gospel of grace and the antithetical life that flows necessarily out of it, he will accomplish by another means.  By leading the congregation into sin he can silence the voice of the doctrine and the antithetical preaching.  In this hour we need to pray for our ministers and elders that they be found faithful in season and out of season, calling God’s people to repentance, regardless of the consequences numerically.  In the past several years we have seen the power of the devil to tempt and to bring the watchmen of Zion down.  And we have grieved.  I thank the editor for giving the call once again to strong and specific antithetical preaching and for not being content with Rev. Boonstra’s solution to the “question of drama.”  God bless him and God preserve the Protestant Reformed Churches.

Adam Tash
Spokane, WA

Marking the Bulwarks of Zion:

Prof. Herman Hanko

Prof. Hanko is professor emeritus of Church History and New Testament in the Protestant Reformed Seminary

 

René Descartes and Rationalism (1)

 

Introduction

 

            Soon after the great victory of the Reformed faith over Arminianism at the Synod of Dordt, the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands deteriorated in doctrine and life.  Many reasons can be found for this rapid deterioration.  The Netherlands had become extremely wealthy by means of worldwide trade, especially with the Dutch East Indies and the Dutch West Indies, and wealth is not conducive to spirituality.  The Reformed Church in the Netherlands was a state church; that is, it was under the direction and control of the civil government.  No good can ever come of this, for two reasons.  One is that technically all citizens belong to the church, or at least the church is responsible for the spiritual welfare of all the citizens.  Thus, within the church were many who were worldly, carnal, and godless, and it was difficult to discipline them.  But another reason is that the spiritual welfare of the church was dependent on the doctrinal soundness and moral uprightness of the magistrates.  Rarely does a nation have such magistrates.

            Perhaps another reason for the rapid deterioration of the Reformed Churches was the spirit of tolerance that prevailed in the Lowlands.  The Netherlands had been known throughout Europe, even before the Reformation, as a land where diverse views were tolerated and people were granted the right to express them at will. Such tolerance was not, of course, true in any absolute sense, and outrageous heresies could rouse the nation to righteous anger.  Many in the Reformed Churches, ardent and passionate defenders of the faith, were what today would be called intolerant and bigoted, narrow-minded and condemnatory — while God would call them warriors in the spiritual battle of the ages.  But, generally speaking, there was to be found more freedom of thought in the Netherlands than anywhere else in Europe.

            One major factor in the deterioration of the Dutch churches was to be found in the inroads of heretical thought.  Even though, for example, Arminians who refused to sign the Canons of Dordrecht were banished, they soon returned in full force to occupy pulpits in the land.

            These inroads of false doctrine were related to the other reasons for deterioration that I mentioned above, but were also aided and abetted by the fact that refugees from all over Europe, especially from France, streamed into the Netherlands to find safety.  Many of them took along their baggage of false doctrine.  They were an infection that ultimately destroyed the body ecclesiastical.

            All this is not to say that the Reformed faith was not maintained in many sections of the country.  The Reformed faith always had its defenders, though, over the years, they grew fewer and fewer in number and weaker in influence.  God preserved His truth in the land of our forebears for many years.  It took the Secession of 1834 under DeCock to rescue it from almost total defeat.

            One heresy that had nothing but bad effects upon the Dutch churches was the heresy of ratio–nalism.  It came into the Netherlands under the influence of a Frenchman by the name of René Descartes.  This article is his story.

 

The Life of Descartes

            René Descartes was born in France about 100 miles from the important city of Orleans.  He was born, as the saying goes, with a silver spoon in his mouth and never had to work a day to earn his daily bread.

            Descartes was of very poor health, but he possessed a brilliant mind.  He was, for these two reasons, permitted to study at his own pace and by himself.  This practice of studying by himself led him to form a lifelong habit of doing most of his work in bed in the morning.  A change in this habit was to cause his death.

            He was born Roman Catholic and so was sent to a Jesuit school in 1604, where he studied for eight years, although again at his own pace.  After completing his studies with the Jesuits, he went to Paris and concentrated on mathematics, for his brilliance was especially in this field.  Apparently his ill health did not prevent him from enjoying the pleasure of sin during these years, for his study of mathematics was done in connection with gambling and in an effort to “beat the odds.”

            After four years in Paris, he served as a volunteer in the armies of various members of the royalty, among whom was Prince Maurice of Nassau, a relative of the savior of the Netherlands, Prince William of Nassau, and himself destined to rule in the Netherlands as a member of the House of Orange.

            Travel and study occupied Descartes until 1623, when he settled in Paris.  Applying himself especially to mathematics, he discovered and developed analytical geometry, by which discovery he became known as the outstanding mathematician in Europe, and his fame spread far from Paris.

            Not only did he concentrate on math, but he also devoted his considerable intellectual acumen to developing philosophy.  This was probably why Paris became extremely uncomfortable to him, for the Jesuits, who considered him their responsibility after his studies with them, did not take kindly to his philosophy, in which he seemed to be developing ideas that, in their implications, militated against the Romish doctrine of transubstantiation.  He, as so many others, found the Netherlands to be a more congenial home.

            Descartes stayed in the Netherlands for twenty years.  There he wrote, taught, studied, and developed his mathematics and his philosophy.  His ideas, especially in philosophy, were so radical that he was not altogether safe even in this land of tolerance.  During the twenty years of his sojourn in this land, he moved no fewer than twenty times.  He kept his place of residence secret, except for a few friends.  Descartes claimed he did this because his studies required seclusion.  The more likely reason is that the more he wrote, the more he made enemies.

            Descartes did have influence in the Lowlands, especially in the University of Utrecht, where some of the professors were enamored with his philosophy.  But he also had enemies.  The Jesuits, having since the days of the Counter-Reformation set themselves up as defenders of the faith, were always hot on his trail.  The Calvinists as well found in his writings and teachings serious threats to the Reformed faith.  Descartes’ fiercest opponent was Gijsbert Voetius.  We have met him before.  He was a strong Calvinist who promoted in his writing and teachings the doctrines laid out by the Synod of Dordrecht, but he was also the antagonist of Johannes Cocceius, whose views we discussed in recent articles in the Standard Bearer.

            Voetius fought bitterly against Descartes and made every effort to enlist the help of the civil authorities to stamp out this pestilential heretic.  Voetius came within a hairbreadth of getting the magistrates to order the hangman to burn publicly Descartes’ writings.  Voetius did succeed in getting Descartes’ philosophy stopped in the universities — but only for a time.

            Both in 1644 and in 1648 Descartes returned to France in an effort to placate the Jesuits.  He almost succeeded.  But when he was coolly received in the royal court of France, and because he was fearful of returning to the Netherlands, he accepted an invitation from the eccentric Queen Christiana of Sweden to come to Stockholm to teach and write there.  The move to Stockholm was difficult, but he made his way, with his books and manuscripts, to a land where he was promised safety from “persecutors.”

            The demands of teaching and the rather rigorous climate were not conducive to good health.  Teaching demanded that he get up at 5:00 in the morning.  After living in Stockholm only four months, he caught a cold, which turned to pneumonia and resulted in his death.  He died on the eleventh of February, 1650, almost 54 years old.

 

Descartes’ Thought

            It is impossible and undesirable to go into Descartes’ philosophy in this article.  It was a well worked-out system of thought that was a radical break from anything proposed in the past, but only the sketchiest of descriptions is necessary for purposes of this article.

            It is necessary, however, to go back in time a bit to understand some of the influences on Descartes’ thinking.

            Up until Descartes’ “breakthrough” in philosophy, the scholasticism of the Middle Ages had held sway.  Among other things, scholasticism had attempted to harmonize the philosophy of Aristotle, the ancient Greek philosopher, with scriptural truth — at least scriptural truth as it was taught and maintained by the Roman Catholic Church.  These efforts had reached their climax in the Summa Theologica of Thomas Aquinas.  Descartes’ philosophy was a total rejection of scholastic thinking and, although such thinking had dominated in Romish circles and continental thought, Descartes wanted no part of it.

            In Europe another movement had had powerful influence on the thinking of men.  I refer to the Renaissance, a movement that started in Italy and spread swiftly across the Alps into all parts of Europe.  The chief principle of the Renaissance, what my Church History professor in Seminary called “the material or subjective principle of the Renaissance,” was humanism.  Humanism, briefly, set up man as the center of the universe.  Man is in control of the universe, able to subdue it, the master of it.  The universe is understandable by man’s powerful intellectual abilities, is intended for man’s pleasure, is to be subdued to advance man’s goals.  What especially appealed to the theoretical mind of Descartes was the idea that man, by his own intellectual powers, could come to a thorough understanding of all things.

(…to be continued)

In His Fear:

Rev. Daniel Kleyn

Rev. Kleyn is pastor of First Protestant Reformed Church in Edgerton, Minnesota.

Words of Comfort

 

            God’s people are always in need of words of comfort.  God knows that.  For that reason He commands the church, and more specifically ministers of the gospel, “Comfort ye, comfort ye my people, saith your God.  Speak ye comfortably to Jerusalem!” (Is. 40:1, 2a.)  God says: “Don’t speak harsh words to My people — words of wrath and judgment.  Those are words for the ungodly and wicked.  Speak instead words of love and mercy and compassion.  Speak words that will lift My people up.  Speak words that will dispel their fears and give them hope and joy and peace!”

            God knows we need comfort on account of all the troubles of life.  We need comfort because many are the afflictions of the righteous.  As believers, we face countless struggles.  We experience much sadness and heartache on account of sickness, pain, loneliness, aging, death, unrest in the world, evil in society, troubles in the church, and so on.  The need for comfort is always there, and always great.

            But God knows we need comfort especially on account of sin.  He knows we are involved in a fierce spiritual battle.  We fight against spiritual wickedness in high places.  We are constantly attacked and oppressed by Satan and his allies.  We are engaged in a daily warfare against great evils, powerful temptations, and every sin.

            The reason why this spiritual war is so real is because of our sinful natures.  That sinful nature in each of us wants us to give in.  It makes all that Satan and the world offers attractive to us.  And often we do give in.  We fall into sin.  We commit iniquity.  We become guilty of hatred of and rebellion against God and our neighbors.  We sin daily in thoughts and words and deeds.

            Sin is the greatest misery we have.  That is true especially because sin itself makes us miserable.  Just think of the guilt and shame and heartache it causes.  Think also of the terrible consequences sin has in the church, in marriages, in families, in friendships — and some of these consequences remain until we die.

            But sin is also our greatest misery because it is the root cause of all the afflictions and troubles of life.  If there were no sin, there would be no sickness, or aging, or pain, or death.  If there were no sin, there would be no hatred, or fighting, or unkindness.  If there were no sin, there would be no grief, or sadness, or tears.  But sin exists.  And because it does, so do all the miseries that are caused by sin.

            Have you ever been miserable?  Are you miserable now?  And have you ever wondered why you are miserable?  The reason is sin.  You are miserable because of your sinful nature.  You are miserable because of the actual sins you have committed.  You are miserable because you are guilty before God on account of your sinfulness and sins, deserving to be eternally forsaken by Him.  You are miserable because your sins bring all kinds of grief and shame into your life.  You are miserable because you cannot rescue yourself from your sin and guilt.  You are miserable because all the troubles in your life are caused by sin.  Our misery in this life is great.  And all that misery is on account of sin.

            So great and terrible is this misery that at times the believer cries out, “O wretched man that I am as a miserable sinner!  If only there were no sin!  If only I didn’t sin!  Then all would be well!”  And that is the truth!

            God comes to His people in their misery and proclaims comfort to them.

            That comfort is not that sin and all its evil effects will be removed from our lives.  The comfort is not that our earthly lives will go so smoothly and so well that we will always be able to smile and be happy.  That will never happen this side of the grave.  Our lives will always be characterized by afflictions.  And our lives will always involve, until our dying day, the constant spiritual battle against the devil, the world, and our sinful flesh.  We are, after all, the church militant on earth!

            What is the comfort that God proclaims?  It is that your sins are forgiven.  God proclaims to His troubled and sin-burdened saints: “Your iniquity is pardoned!  Your transgressions are blotted out!  You are freed from guilt!  You are delivered from eternal damnation!  I see no iniquity in Jacob, and no perverseness in Israel!  All your sins are gone — cast behind My back, thrown into the depths of the sea, removed from Me as far as the east is from the west!”

            Nothing else can compare to that.  Nothing else can give comfort as that can.  We can think, sometimes, that we would feel comforted if only the circumstances of our earthly lives were different.  We can delude ourselves into thinking that we would feel comforted if we could have and enjoy health, earthly riches, and the pleasures of life.  But these things will not comfort.  They are merely earthly and temporal.  The comfort we need is the forgiveness of sins.

            Forgiveness comforts because it means that what causes us to be so miserable has been dealt with.  When sin is forgiven, it is gone.  And if sin is gone, there is no misery.  There is no burden of guilt.  There is no fear of punishment.  There is no wrath of God before which we tremble, for God is merciful and gracious, loving and kind.

            When our sins are forgiven, we also have comfort concerning all the afflictions of life.  We have that comfort because we know God’s favor rests upon us.  We know, therefore, that God is not punishing us for our sins through the troubles He sends.  Why not?  Because our Lord Jesus Christ was punished for us.  Thus the troubles of life are sent by God in His love and for our eternal good.  Our afflictions cannot destroy us.  God turns them to our profit.

            This is comfort that God proclaims to us.

            God proclaims it through the gospel as that gospel is written on every page of Scripture.  And God proclaims it to us in the gospel that is preached.  God tells us, in clear and definite language, that He has forgiven our sins and that we are, in His eyes, spotlessly clean and pure.

            In proclaiming this to us, God also proclaims the sure basis for our comfort.  He tells us that His wrath against us for sin was placed on our Lord Jesus Christ.  God’s own Son shed His blood for us and was punished in our stead.  By His precious blood He has fully satisfied for our sins.  We are, in God’s eyes, no longer guilty — not for our original sin, nor for our actual sins.

            And then God also sees to it that we receive this comfort in our hearts and souls.  He sends His Spirit to dwell in us and to work repentance and faith in our hearts.  Thus, when God says, “I have forgiven all your sins in My Son,” we believe that Word of God.  Believing it, we have comfort.

            What blessed comfort!  We sin, but we are not punished for those sins.  There is no punishment left, for it has all been forever dealt with by the sacrifice of the Son of God in our flesh!  God will never punish us.  Because of Christ, He cannot.

            Do you know your miseries?  Do you sense your need for comfort?  Then hear and believe what God proclaims.  Believe!  Be comforted!  And rejoice!

Church and State:

Mr. Brian VanEngen

Mr. VanEngen, a member of the Protestant Reformed Church of Hull, Iowa, is a practicing attorney.

Religion in the Public Arena

 

            Throughout the history of the United States, citizens have often referred to the “wall of separation between church and state.”  The concept is usually referred to when questions arise either because of government limitation on the activity of churches, or when the institutions of the state include religious practices or symbols, such as the old controversy over prayer in public schools.  In recent years, different individuals and groups have increasingly challenged the role of religion in public life, often challenging practices that have been taken for granted for years, such as the phrase “under God” in the pledge of allegiance.  Such attacks are met with staunch resistance from conservative evangelical groups.  As this article goes to print, the United States Supreme Court is about to issue an opinion dealing with the display of the Ten Commandments on public property,[1]  an issue that it has avoided ruling on for several years. 

            This article will examine a brief history of the issue of separation of church and state, some recent developments, and the implications for the church for the future.

            The constitutional provisions dealing with the separation between church and state are located in the first amendment to the constitution.  Interestingly, the first amendment does not refer to a wall of separation between church and state, and the words “separation,” “church,” and “state” do not appear at all.  The language simply reads “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof….”  The phrase “wall of separation between church and state” is not in the Constitution, but was coined by Thomas Jefferson in 1802 as he wrote a letter to a Baptist congregation.  Jefferson pointed to the language of the first amendment in assuring them that the recently organized government would not impinge upon their freedom to worship.  A widespread rumor had been circulating that Congregationalism was to become the national religion, and Thomas Jefferson sought to reassure them that this was not the case.  He did so by drawing on a statement that had been made by a Baptist minister, Roger Williams, about a wall of separation constructed by God between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world. 

            This anecdote reveals the context in which the first amendment was adopted.  Many citizens of the United States had immigrated seeking religious freedom, coming from countries such as England, where the state church, the Church of England, imposed heavy restrictions on worship by other religions or denominations.  The amendment was intended to guard against a similar situation in their new country. 

            The first amendment is actually made up of two clauses, referred to as the Establishment Clause (“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”) and the Free Exercise Clause (“or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”).  Although the two clauses would appear to be intended to promote the same goal, that of prohibiting a state religion so that individuals can engage in the free exercise of any religion, the law has developed in such a way that the two clauses are often in conflict.  Most often this conflict arises because of an attempt to use the government to perform functions that it should not be used for, such as education of children. 

            The conflict appears already in the 1948 McCollum case.[2]   That case involved private religious teachers giving instruction in public school facilities.  The supporters of this practice argued that they had the right to exercise their religion, but the Supreme Court ruled that when the public facilities were used for religious instruction, this violated the Establishment Clause.  The line of cases involving public schools continued to the point that Bible reading was prohibited in Schempp,[3]  and even a moment of silence for voluntary prayer was ruled unconstitutional in Wallace.[4]  

            In 1970, the Supreme Court established a three-prong test, and action must meet all three prongs in order to be upheld: 1) it must have a secular legislative purpose, 2) its primary effect must not be either to advance or inhibit religion, and 3) it must not foster excessive government entanglement in religion.[5]  

            On the one hand, some of this limitation may be for the best.  The traditional “Christian” majority in the United States is slipping away,

and by some reports the number of people who consider themselves Protestant Christians is declining.  If our children attended public schools, we wouldn’t want them to be led in prayer by someone who is praying to Buddha.  On the other hand, we would want them to be able to pray on their own.  This is one reason we can be thankful for the freedom to establish our own covenant schools.  

            The underlying conflict arises because those who do not profess to be Christians are still guaranteed an equal voice by law.  Therefore, similar problems arise with public expressions of faith in many areas of our pluralistic society.  Dr. Michael Newdow raised the ire of many Christians when he filed suit to have the Pledge of Allegiance declared unconstitutional because it contains the phrase “under God.”  His suit was thrown out by the Supreme Court, but only because the Court found that he lacked standing, or the capacity to sue. 

            As Reformed believers, we recognize that all men must acknowledge that all things are “under God,” so one can understand why Dr. Newdow would fight against the Pledge.  If a Muslim majority were to gain control of the Congress and would amend the Pledge to state “under Allah,” would we want to recite it?  Obviously not.  Dr. Newdow is an avowed atheist and obviously wishes to remove any language acknowledging that our nation, and all of creation, are under the sovereign dominion of the Almighty Creator. 

            If the Court does eventually hear a case on the Pledge, it may be upheld under the Lemon test on the basis that the main thrust of the Pledge is patriotic, not religious.  However, the fact remains that many will only pay lip service to the idea that our nation is “under God.”

            Another such issue that the Supreme Court has previously declined to address on a number of occasions is the display of the Ten Commandments in public buildings and courthouses.  Not long ago, Chief Justice Roy Moore, of the Alabama Supreme Court, received national media attention over this issue when he was removed from office for refusing to remove a monument of the Ten Commandments from his courthouse.[6]   Those opposed to such displays argue that by the use of them the state is implicitly endorsing a particular religion, in this case the Christian faith.  Those in favor of such monuments argue that the decalogue forms the basis for the laws in the United States, regardless of religion, and therefore have a secular basis under the Lemon test.  But looking around at American society today, it would be hard to argue that our society even remotely adheres to a prohibition against having any gods other than Jehovah.  Adultery is no longer penalized, but is instead glorified by Hollywood.  Our modern American society does not any longer even pause on the Sabbath day, much less remember it to keep it holy.  Any laws which did require adherence to these tenets have long since fallen away.

            We certainly wish to maintain our freedom to exercise our religion for as long as possible, and certainly also ought to hold God’s truths before the world around us, primarily through the preaching.  We cannot set aside our religious beliefs when engaging in the activities of government, whether that be as a voter, a concerned citizen writing a congressman, or a government employee.  But while the state does bear the sword, so that we can freely exercise our beliefs, the state is not the proper vehicle to promote our beliefs.  In a pluralistic, democratic society, we cannot expect the government to be able to incorporate aspects of our religion in a way that is pleasing to God.  One has only to think of the watered-down, “non-denominational” prayers that are offered at public functions to try to appease everyone and to avoid the Establishment Clause.

            Government involvement in matters of religion is not conducive to the purity of doctrine in the church, as was shown repeatedly by the history of the Netherlands in the struggles of the Reformed fathers with the state church in that country.  The footnote to Article 36 of the Belgic Confession, as it appears in our Psalter, contains an instructive quote from the Acts of Synod 1910 of the Christian Reformed Church.  The language reads, in part, as follows: 

 

[B]oth State and Church as institutions of God and Christ have mutual rights and duties appointed them from on high, and therefore have a very reciprocal obligation to meet through the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from Father and Son.  They may not, however, encroach upon each other’s territory.  The Church has rights of sovereignty in its own sphere, as well as the State.”

 

Conclusion

            While we may enjoy seeing the symbols of our faith included in public displays, such as the Ten Commandments, we must expect that a pluralistic society whose values are rapidly diverging from our own will resent those symbols and seek their removal.  This is not to justify the antichristian spirit that motivates their efforts, but it is a mistake to conclude, when the state does incorporate prayers or displays such as the Ten Commandments, that our nation as a whole shares our beliefs.  For the purity of the church, it is best that the separation of the state from the church be maintained as much as possible.  For Reformed believers, the primary concern is when that movement to restrict the exercise of religion through public institutions becomes an effort to restrict the exercise of religion in public. 

   1.   McCreary County, Kentucky v. American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky (U.S. Supreme Count, No. 03-1693); Van Orden v. Perry, (U.S. Supreme Court, No. 03-1500).

   2.   McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 U.S. 203 (1948).

   3.   Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963).

   4.   Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985).

   5.   Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1970).

   6.   Jeffrey Gettleman, Alabama Panel Ousts Judge Over Ten Commandments, New York Times, November 14, 2003, §A, at 16.

All Around Us:

Rev. Michael DeVries

Rev. DeVries is pastor of the Protestant Reformed Church in Wingham, Ontario, Canada.

 

Tolerance

            We live in an age of almost unparalleled tolerance.  Tolerance is put forth as one of the great virtues of our times.  It is possible to give it other names, to use another label for this notion, different terminology.  It may be called “cultural accommodation”; it may be termed “political correctness”; it may be euphemistically labeled “sensitivity.”  But underlying all of these characterizations is the notion of tolerance.  Though many in our day would undoubtedly desire to add “tolerance” to the list of the fruits of the Spirit and formulate another beatitude around it, Scripture doesn’t use the word.  A form of the word, the word “tolerable,” is used by Scripture in reference to the degree of God’s judgment upon the ungodly.  But Scripture certainly speaks of compassion, longsuffering, and many other beautiful virtues.

            Properly speaking, tolerance is defined as a recognition of and respect for the opinions, beliefs, or actions of others.  And it implies neither approval nor disapproval as such.  To be tolerant of someone means to put up with him, to accept his legal right to believe or do what he does.  The toleration of various beliefs and activities is, to a degree, necessary, living in the midst of this world of various peoples and cultures.  Certainly tolerance, as properly defined and understood, is manifest in the lives and activities of God’s people, also of the saints in Scripture.  For example, we may say that Abraham tolerated, put up with, the Canaanites that were dwelling in the land of promise to which the Lord had led him and in which by faith he remained a pilgrim and a stranger.

            But Scripture knows not, and never condones, a tolerance by God’s people of sin, of the lie, or of the impenitent sinner in the fellowship of the saints or in the communion of the church.  (See I Corinthians 5, Revelation 2:12-17, 20.)   We must understand that something very devious has taken place in our society and in much of the church in regard to this notion of tolerance.  Well-known Canadian author and social commentator William D. Gairdner, in his book The War Against the Family, lists ten “popular illusions,” which he defines as popular beliefs without foundation that conflict with the core values of our society.  One of these “popular illusions” he terms “The Tolerance Illusion,” and he carefully explains how the idea of “tolerance” is turned (twisted) into the notion of “approval.”  He writes, “Little by little, the idea of tolerance has been forcibly altered to mean ‘approval’, and it is used by the media and by activists, by human rights types, and by lobbyists of all sorts to promote their agenda against a soft-headed gullible public.”  He points out that the quickest way to get someone to back down on any issue is to accuse him of being intolerant.  Gairdner gives compelling examples that demonstrate his point.  To mention only one, the abortion issue, he writes, “If you approve of abortion, you are ‘pro-choice’ (tolerant).  If you don’t approve, you are ‘anti-abortion’ (and to be ‘anti’anything in our culture is to be intolerant).”  So he shows that the public has been effectively manipulated into accepting the idea that approval is the politically neutral, correct posture; tolerance equals approval, as he puts it.

            Now, to be quite honest, all of this, as it applies to society in general, does not concern me all that much.  Oh, yes, I am grieved by the abounding immorality and corruption we see here in North America — the tolerance of gambling, pornography, divorce and remarriage, illegal drug use, homosexuality, and, especially at this time, the same-sex marriage legislation that is being emphatically promoted here in Canada.  But what truly grieves my soul is that this phenomenon, this, to use Gairdner’s terminology, “tolerance illusion,” has to a great extent beguiled the churches, even Reformed and conservative Presbyterian churches of our day.  Bret McAtee, a Christian Reformed pastor, astutely pointed this out several years ago in an article in The Outlook entitled, “The Need for a Sure Word.”  In describing how we are told by those with supposed compassion that we live in modern times and our culture demands a new sensitivity (or tolerance) from the Bible, he writes, “The Word must be sensitive to the homosexual who ‘loves Jesus’, sensitive to the person who is clucking ‘in the Spirit’, sensitive to feminists who arrogate to themselves positions of authority, and sensitive to those who find God’s masculinity offensive.  And of course, being sensitive (read “tolerant”: MDV) these days is code language for ‘agrees with.’”

            Though examples are “all around us,” notice the following shocking examples, even in Reformed churches at the present time:

            R. Albert Mohler Jr. reports in the February 9, 2005 issue of Christian Renewal in an article entitled “The Church that Cannot Make Up its Mind” as follows:

 

The famous  Dr. Seuss once told the story of a “young man from Zoad, who came to two signs in the fork of the road.”  Forced to choose between two directions, the indecisive Zoad simply decided to go both directions at once.  As Dr. Seuss explained, “that’s how the Zoad who would not take a chance went to no place at all with a split in his pants.”

            That little parable comes to mind with the mid-January release of the report on human sexuality conducted by an official task force of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America  (ELCA).  The “Task Force for Evangelical Lutheran Church in America Studies on Sexuality” as commissioned by the denomination in 2001 and charged to bring a full report on controversial issues related to homosexuality so that the church could consider the issue in 2005.  In August, the report will be considered by the ELCA’s “Church Assembly” which will convene in Orlando, Fla.  Like most mainline Protestant denominations, the ELCA has been torn by controversy over issues related to human sexuality.  Forces pushing for the blessing of same-gender relationships and the acceptance of openly homosexual clergy have been pushing the issue through local and regional levels of the church.  At the same time, powerful forces have defended the church’s current policy and discipline which excludes practicing homosexuals from service as ordained ministers and “rostered leaders.”  The church also bans same-sex blessing ceremonies as rites recognized by the denomination.

            The denomination had been eagerly awaiting the release of this report, but it is likely to please no one.  Rather than settling the issue one way or the other, this report is a classic demonstration of the bureaucratic mind at work, couching its language in the voice of compromise and toleration (emphasis mine, MDV) while offering no conclusive answer to the most basic questions at stake….

            Acknowledging the level of conflict in the denomination, the task force states:  “It has become clear to the task force that the disagreement over these issues before the church is deep, pervasive, multi-faceted, and multi-layered.  This church is not of one mind.”  Accordingly, the task force’s first recommendation was that the church “concentrate on finding ways to live together faithfully in the midst of our disagreements….”

            Regrettably, this ELCA task force took as its model not Martin Luther at the Diet of Worms but Dr. Seuss’s Zoad at the fork in the road.  Like the proverbial Zoad, this report will go no place at all — with a split in its pants. 

           

            In an article entitled “Polite Rebuke,” written by Edward E. Plowman in World (October 30, 2004) under the heading, “Anglican commission mildly taps radical bishops on the wrist,” Plowman writes:

 

            Pickings were slim for conservatives in the long-awaited Lambeth Commission’s “Windsor Report” on the crisis in the worldwide Anglican Communion.