But if Prof. Hanko’s “proof” is unassailable, then why is it always being assailed, and why does he write?  Is he tilting at windmills? — battling straw men?

      There is nothing ambiguous about the word “unassailable.”  Synonyms like “impregnable,” or “undeniable,” or “incontrovertible” come to mind.  The fact that Hanko felt compelled to write in the first place is because creationism is not unassailable.

      Proponents of theistic evolution and the Framework Hypothesis are guilty of syncretism.  If plowing with an ox and an ass yoked together is forbidden, how much more so when we attempt to yoke together God’s account of our origins with the pronouncements of science?  Is science on the bench, and Genesis in the dock?

      A large part of the problem stems from the fact that few non-scientists understand what a “theory” is.  Theories are neither true nor false, while the conclusions that flow from them may be either true or false.  As the argument is usually stated by Christians, evolution is only a theory, while creation is a fact.

      This formulation is unfortunate, as it establishes incompatible categories of thought.  It would be helpful to consider both evolutionism and creationism as competing theories, each one supported by evidence unacceptable to the other.

      Simply stated, evolution finds support in the fossil record, while creationism is supported by the Genesis account.  The impossibility of conflating the two becomes immediately apparent.

      Prof. Hanko quotes Del Ratzsch, who, after discussing creationist and evolutionist models, says that “Both models are beyond the reach of human proof.”

      Ratzsch is correct, and it is here that Hanko’s argument collapses.  The Genesis account proves nothing to the scientists, while the fossil record proves nothing to the Christian.  The issue is not the objectivity of the evidence; it is the subjectivism of those considering the evidence.  There is no proof recognized by both sides, so constructive dialogue is impossible, and the issue will never be settled.

      Hanko’s “ironclad” case works only for those of us who believe; it doesn’t work for our antagonists in the scientific community.

      Like many human endeavors, science is neutral; it can be used for both constructive and destructive ends.  The thing about science that frustrates is its messianic character.  Truth, we are told, can be discovered only by “hypothetico-deductive” reasoning, with conclusions subjected to rigorous statistical analysis and to peer review.

      And because we have no other source of truth, the thought of placing any restraints on scientific investigation, or limiting government funding, is simply out of the question.  Science has become our god; its practitioners our saviors.

      Unfortunately, Prof. Hanko concludes with two very problematic statements:  1) “To deny creation is to deny salvation in Christ,” and 2) “To believe in creation is to be saved by Christ.”

      The first is debatable; the second indefensible.  I doubt that he believes the latter himself.

Ralph W. Hahn
Boise, Idaho

RESPONSE:

      The proper way to consider “proof” for the doctrine of creation is to consider Hebrews 11:3:   “Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.”

      Faith is not acceptance of propositions which have no “proof.”  Faith, in Hebrews 11, is “the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”  The things “hoped for” and “not seen” are the promises of God that He will, through Christ, save His elect people and His creation from the curse and death of sin.  Faith has, therefore, as its object, not the creation, but the Word of God in the Holy Scriptures.  And faith in the Holy Scriptures is faith in Christ, who is revealed in the Holy Scriptures — from Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21.

      Faith is a gift of God (Eph. 2:8), and is given by the Holy Spirit of Christ to the elect only, as a part of their salvation — indeed, as the necessary means of their salvation, for faith is the bond that unites the elect to Christ (John 15:1-7, Heidelberg Catechism, Lord’s Day 7).

      The creation is full of evidence that God is the Creator.  In fact, there is no other evidence to be found anywhere in the creation than evidence of God’s work of creation.  (One ought to read Augus–tine’s marvelous description of the creation in his Confessions.)  But the creation is under the curse and man is desperately wicked.  That is, the creation speaks most loudly of God’s fury against sin, and man is so implacably an enemy of God that whatever he may learn from the creation he suppresses in unrighteousness (Rom. 1:18).   Hence, his evolutionism is not born out of his study of the “evidence” in creation; nor out of his ignorance; it is born out of his determination to drive God from God’s own world.  Wicked man is guilty of Paul’s scathing denunciation of the theory of evolutionism developed by wicked man:  “When they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.  Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the uncor–ruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man…, [and] changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen” (Rom. 1:21-25).   Evolutionism is an idol, because it holds up before us a god who cannot create in six days of twenty-four hours.

      The wicked do not have faith.  They will not, but they also cannot, believe in creation.  Among many others things, Hebrews 11:3 means:  Faith is the only way to believe the doctrine of creation.

      The man devoid of faith will not believe the doctrine of creation as it is given us in Scripture, even were he to be confronted by the angel Gabriel, who, standing in God’s world, would assure all who hear that God indeed formed this world in six days of twenty-four hours.  “They have Moses and the prophets (Holy Scripture); let them hear them….  If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead” (Luke 16:20-31).

      The one to whom God graciously gives faith has wickedness banished from his heart, has his eyes opened (Matt. 13:16), and is given the power to receive the Scriptures as the Word of God, infallibly inspired, and the only means to know Truth (with a capital “t”).  When he, through faith, receives the Scriptures, also the creation narrative, he receives the Christ of the Scriptures as His Savior and Lord — and is saved.  Hence, yes; yes, indeed:  “To deny creation (as it is taught in Scripture) is to deny salvation in Christ,” and, “To believe in creation (as it is taught in Scripture) is to be saved by Christ.”

—    Herman Hanko 

Feature Articles:

 Prof. Robert D. Decker

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

Cornelius Hanko, VDM*

*Latin abbreviation of Verbi Dei Minister, “Minister of the Word of God”

        The Rev. Cornelius Hanko was born to Herman and Jennie (nee Burmania) Hanko on May 19, 1907 in Grand Rapids, Michigan.  He received his heartfelt desire when the Lord in His mercy took him to glory on Monday, March 14, in the year of our Lord 2005. 

      Rev. Hanko was baptized in the Eastern Avenue Christian Reformed Church.  During the common grace controversy in the 1920s the Hanko family followed Rev. Herman Hoeksema and the majority of the consistory of Eastern Avenue in their polemic against common grace and their advocacy of one, sovereign grace of God for the elect in Christ Jesus.  The Hankos thus became charter members of the First Protestant Reformed Church in Grand Rapids, Michigan when the Eastern Avenue Protesting Christian Reformed Church, her pastor and consistory, were cast out of the CRC in 1926.  Rev. Hanko, therefore, was the last of the PRC clergy (and perhaps of the entire membership of the PRC) to have had direct, personal contact with the events of 1924–1926 that led to the formation of the Protestant Reformed Churches.

      Already in his teenage years Rev. Hanko had his eye on the ministry.  His first inclination was to be a missionary.  That never happened, because the Lord called him to the pastoral ministry for his entire career.  Rev. Hanko began his studies for the ministry under Revs. H. Danhof, H. Hoeksema, and G. M. Ophoff.  He graduated from the seminary in 1929 with five other men (four of whom left the PRC in the split of 1953 and one of whom left the PRC in the early 1960s.  All five of these eventually became ministers in the CRC).

      After graduation from the seminary Rev. Hanko and his bride Jennie (nee Griffioen) made their way to Hull, Iowa PRC, in which church Rev. Hanko was ordained a minister of the Word and Sacraments in the PRC.  God blessed Rev. and Mrs. Hanko with four children, all of whom are members of the PRC:  Rev. Herman C. (married to Wilma Knoper), Professor Emeritus of Church History and New Testament in the Protestant Reformed Theological Seminary; Fred (married to Ruth Miersma), who gave his working life to the Protestant Reformed Christian Schools (Adams Street in Grand Rapids, where he was my ninth grade teacher, Northwest Iowa in Doon, where he taught with my wife, and Hope, Walker, Michigan); Elaine, widow of Richard Bos; and Alice, who cared for her father in his later years.

      In addition to the Hull PRC, Rev. and Mrs. Hanko served in the following Protestant Reformed Churches:  Oaklawn, Illinois (1935); Manhattan, Montana (1945); First, Grand Rapids, Michigan (1948); Hope, Redlands, California (1964); and Hudsonville, Michigan (1971).  After becoming emeritus in 1977, Rev. Hanko remained active for a number of years, preaching and teaching in the churches and preaching two services per Sunday in Florida during the winter seasons.

      His years in First Church were difficult ones for Rev. Hanko because of the controversy that resulted in the split in First and in the denomination in June of 1953.  The controversy involved the doctrine of the covenant.  The majority of the congregation of First and of the members and clergy of the denomination embraced the covenant view of Dr. Klass Schilder (conceiving of the essence of the covenant as consisting of a conditional promise made by God to every baptized child).  These left our churches.  During these years, while never compromising the truth of an unconditional covenant of grace and friendship established unilaterally by God with His elect in Christ Jesus, Rev. Hanko never lost a certain healthy balance in his preaching and teaching in First Church.  He simply did his work by the grace of God, preaching, teaching, and caring for the flock of God as best he was able. 

      During his years in First Church, which numbered more than five hundred families before the split in 1953 and ca. 200 families after the split, Rev. Hanko had my father as one of his co-laborers in the consistory.  They became good friends.  The Hankos and the Deckers regularly visited together.  It was through this contact that I got to know Rev. Hanko on a personal basis.  It was during Rev. Hanko’s years as pastor of First that I was a student at Calvin College, then located on Franklin Street in Grand Rapids just a short block away from the parsonage occupied by the Hankos.  Not infrequently, I would walk from class at Calvin to the parsonage with my questions.  Rev. Hanko patiently answered these questions from Scripture and the confessions and would then offer prayer.  Rev. Hanko was used by God, together with my parents to keep me in the PRC as a member and later as one of the churches’ pastors.  I also had the blessed privilege after October 1, 1965, the date of my ordination as pastor of the Doon, Iowa congregation, to labor for a few years with Rev. Hanko as a colleague.  We younger pastors in Classis West leaned heavily on our older, experienced, and competent colleague, learning much from his godly example.

      During his pastorate in Hud–sonville, Michigan the Lord delivered his beloved Jennie from her suffering into glory.  I remember sitting with Rev. Hanko in the ICU waiting-room at the hospital, when he remarked, “Part of me is dying in there.”  Now Rev. Hanko, having died in the Lord, enjoys God’s fellowship in Jesus in glory as well.

      We thank God for giving our churches this gifted and faithful servant and for using him for the edification of the churches for the years of his lengthy ministry among our Protestant Reformed Churches.  That in the years to come these churches may follow the example of our beloved brother, Cornelius Hanko, and “…earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints…” is our fervent prayer (Jude : 3b).

      Soli Deo Gloria! 

The Spiritual Life of the Family after the Children Are Grown

Cornelius Hanko

      For many years, the writings of Rev. C. Hanko appeared in the pages — countless pages — of the Standard Bearer.  Rev. Hanko was appoined as a regular writer in 1935, and retained that post until 1990.  In the years before the split of 1953, he was one of but a handful of ministers who regularly employed his pen in order to aid Revs. Hoeksema and Ophoff in the daunting task of filling the quota of twenty-four pages twice a month.  He had an obvious love for the SB.  It was, in fact, at Rev. Hanko's suggestion that the SB introduced the system of assigned rubrics still followed today.

      Rev. Hanko provided quality articles on a wide variety of topics, including missions.  His style of writing was a reflection of his style of ministry — solid, irenic, clear, and, above all, uncompromisingly Reformed.  Throughout the controversy in the PRC over the covenant in the 1940s and ’50s, Rev. Hanko maintained a steadfast witness to the truth of God’s unconditional covenant of grace.

      If we had to choose one of his articles from past issues of the Standard Bearer, we would have had a very difficult time picking one that would accurately reflect both his strengths and his major contributions to the cause of the truth.  So we did not attempt that.  However, we decided to print excerpts of one of his last public speeches, an informal address at the Eastern Men’s and Ladies’ League in September of 1998.  The speech highlights another of God’s gifts to this man — practical, godly wisdom.

—RJD

        The years after the children are grown can be the best years of your life, especially from a spiritual point of view.  That’s why I’d like to talk about that with you tonight.  I want to chat a little bit about family devotions when you are merely with the two of you.  And then I want to talk a little about life together in the declining years of your earthly pilgrimage.

Family Devotions

      We look first, then, at family worship.  The kids are all married.  You’re there with the two of you.

      There was a time, no doubt, when you had to do all in your power to get the family together at least once a day for a meal.  Even in the evening, for dinner, one had to go here, and another had to go there.  You know better than I do how those things go; it’s been so long since my family’s been out.

      When I was still home as a lad, my Dad used to get us out of bed at 5:30/6:00 in the morning.  We had to have family devotions.  The whole family had to be around the breakfast table, early, because he had to go to work at 7 o’clock.  And in the evening, well, then, of course, the whole family had to be together again. 

      That’s not so easy these days.  We’re too busy.  Oh, we bemoan that we’re so busy, always, even after the kids are all married — so busy.  It’s so nice if you can have devotions together three times a day — that is, at mealtime — and then evening devotions before you go to rest.  My daughter and I enjoy that.

      But there are different ways in which to have family devotions.  I remember one time when I was with a family in Hull.  There was a big crowd around the table, and about halfway through the chapter, the father stopped and he went right down the row:  “What was my last word?”  Nobody knew the last word — except the children, because they had learned to listen for the last word.

      But you know, even if you knew the last word, that would not be the important thing.  You want to understand what you read.  That’s why my daughter and I have a Bible dictionary handy during our devotions.  And I have a concordance that I haul out.  That’s pretty well worn now, but we do get it out sometimes.  But especially a dictionary is very important.  You can find out a lot of things in there — the difference between the burnt offering and a peace offering, between Levites and priests, and so on.  It can all be so dry unless you take time to study.

      I was in a home one time where the father read just a short passage, and then he stopped and asked questions about that passage.  When the family thoroughly understood it (because so often one reads and doesn’t understand) then he would read another little passage, and he’d say, “Now what about that?  What does that mean?”  And he would offer an explanation.

      Now, my daughter and I don’t do it that way at home, but many times my daughter stops me and says, “What does that mean?”  Or I stop and say, “Did you notice that?” or “Do you know what that means?”  In that way, the Bible begins to live for you. 

      And you should have the time now.  When the children were all around the table, and they got restless, you couldn’t do that so well.  But now when there is just the two of you, you have a golden opportunity to read the Word of God and make use of it.  Know what you’re reading; understand what you’re reading.  That’s worth so much!

      The Presbyterians, you know, don’t have our custom.  They don’t read the Bible and pray at meals.  They have their devotions afterwards.  They go to the living room.  There the father reads a portion and talks about it.  They sit comfortably in the living room, and they spend quite a bit of time.  They sing, and they make a regular little worship service of it.  I remember once when I was ready to leave such a home, the mother said to me, “Can we have devotions before you leave?”  So we sat down, and with a few children in the living room we had devotions before I left.  I thought, “Now that’s nice; that’s a nice way to part.”

      I was in Isabel, South Dakota, years ago, and there was an elderly man who told me that when he was young he and his two brothers worked on the farm with their father.  They would come in at noon for a warm meal, and they would read the Bible and pray, and then they’d go back to work.

      Well, one day Dad asked, “You boys want to read the Bible?”

      They looked at him, and they said, “Well, we always do.”

      “No, no,” said the father, “I don’t mean that.  Do you want to?  Do you feel a need for it?”

      They shrugged their shoulders:  “Not particularly.”

      “Well,” he said, “then we won’t read it.”  So he prayed, and they went out to the field.

      And the next meal the same thing:  they didn’t read the Bible.  That went on for a few days.

      Then he said to the boys, “Do you feel like praying?”

      Well, now of course they were a bit more alert, and they said, “Well, Dad, aren’t we supposed to?”

      “Oh, is that the only reason?” he said.”  “The only reason is because we’re supposed to?  Then we’re not going to pray.”  So they got up and went to work.

      Two days later he said to the boys, “You know, we’re just like the heathen.  We don’t pray anymore; we don’t read the Bible anymore.”

      And the boys said, “Dad, we’d better.  We need that.”  They had learned that lesson.

      And sometimes, I think, we all need to do that.  We all need to learn the lesson that we don’t do devotions out of custom but because we need it, and we need it badly.

      Well now, I suppose some of you think that I’m being a little bit too idealistic.  It’s nice to sit and talk that way, but to live that way is different.  But you know, that’s one of the advantages of the later years, the declining years of your life:  that you can take time.

Life Together in the Declining Years

      I would like to impress on you first of all that if you’re not yet retired, be sure that you make some plans for retirement.  Oh, don’t say, “Then I’ll go golfing” or “Then I’ll go fishing.”  You can’t golf every day.  You can’t fish every day.  And I’ve known many, many men who were totally miserable when they retired, and who drove their wives practically crazy because they had nothing to do.  If you are retired, then be sure you fill the gap with something.

      There are plenty of things to do.  I tell you, there are so many elderly people who would be so glad if you dropped in and said hello, or even would call them up and ask, “How are you?”  There are so many shut-ins and people that are not well in all these different places, in these rest homes and wherever the elderly people are.  And you can’t imagine how great a blessing you receive yourself.  I’ve often gone away, blushed with shame.  I didn’t give them anything, but they gave me so much.

      Well, if you think I’m a bit idealistic, I’m going to go a step farther.  I’m going to remind you of what the apostle Paul says:  “Whether you eat, or whether you drink, or whatever you do, do it all to the glory of God.”  That’s quite a thing.  It is not easy to learn.  But the Bible says it.  And, to quote a well-known expression of Rev. Herman Veldman, “You’d better believe it!”  That is one thing we must learn:  whether we eat, or whether we drink, or whatsoever we do, God first.  Not me first, not my family first, not my children, not my grandchildren, not my job, or whatever.  God.  We believe in God-centered preaching on Sunday; we have to lead God-centered lives all week long.

      A few years ago my son Herm and I were in Birmingham, Alabama.  We were doing a little mission work there, and we were trying to find a certain Mr. Smith.  We were told that he worked in the steel mills, so that if we wanted to meet him during the day, we would have to go to the steel mills.  What comes to mind, of course, is big, burly, strapping fellows who work in the steel mills.  Well, we got to the gate, and the guard at the gate asked, “What do you want?”

      We said, “We would like to see Mr. Smith.”

      “Oh,” he says, “You can find him in such and such a place.  But I assure you,” he said, “that you won’t talk five minutes with that man before you’ll know that he’s a Christian.”

      Now whether that was sarcasm or whether that was in all seriousness, I don’t know.  But we said to each other, I wonder.  I wonder.

      Well, we found him in his pickup, and I think it was probably two or three minutes and it already became evident that he was certainly a Christian.  Then he said to us, “Come on along to the office.  We can talk better in the office.”  So we went to the office, and there was a whole crew working there.  He stepped in the door and he said, “Good morning, folks.  God bless you.”  And they all responded, “God bless you, Mr. Smith.  Good morning.”  You know, I was really amazed about that.

      We visited in his home later, and I didn’t have a Bible handy.  So his young daughter hands me her Bible.  And do you know what?  Throughout that whole Bible, texts were underscored, underlined very neatly, and with very neat marginal remarks.  That was a young girl!  I wondered how many of our children would have a Bible like that.

      A couple of days later we went to another family for dinner and to spend the evening.  When we drove up, we saw above the front door, “Jesus lives here.”  Well, of course, you and I wouldn’t do that.  But I thought, Now if that’s true, then it should be evident, too.  We entered the house, and after awhile we sat down at the dinner table, and the father led the devotions.  He prayed, “May our fellowship together and our conversation throughout the evening remain on a spiritual level.”  What amazed me was that, not only did he keep it on a spiritual level, but his wife did too.  We talked about some very mundane things, like labor unions, but always from a spiritual point of view.  I know, I know, Baptists carry their religion on their coat sleeves, as we might say, but I can admire something like that just the same.  And I could wish that there was more of that in our lives.  God first.  Whether you eat, or whether you drink, or whatever you do, start the day with God.  As soon as you awaken, pray.  And the last thing you do before you go to sleep, pray.  Remember the Lord and all His benefits, and say, “Bless the Lord, O my soul; and all that is within me, bless His holy name.  Bless the Lord, O my soul, and forget not all His benefits.”  

All Around Us:

Rev. Gise VanBaren

Rev. VanBaren is a minister emeritus in the Protestant Reformed Churches

Sad events in the Reformed church world

        During the past number of years much has been made of the “right” of homosexuals to “marry” and receive the legal benefits of such union.  One can understand why those who refuse to recognize the law of God presented in Holy Scripture would take the position that marriage can be whatever the majority decides it to be.  But it is very difficult to understand how anyone who maintains the infallibility of Scripture can take a similar position.  Sadly, this is what is happening.  In the Netherlands there are Reformed churches that not only allow practicing homosexuals to be members “in good standing,” but have also allowed practicing homosexuals into the church offices—including the ministry of the Word.

      It is troubling that in our country the same trends are evident.  The inroads of homosexualism became apparent in the Christian Reformed Church when the First Christian Reformed Church of Toronto decided that it could allow practicing homosexuals to serve in the church offices of elder and deacon.  When strenuous objections arose from other Christian Reformed bodies, they apparently backed off from this position.  Yet their web site shows that the congregation continues to allow such individuals to be members in good standing within the congregation.  Their web site states:

   We believe that all people are created in the image of God and are unconditionally loved by God.

   We are committed to embrace people of all ages, races, genders, sexual orientation, differing abilities, ethnic origins, and economic circumstances.

   We affirm that all who seek to live faithfully, that is, confessing Jesus Christ to be their Lord and Saviour, are full participants in the life, membership, sacraments, and leadership of this congregation.

   Our desire is to build community in the midst of differences and strive to honour God’s greatest commandment, to love one another as Christ loves us.

 

      Their confession is hardly Reformed (“…all people are created in the image of God and are unconditionally loved by God”).  The statement seems clearly to imply that they receive also practicing homosexuals as “full participants in the life…of this congregation.”

      Recent reports indicate that a critical situation has arisen also in the Reformed Church in America (RCA) in regard to homosexualism.   The RCA has two seminaries: Western Theological Seminary in Holland, MI, and New Brunswick Theological Seminary (NBTS) in New Jersey.  The president of NBTS is Dr. Norman Kansfield.  Christian Renewal, February 9, 2005, gives a report written by John VanDyk:  

   Presiding over a marriage is not so unusual for the president of a Reformed seminary.  For that same president to conduct his daughter’s wedding would be considered special indeed.  For him to preside over his daughter’s marriage to another woman would be considered an act of sinful disobedience.  The Reformed Church in America’s Norman Kansfield, president of New Brunswick Theological Seminary, sees things, however, in a different light.

   In June of last year, Dr. Kansfield, a long-standing minister and seminary professor in the RCA, led a marriage service uniting his daughter Ann Kansfield to another woman.  Ann also graduated from NBTS in 2004 and recently accepted a call to the Greenpoint Reformed Church in Brooklyn, New York.

   Following protests from two classes and a number of individuals to the denomination’s General Synod Council (GSC), the GSC sent a letter in October to each church in the RCA.  The letter outlined the situation and then announced the following plan of action in response:

   1.   To send a delegation from the GSC to visit with Dr. Kansfield in a pastoral manner, sharing with him the concerns discussed by the GSC, listening to him, and expressing a desire to seek the unity of the Church.

   2.   To send this pastoral letter to all ministers of Word and sacrament.

   3.   To inform the board of New Brunswick Theological Seminary of the GSC’s action in this matter.

   4.   To designate the members of the General Synod Commission on Judicial Business to serve as the investigative committee in the event that a charge is filed in this matter.

        The letter continues, “The GSC has taken special care both to clarify procedures for any potential exercise of discipline in this matter and to exercise the pastoral concern that should always be a mark of our life together in Christ.  In any matters of potential controversy and conflict, our polity is our servant and our friend.  We can place confidence in the means by which we hold each other accountable and live in the unity of the Spirit that is God’s gift to the church.”

   Signed by four members of the Council, the letter also mentions “the possible ordination of Dr. Kansfield’s daughter” as another concern.  But it passes on any possible response in this matter by citing the local classis, which has authority regarding the ordination of candidates to the ministry of Word and sacrament.

   With this matter made public by the pastoral letter from the GSC, Dr. Kansfield followed up with his own letter dated November 24, 04.  In the two-page letter, Kansfield declares himself to be “saved by Jesus Christ.”  He describes himself as a “conservative Christian to whom the doctrines of our Lord’s virgin birth, atoning death, bodily resurrection, and return in glory give shape and meaning to my ministry,” a “social liberal,” “a Reformed Christian” and “an evangelical Christian who cares passionately about the proclamation of the Gospel.”

   Kansfield follows with a plea that he and his “daughters” be treated “as your brother and sisters.”  And he argues for the use of Matthew 18 ’s requirements to be put into effect:  “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone.”  The seminary professor concludes with a plea that New Brunswick Theological Seminary not be held responsible for his actions because neither did he consult the Board of Trustees nor his colleagues on the faculty.

      The article continues by pointing out that in 1978, 1979, and in 1990 the General Synod of the RCA emphasized that “the practicing homosexual lifestyle is contrary to Scripture.”  They also encouraged the church to “love and sensitivity towards such persons as fellow human beings.”  The Synod of the Great Lakes of the RCA reaffirmed this position in November 16, 2004.

      The article summarized:

   At this time, Kansfield remains president of the seminary as well as General Synod Professor of Theology.  And his daughter Ann has been ordained and installed and continues to serve an RCA church in Brooklyn, New York.

      The Grand Rapids Press, February 12, 2005, also reflects on this in an article by its religion editor, Charles Honey:

   The Rev. Norman Kansfield, a Hope College graduate and former librarian at Holland’s Western Theological Seminary, hopes the controversy will prompt renewed discussion about the RCA’s stance toward gays.

   “It is very clearly time for the Reformed Church in America and all the rest of the body of Christ to take up a conversation about how we are going to treat homosexual persons,” said Kansfield, 64.

   The board of New Brunswick Theological Seminary, an RCA-affiliated school in New Jersey, recently voted not to renew Kansfield’s contract when it expires June 30.  Trustees reprimanded Kansfield, president since 1993, for officiating at his daughter’s wedding in Massachusetts last June without consulting them.

   In addition, clergy from West Michigan are among two church groups that have filed ecclesiastical charges, which could lead to discipline or even a church trial of Kansfield at this summer’s General Synod.

   Further fueling the debate: Kansfield’s daughter, Ann, has been asked to lead an RCA church in Brooklyn where she serves as an unordained pastor.

   Resolution of both cases will test an RCA stand against gay marriage and its position that “the practicing homosexual lifestyle is contrary to Scripture.”

   To officials’ knowledge, it is the first gay wedding performed by an RCA minister.

   The issue likely will surface at the General Synod this June, said a top RCA official.

   “We’ve studied and reflected this carefully for 25 years,” said the Rev. Wesley Granberg-Michaelson, who serves as general secretary of the 284,000-member RCA from its West Michigan regional offices.  “I think it’s important that that dialogue and reflection continue.”

      It is interesting, but very disturbing, that the matter of homosexuality and even the “marriage” of homosexuals in this way is a matter of  “dialogue” within the churches.  It’s happened in the Episcopal Church, in some Presbyterian Churches, and now within the RCA.  Scripture is clear on the subject.  For 2000 years the church has maintained this clear teaching of Scripture.  For the last 25 years the RCA, at its synodical gatherings, has affirmed that position.  Now the general secretary of the West Michigan regional offices of the RCA states, “I think it’s important that that dialogue and reflection continue.”  It doesn’t matter what the church maintained for 2000 years.  It doesn’t matter what the RCA has taught for most of its history.  There must be “dialogue and reflection,” no doubt until finally “gay marriage” and the “practicing homosexual lifestyle” have been approved by the church.  That is the mode of operation in other denominations.  Now the same is taking place in the RCA.  The Grand Rapids Press article quotes the general secretary, Granberg-Michaelson, as stating that he hopes the controversy won’t lead to major conflicts other denominations have endured.  “Most of those in the church…don’t want to see the denomination torn up in endless and divisive and very painful judicial processes and fights over this,” he said.  The implication seems to be that the “conservatives” hopefully will ultimately acquiesce so that the denomination remains intact.

      It remains to be seen what will develop.  Though Rev. Kansfield will not have his “contract” renewed after it expires on June 30, he has not been deposed from office.  His daughter has been ordained and installed in office in a RCA church (according to the report in Christian Renewal).  The question is:  Is there the spiritual strength to exercise Christian discipline anymore?  

Grace Life for the Rising Generation:

Rev. Mitchell Dick

Our Tsunamis (2)

Rev. Dick is pastor of Grace Protestant Reformed Church in Standale, Michigan.

      Previous article in this series:  March 1, 2005, p. 252.

        In the elegant books of creation we read, through the spectacles of Scripture, of sin and grace.

      We read some tsunami books in our last Grace Life article.  Those terrible killer waves that crashed coasts some months ago are not only lessons in earthquakes and “where to build your next resort.”  They are spiritual books.  They are God’s own literature of the “shock and awe” genre.  They shock us into an awesome sense of sin and sin’s killer threat.  Since God has written them, we dare not put the books down. 

      Though the reading be not for the faint of heart.  Or though we think tsunamis are of no concern to us.  Though we imagine ourselves on such high ground that we cannot be reached by tsunamis.  Though we believe we are in the strongest of theological and ecclesiastical and Covenant Christian High School redoubts, and are doubtless, therefore, sin-tsunami-proof.  We must, dear reader, Take up the tsunami, and read! 

Reading Our Own Tsunamis

      For, I fear, tsunamis of the sin variety are threatening our very shores.  Or maybe they have already come.  Perhaps we are being swept out into the troubled secular seas!  Hard to think of it.  Would not we have heard the waves come in?  Would not, if they had come, if our houses and churches and schools had been smashed into, and we, tossed about, and gasping for air, and grabbing onto driftwood…would not we, certainly, as sure as we were smashed and tossed, and as we gasped and grabbed…have been aware of all this?! 

      Maybe.  But let us remember—tsunamis of sin are from the devil.  And the devil, as the Dutch like to say, does not come clomping into church in wooden shoes.  So the devil’s sin tsunamis are mostly unheard, unnoticed, disguised.  As silent subtle waves.  Or more like an ordinary tide of ordinary things coming in and going out and maybe taking us with it.  And not without some strange things bobbing in their waters by which we sinners are fascinated, and for which we would dunk.  So we bob for strange things in sin tsunamis.  All the while unaware of their tsunami-ness.  And we have fun in the waves.  And there’s Mary Lou swimming along.  And Uncle Jed.  And this program’s not crushing me.  And that latest hit feels good.  And imagine, all the people, and even those party-stopping parents finally at the party with us young people, and the Pope with the Reformed Pastor, and secular humanists with Sunni Muslims, and environmentalists with the President swimming, as one.  And we church-folk—swimming where the grace is easy, and the living is me….

      Amazing!  The disguise of tsunamis! 

      Philip Ryken, Pastor