heading.jpg (20383 bytes)

Vol. 81; No. 7; January 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. Martin VanderWal

Editorial - Prof. Russell Dykstra

Taking Heed to the Doctrine -- Rev. Steven Key

All Around Us – Rev. Gise J. VanBaren

Ministering to the Saints  – Rev. Doug Kuiper

When Thou Sittest in Thine House – Abraham Kuiper

Go Ye Into All the World – Rev. Jason Kortering

Church and State – Mr. Brian VanEngen

Day of Shadows – George M. Ophoff

News From Our Churches – Mr. Benjamin Wigger

Meditation:

Rev. Martin VanderWal

Rev. VanderWal is pastor of Hope Protestant Reformed Church in Redlands, California.

“Occupy”

 

“And he called his ten servants, and delivered them ten pounds, and said unto them, Occupy till I come.”  Luke 19:13

 

     Servants of the Nobleman! 

     A blessed name, for it signifies your place.  You belong to your Nobleman, your Lord.  He has purchased you with His precious blood, making you His own property.  He has given you a position in His blessed kingdom.  He has made you His servants by His grace.

     But your Lord, your Nobleman, has gone away into a far country.  He has gone there to receive for Himself a kingdom.  But He shall return.  You know that, for it is your hope.  And your hope shall not be ashamed.

     Upon His departure He has given you something.  He has given a pound into your hand.  With that pound He has also spoken a commandment in your ear.

     “Occupy till I come.”

     There you stand, watching your Lord leave, holding His pound in your hand.  You contemplate that pound—what must you do with it?

     Another year has passed away.  You know that, in that older year, many possibilities were opened up before you.  In that year you lived and moved.  In that year you carried on in your business.  You busied yourself with the work before you.  To that work you applied your talents and abilities, finances and wealth, the strength and might of your hands.  You were busy!  You occupied. 

     But you also know that there were opportunities that you did not lay hold of.  You were aware of them, but you passed them by.  Perhaps you felt you had not the energy.  Perhaps you felt they were too difficult for you.  Now you look upon those things with a certain regret.  For in them, you heard the word of your Lord, “Occupy!”  But you did not occupy.

     A new year now opens wide before your eyes.  What things does this new year contain in it?  What things capture your attention and your imagination?  What joys, what blessings, what points of prosperity shall be yours?  What does it hold for you in the realm of the temporal, the earthly and material?  What shall be brought before you in the spiritual, those things of the kingdom of heaven and its righteousness?  What things shall be given you?

     In this new year, one thing must be outstanding to you.  One thing is constant.  That one thing will not change over the course of this new year, come what may.  That is the command of your Lord.  He speaks to you, His servant.  That voice does not waver or change.  He says to you, Occupy! 

     Occupy till I come!

     In your hand remains the pound that your Lord has given you.  What must you do?  Occupy!

     That means you must take stock.  What is the pound that the Lord has given you?

     That pound is found in the most basic things.  It is your life, your health and strength.  It may be those things in abundance.  Or it may perhaps be those things in their lack.  That pound is also found in the things that make you different from others.  Perhaps your pound is a strong back, legs, hands, and arms.  Perhaps your pound is a keen intellect.  Perhaps your pound is a great heart overflowing in kindness.  Perhaps your pound is a fertile imagination, or great talent in one area or another.

     What is your pound?

     Whatever it is, that pound has been given you by your Lord, the very same Lord who has commanded you, Occupy!

     That command means you must be a keen observer.  Look at this new year.  It stretches before you, filled with opportunities.  Opportunities abound in the classroom, from elementary to post-graduate studies.  Opportunities present themselves in business and commerce, to purchase, manufacture, service, and sell.  Opportunities arise in labor, to give good days, weeks, and months of solid and strong labor.  Opportunities lie in the open field and pasture, to sow the seed and put forth herds and flocks.

     Occupy!

     Fill those opportunities with your pound!  In the classroom, learn with diligence.  Pursue your business with zeal and ambition.  Fill the tasks of each day with eager strength, completing the labor set before you.  In the field sow, irrigate, and cultivate!

     Occupy till I come!

     We occupy this year because this year is one of a certain number.  There will come a time when the number of these years is finished.  At its completion our Lord shall come.  At His coming He shall take account.  He shall inquire concerning that very pound that He placed in your hand.  He shall see what you did with that pound. 

     How did you occupy?

     How blessed to give a good report:  I have occupied!  Oh, to be able to speak these words to your Lord:  Thy pound hath gained!

     Thy pound! 

     As the pound was given, so was it received.  As it was given, so was it held.  As it was given, so was it employed with utmost care and diligence.  At the time of reckoning, with these words it is returned.  Thy pound!  Though you have labored with it, yet it was never truly yours, but your Lord’s.

     However, those two words, “thy pound,” cannot be spoken alone.  The wicked servant found that out to his shame and sorrow.  He was disobedient.  He heard; for he said, “thy pound.”  But he did not obey the command of his Lord.  He did not occupy! 

     Oh, he had an explanation.  With that explanation he was satisfied.  Such was the nature of his Lord, austere, taking up what He did not lay down, and reaping what He did not sow.  Therefore that servant might keep his Lord’s pound laid up in a napkin.

     But all his thinking was merely an excuse.  He thought and acted upon his own wickedness.  His disobedience brought him under the judgment of his Lord: “Thou wicked servant!”  His excuse is stripped away, and exposed in all its wickedness.  He was disobedient!  He did not occupy!

     You occupy!

     Because of your occupation, you are able to add these glorious and blessed words:  “Thy pound hath gained!” 

     You have occupied!  You have laid hold upon the opportunities.  You have put your pound forward.  You have labored.  Now you are also able to set that very gain before your Lord.

     You have spoken.  Now hear your Lord speak to you, “Well, thou good servant.”  Here is the approval you have sought, ever since you had that pound placed in your hand.  The many years of labor and toil, the ceaseless searching for opportunities, the diligent investment of your pound — all these have their reward in these simple words.  Your Lord approves your work.  Upon you He pronounces blessing.

     Hearing those words must give you pause.  How can they be spoken? You think not only of your pound, that pound you clearly received from your Lord.  But you think of the opportunities of the year gone by.  That year came from the hand of your Lord.  You think of this year now stretched before you with its opportunities.  That year comes to you now from the hand of your Lord.  You think of your watching for those opportunities.  You think of all your labor and industry, your care and anxiety.  You think of all that went into that final confession: Lord, thy pound hath gained!  Even that gain you have gotten from your Lord.  All things are from Him.

     Yet, His word still stands.  His approval is not diminished, but shines all the more clearly because of its rich grace.  “Well, thou good servant.”  Receive the promotion that follows, given also in grace.  “Have thou authority over ten cities.”

     What blessing!  To occupy till your Lord comes.  To be found faithful at His return.

     Lay hold of your pound.  Lay hold of this year.  In its days, hours, and minutes employ your pound.  Do so for the sake of your Master.  Hear the word in hope.  Keep its blessedness in your heart.  “Well, thou good servant.”

     Occupy!

     Occupy till I come! 

Editorial:

Prof. Russell Dykstra

 Movies — Not A Question (2)

 

      It is our contention that drama, as such, is wrong.  In support of that contention, the standpoint taken was that the actor is wrong to take on the personality of another.  It may be that the reader is not immediately convinced by that judgment.  I can readily understand that.  For many years, when the same argument was presented to me, I was not entirely convinced of it.  I am now.

     However, that is only one element in our contention that drama per se is wrong.  Several other significant objections against drama must be raised.  The validity of these additional objections does not depend on the main point of the previous editorial.

     One serious indictment of drama is that it plays out real life situations.  Leaving out for a moment that this will include dramatizing sinful deeds, consider the question:  May one play the part of a righteous man?  Is it legitimate to act out praying for forgiveness of sins and for grace, having family devotions, and going to church?  Dear reader, think about this.  Playing church?  Acting out prayers?  Having the director say in the middle of a “prayer” — “Cut!  Start over.  That did not sound right”?  What blasphemy!  Surely God is not entertained by such. Isaiah 29 reveals what God thinks of a people whose lips speak the right words, but their hearts are far from Him.

     However, there is another element in drama that makes it utterly abhorrent to the transformed, believing mind of the Christian.  That element is the portrayal of sin in all drama.

     Sin is the transgression of the righteous and good law of God (I John 3:4; Rom. 7:12).   God reveals His holy being and righteous will in His law.  By giving the law, the holy God commands “that even the smallest inclination or thought contrary to any of God’s commandments never arise in our hearts” (Heidelberg Catechism, Lord’s Day 44).

     Every sin is an act of rebellion against God (Ps. 5:10, et al).  Therefore, “every sin deserveth God’s wrath and curse, both in this life and in that which is to come” (Westminster Shorter Catechism, Q. & A. 84).

     Drama plays out sin, deliberately and purposefully.

     There are, no doubt, dramas containing relatively fewer sins in the plot than is found in others.  There are plays about Bible stories, and movies about Martin Luther.  In addition, there are the movies made for family viewing.  But if there were no sin in these dramas, they would be laughably unrealistic, unfaithful to the record of history, and utterly boring to every (fallen) man, woman, and child.

     As such, the depravity of man renders it impossible to produce a “sinless” drama.  Besides, no advocate of drama, even within the Reformed church world, takes the position that the only “good” drama, one that the Christian may view, is one containing no sin.

     Actors and actresses play out sin.  They act out stealing, lying, fornication, murder, and taking God’s holy name in vain.  They enact disobedience and rebellion — of children against their parents, of wives against their husbands, and of citizens against their rulers.  These entertainers portray envy, hatred, anger, and attempts at revenge, all of which, the Reformed believer confesses, God abhors (Heidelberg Catechism, L. D. 40).

     These Thespians must perform all these sins convincingly or they will not get the part.  They must make the audience believe that this is a real murder, a genuine act of rebellion, a truly adulterous kiss — otherwise the audience will scoff at the poor acting.

     The very sins that God abhors and forbids, movies seek to portray realistically.

     There is a horrible price paid for willful disobedience.  Consider the spiritual damage done to the soul of an entertainer as he realistically acts out murderous hatred, slick deception, adultery against his “wife,” and blasphemy — as though he were doing them.  In fact, he is doing them.  Therefore, God’s wrath and curse come upon the actor and his acting.

     There is good reason why Hollywood is the vile fountain of iniquity that it is today.  The consciences of the actors, directors, producers, and cameramen are seared by the constant reenactment of sin.  That their culture is utterly vile is God’s judgment on their sinful activity.  When men seek sin with all their hearts, God in wrath gives them over to their sins.  Ultimately, God gives them over to the most vile sin of homosexuality ( Rom. 1).   Do notice that drama has come to that.  That God-accursed lifestyle is now openly promoted in the dramatic productions of the world — in plays, in movies, and on television — and is made to appear glamorous in the personal lives of the entertainers.

     And if it is wrong to portray sin, obviously it is wrong to enjoy it, and even more so to pay men and women to perform it.  God is not mocked.  What a man sows, that he reaps.

     From the point of view alone of the sin against the third commandment, 99% of the world’s drama is off limits to the Christian. Consider the Heidelberg Cate­chism’s explanation of the third commandment — Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain: for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.  The commandment is sobering.  The catechism’s exposition is penetrating.

 

  Question 100.  Is then the profaning of God’s name by swearing and cursing so heinous a sin that His wrath is kindled against those who do not endeavor, as much as in them lies, to prevent and forbid such cursing and swearing?

  Answer.  It undoubtedly is, for there is no sin greater or more provoking to God than the profaning of His name; and therefore He has commanded this sin to be punished with death.

 

     Read it again, with televised drama in mind.  Reformed people universally confess that God’s wrath is kindled against them for violating this command — not only when believers personally use God’s name irreverently.  His wrath comes on us if we do not “endeavor, as much as in us lies, to prevent…such cursing.”  With that consciousness, how could the believer turn on the television set and watch a sitcom or a movie?  God’s name will be taken in vain — he knows that before he turns on the TV.

     Yet, it is contended that while many Hollywood productions are off limits to the Christian, some movies are different.  In some, sin is not so graphically displayed.  Sin is not made glamorous.  In the end, the right triumphs.  Such movies, it is argued, teach the difference between right and wrong, and teach that the good ultimately wins.  Thus, it is maintained, Christians not only can profit from viewing such, they ought even to be encouraged to produce such dramas.

     The fallacies in such an argument are transparent, are they not?  Surely we can see that, to the holy God, “unglamorous” sin is yet loathsome in His sight.  No doubt it is true that movies that make sin to appear attractive are more heinous to God than those that do not.  But sin is sin.  God hates all sin (Ps. 5:7, et al).

     In addition, this notion that although movies portray sin, yet they can have a good effect because the movies end up on the side of right — what kind of reasoning is that?  It is the same thing that virtually every child has tried at one time or another to defend his disobedience of his parents’ rules, namely, the end justifies the means.

     According to such reasoning, the Christian may (ought to?) play the lottery, for, what great sums of money could be won for the church!  If the end justifies the means, the Christian father may certainly work on Sunday in order to pay for a Christian education for his covenant children.  The Christian young woman could rightly justify marrying an unbeliever, since her goal is to convert her husband to be.  The end justifies the means.

     We must recognize that such is simply wrong thinking.  God’s people must think biblically.  To suppose that the holy God is pleased to instruct His people through the dramatization of sin is not biblical thinking.

     Such thinking is, on the other hand, the thinking molded by the pernicious doctrine of common grace.  Common grace finds good in the works of men — good that pleases God.  Not merely good in the sense that the ungodly can produce a good car or build a good house.  That is good merely in the sense of being functional.  No one ever yet denied that the ungodly can make useful products.

     Neither does anyone deny that reprobate men can write a “good” symphony or paint a beautiful (good) picture.  These things can be good because unbelievers can draw from the principles of sound and color imbedded in the creation and produce a beautiful work of art.  The ungodly have the light of nature and are able to discern the difference between good music and bad, good painting and poor.

     But common grace teaches that the good is also in the activity, and even in the hearts of the unregenerate.  And proponents of common grace maintain that all the products of the ungodly, including drama, contain something good and pleasing to God, since His common grace is operating in all unbelievers.  On that basis, it is argued that the Christian may view the drama of the ungodly.

     We must recognize, however, that common grace does not merely allow the Christian to watch “Little House on the Prairie” and “Mayberry, R. F. D.”  If common grace equips the unbeliever to produce good in these programs, why not in every movie?  Why not in the R-rated movies and in pornographic films?  In fact, common grace has been the justification for Christian magazines to review all sorts of vile and immoral films, and for Christian colleges to show the same on campus.

     The trouble with that argument is, common grace is not biblical.  God is not gracious toward the reprobate.  On the contrary, He hates all the workers of iniquity (Ps. 5:5).   The Bible does not teach that the ungodly do good — morally good deeds that please God.  The Bible’s testimony is that when God “looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God,” His evaluation was:  “They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy:  there is none that doeth good, no, not one” (Ps. 14:2-3).

     Contrary to the teaching of common grace, all the activity of the ungodly — producing, writing, inventing, and manufacturing — is sin.  Beethoven did not write his majestic symphonies out of love for God.  Thus his work was sin.  Not one of his inventions did Thomas Edison produce in order that God might be glorified.  Thus his labor was all sin — in motive and activity.

     Notice too, that drama is not a product such as a car or a painting.  It is an activity.  It is acting out life — speaking, and doing.  Actors express thoughts, desires, and emotions.  And in all that activity, “there is none that doeth good, no, not one.”  In the activity of acting, the ungodly entertainer reveals his hatred of God and expresses his delight in sin.

     And may the believer be entertained by such activity?

     The answer is obvious.  The antithetical life of a Christian demands that the believer reject what God abhors, and seek what God loves.  Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world, God commands His children (I John 2:15).   God demands that we touch not the unclean thing and calls the believer to a spiritual separation (II Cor. 6:17).   Be ye holy, for I am holy, God enjoins (I Pet. 1: 16), also with regard to entertainment.

     Movies, indeed all drama, are not a dilemma for the sanctified mind.  Admittedly, there is a vicious struggle in the believer’s soul.  His sinful flesh craves drama at the same time that his sanctified heart abhors it.  But movies are not a question.

(...to be continued.)  

Taking Heed to the Doctrine:

Rev. Steven Key

Rev. Key is pastor of the Protestant Reformed Church of Hull, Iowa.

 

Church Membership

     One of the most common problems the church faces today is an ignorance concerning the importance and calling of church membership. 

     Many have separated themselves entirely from the instituted church, from the oversight of elders, and from the faithful preaching of the gospel. 

     Some have done so because they insist that membership in God’s church does not necessarily mean membership in a church institute.  One can belong to the body of Christ, they say, regardless of whether or not he has anything to do with a local congregation.  Or they take the position that gathering for family worship is itself a sufficient expression of membership in the body of Christ.

     Others have separated from the instituted church because they have stumbled at the sin found in every church that they have attended. 

     Before we proceed to consider the marks of the church, we must understand that those marks,  according to the ordinance of God, belong to the church as it manifests itself in institutional form in this world.  Marks, after all, are those things that indicate the presence and spiritual condition of the church as it is seen in the midst of this world.  The church is not merely something invisible and intangible.  The church is manifest.  The one holy catholic church comes to manifestation in individual congregations under the leadership of God-appointed officebearers who serve that local body of believers and their children. 

     The invisible body of Christ that by faith we confess to exist throughout the ages and the visible congregation are not two separate entities, but two important aspects of one church.  Although they may be distinguished, they are inseparably related. 

     The marks of the church, therefore, have to do with church membership, and particularly serve to direct us in answer to the question:  Where must I belong as a member of the church of Christ in the midst of the world? 

     The Belgic Confession sets forth the truth of Scripture concerning the calling that is ours to belong to a faithful manifestation of the true church of Jesus Christ.  The theme of Article 28 is that Every One Is Bound to Join Himself to the True Church.  The Article reads as follows, and I include the footnoted Scripture references: 

 

  We believe, since this holy congregation is an assembly of those who are saved, and out of it there is no salvation,1  that no person, of whatsoever state or condition he may be, ought to withdraw himself to live in a separate state from it Acts 2:40 ">;2  but that all men are in duty bound to join and unite themselves with it, maintaining the unity of the church; Psalm 22:23 ">3  submitting themselves to the doctrine and discipline thereof; bowing their necks under the yoke of Jesus Christ; Psalm 2:1 ">4  and as mutual members of the same body,5  serving to the edification of the brethren, according to the talents God has given them.

  And that this may be the more effectually observed, it is the duty of all believers, according to the Word of God, to separate themselves from all those who do not belong to the church, Acts 2:40; ">6  and to join themselves to this congregation wheresoever God hath established it, Matthew 12:30 ">7  even though the magistrates and edicts of princes be against it, yea, though they should suffer death or any other corporal punishment Daniel 3:17 -">.8   Therefore all those who separate themselves from the same, or do not join themselves to it, act contrary to the ordinance of God.

 

     The idea of church membership is not that by joining a local congregation one makes himself a member of the true spiritual body of Christ.  We considered in our last article the truth that Christ alone gathers His church by His Spirit and Word.  But He gathers His church by His Spirit and Word particularly through the preaching of the gospel by the instituted church through her ordained ministers (Rom. 10:13-15).   We are duty bound, therefore, to unite ourselves with the church as instituted in this world. 

     This truth is certainly well attested in Scripture.  To the New Testament believer, faith in Christ and membership and participation in His church are inseparable. 

     In Acts, chapters 2 through 5, after that unspeakable gift of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, many were gathered into the church by the preaching of the apostles.  They were not simply gathered into an intangible, invisible church.  But they are spoken of as being added to that number who were a part of the church at Jerusalem. 

     In Acts 20:28, Paul instructs the elders in the church at Ephesus to take heed to themselves and to all the flock over which God has made them overseers.  Those elders were not in doubt as to who were members in that flock.  Taking heed to the flock would be impossible, if there were no recognizable membership to that flock! 

     To that same church at Ephesus Paul wrote a letter in which he addressed them as a congregation, showing them the beauty of the place God had given them in the congregation at Ephesus, and pressing upon them the urgency of their calling to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. 

     The epistle of Paul to the Philippians is written specifically to the congregation at Philippi, “with the bishops and deacons” (Phil. 1:1).  The same is true with many of the other New Testament epistles.  They are written to give specific instruction and to address particular issues and needs in the congregations to whom they are written. 

     And that those congregations are instituted under officebearers is also evident in several passages.  Paul writes to the church at Thessalonica (I Thess. 5:12-13): “And we beseech you, brethren, to know them which labor among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you; And to esteem them very highly in love for their work’s sake.  And be at peace among yourselves.” 

     This truth of the compelling importance and calling of church membership, having been so thoroughly established by Scripture, was embraced and developed by the Reformers in the years following the Reformation.  During that time, people did not merely reject church membership in favor of family worship.  Nor did they offer other excuses for not belonging to an instituted church.  Rather, because of fierce persecution, some did not dare join themselves to the congregations of believers.  Nevertheless, the Reformed confessions spoke forthrightly and boldly:  The one who is indifferent to church membership or who remains outside the membership of a local congregation where Christ’s body is manifest, gives expression to the sin of supposing to be wiser than God!  Such a person acts in rebellion against the ordinances of God!  For the love of his soul we call such to repentance.

     The French Confession put it this way (Article 26):

 

  We believe that no one ought to seclude himself and be contented to be alone; but that all jointly should keep and maintain the union of the Church, and submit to the public teaching, and to the yoke of Jesus Christ, wherever God shall have established a true order of the Church, even if the magistrates and their edicts are contrary to it.  For if they do not take part in it, or if they separate themselves from it, they do contrary to the Word of God.

 

     Every child of God, by his confession of being a Christian, is obligated to join the true church of God as it comes to expression in a local congregation — even if, because of the absence of a true church in a given location, it is necessary at no little sacrifice to move to another area where that church is manifest. 

    But when I say that one is obligated to join a true church, that statement in itself does not clarify the matter of church membership.  We are centuries beyond the rather simple distinction between the Roman Catholic Church and the churches of the Reformation.  It is not as easy as saying that this one church is true and the other is false.  Today we face a baffling array of denominations and congregations.  And even there it is not a matter of saying that one church stands out alone as true, while all others are false. 

     So the question that every Christian is compelled to face is this:  Where must I belong?  In which church must I serve Christ, and stand in willing subjection to the teaching ministry and the rule of elders?  In which church must I express my thankfulness to God by my willing and liberal support for the ministry of the Word and the care for the poor and various kingdom causes?  Where shall I bring to expression the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, contributing to the upbuilding of the congregation by my fellowship and time and prayers, and even brotherly or sisterly admonitions for the loving restoration of those who walk contrary to the Word of God?  Where am I called to glorify God in my church membership?

     The Belgic Confession gives valuable and biblical instruction concerning this question. 

     Many professing Christians today look at the matter of church membership as either a matter of birth — “I’ve been born into this church, and this is my family’s church” — or as a matter of “What’s in it for me?”

     With regard to the first perspective, Scripture clearly teaches that the matter of birth and family and relatives may not be the determining factor when it comes to church membership.  Jesus said, “He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me” (Matt. 10:37).   It is only in the way of seeking God’s glory and truth, that we also express proper love toward our family members.  When it comes to church membership, the focus must be upon God, not ourselves.

     That God-centered focus of our confessions and Scripture also exposes the second perspective as appallingly selfish and self-centered.  It is a self-centeredness fueled by the apostasy that prevails in the church world today.  Churches, long having taken the focus off God and His Word, and having rejected the truth of Holy Scripture, have fallen all over themselves in the mad rush to establish themselves as “relevant” in society.  They have established all kinds of social programs and attempted to meet the “needs” of every group imaginable.  Every form of entertainment is presented to their membership and visitors — all in the attempt to respond to the question: “What’s in it for me?”  Long forgotten is the truth that the church is not for man, but for God. 

     In answer to the question, “Where is that true church in which I must worship and live in active membership,” the Belgic Confession says in Article 29:

 

  We believe that we ought diligently and circumspectly to discern from the Word of God which is the true church, since all sects which are in the world assume to themselves the name of the church.  But we speak here not of hypocrites, who are mixed in the church with the good, yet are not of the church, though externally in it; but we say that the body and communion of the true church must be distinguished from all sects who call themselves the church.

 

     The Confession then points us to the marks by which the true church is known.  Those marks we consider next time, the Lord willing.  

1.  I Peter 3:20; Joel 2:32.
Acts 2:40 ">2.  Acts 2:40 ; Isaiah 52:11.
Psalm 22:23 "> 3.  Psalm 22:23 ; Ephesians 4:3, 12; Hebrews 2:12.
Psalm 2:1 ">4.  Psalm 2:1 0-12; Matthew 11:29.
5.  Ephesians 4:12,16; I Corinthians 12:12, etc.
Acts 2:40; ">6.  Acts 2:40; Isaiah 52:11; II Corinthians 6:17; Revelation 18:4.
Matthew 12:30 ">7.  Matthew 12:30 ; 24:28; Isaiah 49:22; Revelation 17:14.
Daniel 3:17 -">8.  Daniel 3:17 -18; 6:8-10; Revelation 14:14; Acts 4:17, 19; 17:7; 18:13.

All Around Us:

Rev. Gise VanBaren

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

 

But: Is It Genetic??

    In last November’s election, doubtlessly the question of homosexuality and homosexual “marriage” played a sizable role.  Whether the election would have turned out differently if this had not been an issue is questionable.  The Christian recognizes that all of this is under the control of a sovereign God.

     Because of the agitation for homosexual “marriages,” eleven states had on their ballots, and the electorate approved, the proposal that the state’s constitution be amended to include the definition of marriage to be that exclusively between a man and a woman. 

     The Christian who maintains the infallibility of the Bible (and can any Christian do otherwise?) understands and confesses that Scripture teaches clearly that the thought and act of homosexuality are sin.  But this is not simply a “religious” teaching or idea.  “Nature” itself shows this.  The male and female of mankind as well as in the realm of animals are physically different and complement each other.  To have a desire for a relationship with one of the same sex is surely contrary to “nature.”  This is not simply a teaching of “religious right-wingers.”  None can deny the reality of the relationship God created:  one man marries one woman.

     I have pointed out in earlier articles that Satan has rather effectively (so it would seem) destroyed the concept of marriage with the prevailing idea that divorce and remarriage is not sin.  Not only the world would take such a position, but many in the churches do as well.  Now to solidify that “victory,” Satan no doubt promotes the growing pressure to grant the homosexual the “right” to marry one of the same sex.  It is a further attempt to destroy the whole concept of marriage—ultimately destroying the truth of Scripture of God’s covenant continuing in the line of generations.  One can almost conclude that Satan has made vast strides toward the attainment of his goal.

     But a question constantly resurfaces.  Is this homosexual desire a matter of the genes?  Is it genetic?  If it is, the person cannot help himself, right?  It is not a matter of “choice,” but rather the way he is “wired.”  He ought, therefore, to have the “right” to act on this.  After all, he cannot change his genes.  Some Christians have maintained that God made him that way—therefore God must approve of a committed relationship between two of the same sex.

     There is a perceptive article in World magazine (Nov. 6, 2004) written by Andree Seu that considers the question.   She states the following:

 

  “Is homosexuality a choice?”  was the devilishly simple question posed by debate moderator Bob Schieffer, and the country held its breath.  The president’s “I don’t know” was the best you can do under the circumstances, under a clock.  Of interest to me was the poisoned premise embedded in the question, a premise so universally accepted, by friend and foe alike, as to be invisible—that if something is not a choice, then it is natural; and if something is natural, then it is not to be denied.  But let’s think about that.

  Let’s begin by conceding, for the sake of argument, the whole genetic ball of wax.  Let’s not even contest studies claiming that INAH-3 hypothalamus cells of homosexual male cadavers are statistically larger than those of their heterosexual counterparts.  (But is that size difference a cause or an effect of homosexual activity?)  Let’s say there is an Xq28 genetic marker for homosexuality.  Then let’s apply this to John Kerry’s assertion that the person living a lesbian lifestyle is “being who she was born as.”

  …Genetic studies also show correlations with alcoholism and with violence.  No one, as far as I know, is saying the active alcoholic is “being who she was born as.”  We direct her to a 12-step program—and fast.  Neither do we give a pass to violent offenders on the basis that “biology is destiny.”

  Or what if, rather than genetics, it’s environment that drives a person toward violence or alcoholism (or homosexuality)?  Do we then give those conditions a blessing?  No, neither for chromosomes nor for abusive fathers do we excuse the human moral agent from being in the driver’s seat.

  What is sin?  Is sin only the acts I commit with full volition or is sin even things about myself that I was born with and that I loathe ( Romans 7; Psalm 51)?   Mr. X is saddled with a tendency to distemper—right from the get-go.  Ms. Y is born with a proclivity to gambling, something she’s been aware of from her first nickel bet on a hop-scotch game.  These things come “naturally,” but given their way, they land us in crime or debt or neglect of family.  No drunk or serial killer marches in a parade crying “Free to be me!”  Indeed, are not these predispositions the manifold ways that the Fall falls on us?

 

     The writer concludes properly:

 

  Does a just God punish a tendency I was born with?  Well, if not, then how can God punish any sin, since all sin is like that?  I have a theory that we are all born addicts of some kind or another, all battling (or not) our private besetting sins.  We must all fight temptation by petitioning for grace. 

  “Fair is what a state has,” our local Ms. Wagner tells her first-grade kiddos.  And annoying as that is to the alleger of unfairness, the point is well taken.  What’s fair is what God says is fair.  What’s sin is what God says is sin.  And whether it’s difficult or it’s easy, and whether it’s curable or the battle of a lifetime, and even if it means never marrying and satisfying your physical yearnings (which is a big if), God’s words leave no wiggle room as He censures “Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire” ( Jude 7).

  We conclude then that the fact that homosexuality (or greed, or laziness) is with you from the womb, far from letting you breathe easier, makes your plight all the worse.  It means that sin runs deeper than we thought!  It goes deep in the fabric, like the mildewed cloth that Mosaic law threw on the pyre.  “Wretched man that I am!” Paul exclaims upon discovering this (Romans 7:24-25).   “Who will deliver me from this body of death?  Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!”

 

     The battle, however, was not won when the electorate in eleven states passed constitutional amendments defining proper marriage.  There is a generation arising that have impressed upon them in television, in print, through teachings in public schools that homosexuality and homosexual marriages are a matter of “choice” and “right.”  It requires but little imagination to know what that generation will believe.  The pressure on the church that condemns homosexuality as sin will likewise grow.  Already some attempts have been made to silence the church in its condemnation of this sin—labeling such condemnation a “hate crime.”  Persecution can quickly follow.  But the far greater matter of concern is that increasingly within the churches there is a growing agreement with the world that homosexuality is a “right,” and that marriage ought to be part of this “right.”  May God have mercy on His people and church!

Is Polygamy Next?

    It would seem so.  Jonathan Turley, in USA Today, writes of one court case dealing with this subject and gives his own evaluation:

 

  Tom Green is an American polygamist.  This month, he will appeal his conviction in Utah for that offense to the United States Supreme Court, in a case that could redefine the limits of marriage, privacy and religious freedom.

  If the court agrees to take the case, it would be forced to confront a 126-year-old decision allowing states to criminalize polygamy that few would find credible today, even as they reject the practice.  And it could be forced to address glaring contradictions created in recent decisions of constitutional law.

  For polygamists, it is simply a matter of unequal treatment under the law.

  Individuals have a recognized constitutional right to engage in any form of consensual sexual relationship with any number of partners.  Thus, a person can live with multiple partners and even sire children from different partners so long as they do not marry.  However, when that same person accepts a legal commitment for those partners “as a spouse,” we jail them.

  Likewise, someone such as singer Britney Spears can have multiple husbands so long as they are consecutive, not concurrent.  Thus, Spears can marry and divorce men in quick succession and become the maven of tabloid covers.  Yet if she marries two of the men for life, she will become the matron of a state prison.

  The difference between a polygamist and the follower of an “alternative lifestyle” is often religion.  In addition to protecting privacy, the Constitution is supposed to protect the free exercise of religion unless the religious practice injures a third party or causes some public danger.

 

     After pointing out that 78% of the world’s cultures allow for polygamy, Turley concludes:

 

  The first Amendment was designed to protect the least popular and least powerful among us.  When the high court struck down anti-sodomy laws in Laurence vs. Texas, we ended decades of the use of criminal laws to persecute gays.  However, this recent change was brought about in part by the greater acceptance of gay men and lesbians into society, including openly gay politicians and popular TV characters.

  Such a day of social acceptance will never come for polygamists….  No matter.  The rights of polygamists should not be based on popularity, but principle.

  I personally detest polygamy.  Yet if we yield to our impulse and single out one hated minority, the First Amendment becomes little more than hype and we become little more than hypocrites.  For my part, I would rather have a neighbor with different spouses than a country with different standards for its citizens.

 

     So the attack on marriage continues to grow in intensity.  Even in the secular press there is indication that writers recognize that all is not well.  In the Grand Rapids Press, September 17, 2004, Star Parker, president of CURE, writes:

 

  As I see the unquestionable deterioration of family and traditional values in our society, I do believe we are in a “sorry” state of affairs.  Perhaps my concern is that as we enjoy the unprecedented prosperity that our freedom has made possible, we are losing a sense that every benefit has a cost, and that the other side of the coin of increased freedom is increased responsibility.

  We seem to be going in the opposite direction.  The more we get, the more irresponsible we become.  The easier things become, the more we view our bounty as an entitlement rather than as a gift.

  Certainly the traditional American family is under siege and the challenges for young parents have never been greater.  Never before in the history of this country has there been a lower probability that a child of any race will grow up in a family with a father and mother present.  We now approach, as a nation, one out of every three babies being born out of wedlock.  Can we imagine a society, which Americans can anticipate, in which a large percentage of its working adults have no memory of growing up in a home with a father and mother?

  For families that are intact, the percentage with both parents working outside the home is unprecedented.  It seems reasonable to expect that this percentage will continue to grow.  So as fathers and mothers go to work every day to meet the economic challenges for their families, the time and energy they have available for giving quality time and attention to their children has got to diminish in some way.

  In all likelihood, while these parents are at work, their children will attend one of our nation’s public schools, where the only thing forbidden is to suggest to a child that there are any absolute rights or wrongs in this world.  It is far more likely the child will be taught the virtues of not being judgmental, of tolerance and the absence of any absolutes.

 

     So—what kind of generation is the nation producing?  A generation with few moral values, without knowledge of the Word of God, will be a generation that hates the absolute rights of the church as taught in the Bible.  It can be a generation that despises and persecutes the faithful of the church of God. 

Ministering to the Saints:

Rev. Doug Kuiper

Rev. Kuiper is pastor of the Protestant Reformed Church in Randolph, Wisconsin.

The Fundamental Work of the Deacons (7)

Caring for the Believing Poor Outside the Congregation

     Within their own congregation, deacons must manifest Christ’s mercy by doing their utmost to care for the poor.  This means they must collect alms, determine the need of those who seek benevolent help, distribute the alms as the need of the poor requires, and visit and comfort the poor with God’s Word.  This work involves more than that the deacons are willing and ready to help any who ask — it requires also that they be alert for signs that some in the congregation might be in need.

     However, the fact that the deacons have been called to office by a particular congregation does not mean that their care of the poor is limited only to those who are members of that congregation.  Deacons also serve their congregation and Christ by caring for the poor outside of their congregation.  Some of these poor are fellow believers who are members of other churches.  To this we direct our attention in this article.  Others of these poor are unbelievers.  To this we will direct our attention in our next article, the Lord willing.

     The principle reason why deacons must be concerned about the believing poor outside the congregation is the unity of the body of Christ.

     That Christ’s body is one implies that Christ died to save one church, and that every child of God belongs to that one church.  Christ’s body is an organic unity; that is, it is a living body made up of many diverse members, each of which contributes uniquely to the unity of the body.  Because the church is the living body of Christ, the well-being of the whole body depends on the well-being of every member of the body.

     Therefore, it is the duty of every member of this body to serve the other members.  This is the requirement of Scripture in passages such as I Corinthians 12:14-26 and Ephesians 4:8-16.   This is also the confession of the Reformed believer.  In the Heidelberg Catechism, Answer 55, the Reformed believer answers the question “What do you understand by ‘the communion of saints’?” this way:  “First, that all and every one who believes, being