Quite a testimonial from the world’s press.  Center of the universe for a day, no less.  His image beamed around the whole world.  All worshiped with Rome and paid their homage to the Holy Father.  And Rome’s music reverberating in its magnificent cathedrals is impressive.  I must admit on occasions I have found it so myself (just visiting, of course).   

            When it came to Protestants of note, effusive in their praise, right on down the line — a servant of God, exemplary to Christianity at large, a true emblem and representative of what the Christian faith is all about to all the world, or as James Dobson put it, his death is “…an immeasurable loss — not only to our friends in the Roman Catholic faith, but to the entire world” (p. 25, World, April 16, 2005).

            Even Jewish rabbis, long critical of Rome and its undeniable collaboration with the Nazi regime in the hour of the Jews’ deepest need, had good words to say.  And Muslim representatives stood in the funeral crowd with bitter political enemies to say their farewells to this man.  A man in his death able to elicit a remarkable show of unity in a divided world.  A remarkable thing. Now to find one able to do the same during his own lifetime!  You think it cannot be done?

            No, we do not join all the ‘estranged brothers’ in expressing our heartfelt sympathy to Rome and our own sense of loss.  He may have been a most charming and likable man, issuing some papal bulletins on various civil issues that profited the faithful church of Christ yet living in this world.  But then, so did Nebuchadnezzar issue such degrees, making life more livable for the Jews in Babylon.  And Daniel seemed to be able to get along with His Majesty just fine.

            Still, it changed nothing with respect to God’s judgment of this fellow.  “Thou art this head of gold” (Dan. 2:38).

            That Nebuchadnezzar was the “head of gold” meant he was identified with Antichrist.  He was part of the image that was ground into pieces by the stone that without hands was cut out of the mountain.  That stone was the Christ; and the image with its kingdoms did not represent Christ’s kingdom, but Christ’s adversary’s, Satan’s, as every student of Scripture knows.

            That the Reformed confessions have put the papacy and its Church in the same category, part of Antichrist’s coming kingdom, is plain.  Read the Belgic Confession, Article 29, which clearly has Rome in mind when it describes the false church and its history of persecuting the righteous; and then the Westminster Confession of Faith, which states in unequivocal language: 

            There is no other head of the church but the Lord Jesus Christ: nor can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the church against Christ, and all that is called God (XXV, 6).

            This was the assessment of the Reformers themselves who came out of Rome, who know firsthand the abuses of Rome and the enormities committed by her popes and all their false claims.  One quote from John Calvin will do. 

            I deny that see [that is, the Bishopric of Rome — kk] to be Apostolic, wherein nought is seen but a shocking apostasy — I deny him to be the vicar of Christ, who in furiously persecuting the gospel, demonstrates by his conduct that he is Antichrist — I deny him to be the successor of Peter, who is doing his utmost to demolish every edifice that Peter built — and I deny him to be the head of the Church, who by his tyranny lacerates and dismembers the Church, after dissevering her from Christ, her true and only Head (The Necessity of Reforming the Church).

            Keep in mind that this was the universal judgment of those who in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries came out of Rome.  And now the professed heirs of these same Reformers eulogize the head of this selfsame church, one who never objected to being called “Holy Father,” and talk of him even in terms of being “a brother in Christ.”  These Protestant brethren had better ask themselves whether the late, great “Papa” changed anything in the Church of Rome and what the Reformed fathers found objectionable in Rome — in particular with respect to the mutilation of the gospel of the true apostles and the Lord Jesus — one iota!  We wait to hear!

            But note what Calvin’s main criticism of the self proclaimed vicar of Christ is — not that he and his henchmen with barbaric cruelty persecuted the righteous (with a malice and cruelty unmatched until the days of Hitler and his “Jewish solution”), though he (they) did — but for his (their) “...furiously persecuting the gospel.”  Calvin’s first and primary criticism was what Rome under the direction of the so-called successors of Peter did to Christ’s gospel!  Those who would speak well of this late, great pope and speak of him as a brother in the faith had better be able to explain to the Lord of the apostles how this so-called successor of Peter in anyway repented of the doctrinal errors and monstrous teachings of Rome and sought to lead his church back to the true doctrines of Christ Jesus.  Where is any evidence of that?

            True, he eschewed moral relativism; took a public stand against the appalling evils of abortion, homosexual unions, and the abuse of and trafficking of children; and he even continued to bar women from holding church office in a day and age when it is unpopular to do so.  But these are not new stands for Rome.  Which of John Paul’s predecessors in the last couple of centuries did not maintain precisely the same things. 

            What about Rome’s false doctrines and even its view of itself as the One True Church of Christ?

            The simple fact is that within the Vatican itself the acknowledged legacy of John Paul II is that he was the most traditional of popes and made his beloved Church not a less authoritarian institution, but a more authoritarian one.  He strengthened the traditions of Rome’s Church.  This is what he worked with might and main to preserve and bolster, to restore the papacy to its role of supreme and unquestioned authority in the lives of its members, which authority had badly eroded over the decades previous to his rule.  He took his appeal to the people, to the laity.  In this he was successful.  As U.S. News & World Report reported, 

            The pope’s supporters, of course, celebrate his strictness, noting it weeded out what his biographer George Wiegel calls the “Lite brigades” within Catholicism.  “I think the Church is much stronger now,” says Michael Novak, an influential Catholic thinker... (April 11, 2005, pp. 28, 29).

            The point is, this pope did not repudiate one of Rome’s unbiblical doctrines, doctrines that so mutilate and persecute the gospel of Christ.

            This is the man who made it easier for the Romish Church to add to the list of the saints. Now not four verifiable miracles are required for canonization, but only two.  This so all the people can have one of their own as a local saint to pray to for intercession and miraculous help.  And it will not be long before this ‘papa’ John Paul II will be added to the list.  He did not discourage it in the least.  He was more than willing to have mere men be given the glory and honor that even the angels with horror refused (cf. Rev. 19:10:   “…and [the angel] said, see thou do it not:  I am thy fellow servant … worship God...”). 

            This was the man that was infatuated with Mary, the mother of our Lord.  She was the one to whom he gave credit for protecting him in the assassination attempt that nearly ended his life.  He openly promoted her as Co-redemptrix with her Son.  He raised Mariolatry to a whole new level.  This needs no demonstration.  Next to his coffin as the adoring multitudes came with their homage was a cross.  Affixed to it was a large letter M, his final homage to Mother Mary, to whom he prayed every day.  By word and example he taught the people to do the same.

            And this is Christianity?  This is praiseworthy how? 

            The only words that apply are those of the truly holy apostle Paul in Galatians 1:8,   “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.”  Paul is writing here about the gospel of salvation all of grace, grace that is centered wholly and entirely in that one mediator between God and man, Christ Jesus, God’s Son.  If the apostle Peter himself had proposed the adoration of mother Mary along with her Son, Paul would have anathematized him, demanding his repentance, and the forfeiture of his office as well.  

            And we as believers are to speak well of the late, great pope? 

            What he did do was to mend fences with Jews and Muslims, by apologizing to the Jews in particular for past atrocities committed against their communities by members of his Church, and by visiting and worshiping in synagogues and mosques.  He was so bold as to say, along with his admirer Rev. Billy Graham, they were all brothers in Christ, going to heaven by different ways.  No wonder so many were ready to forgive him so much.  In such light, his popularity becomes easier to understand. 

            He was a most ecumenically-minded pope.  In this way he is an advancement beyond his predecessors.  But as for Rome’s false, unbiblical doctrines that so persecute the true gospel and that, in the end, will lead  inevitably to the persecution of those who will not compromise the doctrines that will not give His glory to a mere man, he reflected nothing more than the age-old face of Rome.

            Do not imagine that what happened in this springtime of 2005 to honor this Bishop of Rome, labeled “Pastor to the World,” is not a portent of things to come, what one religious man at the right time with the right charisma can persuade a divided world, including those whom you would think would oppose him, to do.  And for the true friends of Daniel, it is not a portent of good.  Not to those who refuse to pay homage to this coming “Vicar of Christ,” the spiritual offspring of the late, great Vicar of Rome.  

PRC Synod Byron Center, 2005

Prof. Barry Gritters

            Members of the Protestant Reformed Churches (PRC) may be very thankful for denominational unity.  They may be grateful for the denomination.  That other denominations may have become hierarchical in their synods is no reason for members of the PRC to reject denominational structure.  Cautious of the misuse of authority, the PRC work in these broader gatherings in obedience to Jesus Christ, who calls churches to labor together in the cause of the gospel.

            On June 13, 2005, in Byron Center, and at the invitation of Byron Center PRC, the PRC synod will take up her agenda for the sake of the cause of God and truth as she is privileged to be involved in it.  Rev. Kenneth Koole, president of last year’s synod, will preach at the special worship service called to introduce the convening of synod.  All the PRC membership and any friends of the PRC are encouraged to attend this service as well as all the deliberations of synod.

            The business is significant.  It begins appropriately, every year the same.

            Picture in your minds the 20 delegates (5 ministers and 5 elders from each classis), immediately after election of officers on Tuesday morning of the first week, rising in unison to express assent as the new president reads the “Public Declaration of Agreement with the Three Forms of Unity” (please read the “Declaration” printed in the box).  With this important beginning, the men take up the churches’ work.

            The first business of synod this year will be the examination of the PRC’s seminary graduate, Mr. John Marcus, member of the Byron Center congregation.  The other graduate, Mr. Dennis Lee, is a member of the Evangelical Reformed Churches in Singapore.  After the delegates hear Mr. Marcus’ sermon on Tuesday morning, they break for committee work and the student returns home to finish preparations for two grueling days of oral examinations on Wednesday and Thursday before he is declared candidate for the ministry of the Word and sacraments in the PRC.

            The churches also rejoice that two more sons of the denomination are recommended by the Theological School Committee for admission to the seminary this fall — Mr. Nathan Dykstra, son of our Hudsonville, MI, congregation; and Mr. Cory Griess, a son of our Loveland, CO, congregation.  These will join, D.V., the other four who will continue at various stages in their studies, so that we will have two fourth-year, one third-year, one second-year, and two first-year students.  (In the fall, we hope to give more information from the seminary of the activities here.)

            The Student Aid Committee (SAC) submits a budget of a little over $52,000 for the upcoming school year.  This includes $11,350 for internship expenses.  The committee also proposes a plan for special church offerings to support students whose needs exceed the maximum allowable amount from synodical assessments.  The monies would still be governed by the SAC and would be distributed according to need, but the “broader covenant community” would be given the opportunity to “assist with the student’s needs by providing an outlet for free-will giving.”

            The Theological School Committee presents three ministers to synod for calling a replacement for Prof. D. Engelsma:  the Rev. Ronald Cammenga (Faith PRC, Jenison, MI), the Rev. Steven Key (Hull PRC, Hull, IA), and the Rev. Kenneth Koole (Grandville PRC, Grandville, MI).  Each of these men is an experienced minister, ranging from nineteen to twenty-seven years in the pastorate.  The rule synod follows is that when a faculty member reaches the age of 65, a process begins to replace him so that he can be fully retired by age 70.

            The Domestic Mission Committee (DMC) includes reports from the three missionaries and the calling church for each (Loveland and Rev. T. Miersma; Southwest and Rev. J. Mahtani; Hudsonville and Rev. A. Stewart), and includes a summary of the labors in the past year.  No major recommendations are brought for any of the fields.  There is an optimistic forecast of organization for Northern Ireland next year, God willing, and a report of significant growth of the mission group in Spokane.  Rev. Miersma marks 10 years as home missionary this year.  Eastern Home missions prospers as well, and Missionary Jai Mahtani says that the answer to the hopeful question about imminent organization for them is, with God’s blessings, perhaps in 2-4 years.

            The DMC includes a significant study on administering the Lord’s Supper on the mission field.  The lengthy report (16 pages) examines the history of the question in the PRC since the 1950s.  Among other recommendations in the report, the major issue synod will face is this recommendation:  that synod declare that a calling church may, under certain very specific circumstances, administer the Lord’s Supper in a mission setting where the group is not yet ready to be organized as a church.

            The Foreign Mission Committee (FMC) reports on the labors in two fields—Ghana and the Philippines—and includes reports from both missionaries and their calling consistories.  Noteworthy is the long, joint report from Hull PRC (calling church) and the FMC about the mission work in Ghana.  After examining the short history of the PRC’s work there and past synodical decisions, the report makes extended and sober observations: 

1) After some six years of labor in Ghana, there is at present no indication that we will be able to establish a congregation in Ashaley Botwe….  2)  Our Western affluence and various errors in the sending of money to the field and the distribution of money on the field have led to substantial damage on this field….  3)  Numerous mistakes made in our labors in Ghana have proven to be intractable….  4)  … in some cases … decisions were not executed as originally planned, and … many … principles and guidelines were not followed or were not carried out as we had desired.  5)  [Hull and the FMC] sense a lack of support for the field in the calling church and in the churches….  6)  … we are convinced that we are not capable of undertaking [work in another area of Accra].

            These observations lead to a grounded recommendation that synod authorize Hull council and the FMC to close the field in an orderly and brotherly manner and report to Synod 2006.  Hull and the FMC recommend hearty thanks be extended to the missionaries and their wives and the volunteer assistants who labored with them.

            The FMC relates that the labors in the Philippines are prospering, so that the main group with which Missionary Spriensma works may well be ready for organization by the time of next synod.  The group is stable, has about 16 families, includes men qualified for office, and is a “vibrant, committed fellowship.”  There is even mention in the emissaries’ report of the possible need to call another missionary to the Philippines on account of:  1) the large amount of work, 2) the uncertainty of visa extensions with apparently new rules for missionaries from the government, and 3) the health concerns of the missionary’s daughter.

            The PRC’s Committee for Contact with Other Churches reports that the missionary-on-loan to the Evangelical Reformed Churches in Singapore (ERCS), the Rev. Arie denHartog, has accepted the call to serve as pastor of the Southwest PRC in Grandville, MI.  The churches in Singapore inform the PRC that there is not a need at present for another missionary-on-loan.  The Contact Committee has been busy corresponding with the ERCS on the matter of divorce and remarriage.  Recently, a divorced and remarried person was allowed to remain a member in good standing in First ERCS.  A committee of the ERCS classis has been studying the remarriage issue for some time.  The ERCS classis has urged an August 8 deadline for the report, at which time a special classis is to be convened to bring the matter to a conclusion.  As this all affects the ability to continue with full sister-church relations between the PRC and the ERCS, synod will deal with this matter in the earnest prayer that our long and rich fellowship with the brethren in Singapore can be maintained.

            The Committee for Contact with Other Churches informs synod that a conference planned with the brethren of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church of Australia has been postponed, due to scheduling problems on both sides.  Attempts to reschedule are underway.  On a different note, the Committee for Contact received a request from the EPC to define a “less complete fraternal relationship” that would allow, under certain circumstances, opening the PRC pulpits to their ministers, as they do for PRC ministers.  (The PRC has only one level of formal relations with other churches—“full-sister,” in which pulpits are opened and memberships freely exchanged.)  The Contact Committee is also looking into the possibility of allowing the men of the EPC who are enrolled in the PRC seminary to “speak a word of edification” in PRCA pulpits (but will wait until 2006 to bring those recommendations).

            Except for the large but temporary spike in the budget for the seminary (replacing two professors at the same time), the costs to the denomination for their labors together appear to remain steady.

            Then there are reports from both Classis East and Classis West, from the Board of Trustees (an estate’s bequest of about $30,000), the Catechism Book committees, the Stated Clerk, the Emeritus Committee, the Finance Committee.   The delegates will have a busy couple of weeks. 

            Please visit the synod.  Visitors are welcome.  Come to the pre-synodical prayer service Monday evening.  Listen in on the student examinations Wednesday and Thursday.

            Especially, pray for the labors.  May the King be honored by careful deliberations and wise decisions.  May they be made on the basis of truth, truth as it is in Him who is full of grace and truth.  

Letters:

A Hard Doctrine?

            I think the issue of divorce and remarriage is a hard one.  I believe that, yes, divorce should happen only because of marital unfaithfulness, but the “no remarriage” part I have a hard time with.  After reading the article, I think I agree with what is written.  But it is not easy for me, because I know a few happily remarried couples, and it is difficult for me to believe that their relationship is wrong.  And yet, with the divorce rate so high, something is definitely wrong there.  Maybe if remarrying were more strongly discouraged, people would come to see what a serious commitment marriage is, and how it should be a lifelong pledge, and not a trial-and-error process.

Ashlee Stallinga
Lansing, Illinois  

 RESPONSE:

            I can appreciate your question.  There have been any number of ‘happy’ second marriages, unlike the first ones, so rocky and full of troubles.  But do not lose sight of the fact that a ‘happier’ second marriage does not prove that what somebody is involved in — a marriage to someone else than one’s first and real spouse — is right in God’s eyes.  On that basis even the Pharisees could in many instances justify their divorces and remarriages — because undoubtedly some of them were married first to nagging, complaining wives who were an embarrassment with their loud, shrill criticisms all the time.  But Jesus did not say, “All right, remarry if she or he is such a contentious person.  I could not bring myself to make you live with that!”  He still spoke against divorce and forbade remarriage (Matt. 5:31, 32).

            But also, if what you suggest is true, that the greater happiness of the second marriage (remarriage) is what justifies it, then believers should be allowed to divorce unbelievers who are unhappy with the believers’ faith, and should be allowed to remarry fellow believers.  But this is exactly what the apostle Paul, in the name of his Lord, would not allow.  Read I Corinthians 7:10 and what follows.  You may be sure that divorcing an unbelieving spouse and remarrying a believer would have been a ‘happier’ experience and a ‘better’ marriage in almost every instance, at least as far as we judge things.  In fact, that’s exactly what some of the earlier new converts to the Christian faith wanted permission to do.  Living with the unbelieving spouses was a difficult thing.  Being married to an interested believer would have been happier all around.  And yet, despite what would have made them happier, the apostle said they were not to do this.  (Read I Cor. 7:12 and 13.)  And in the event that a believing wife did leave an unbelieving husband (because he was cheating on her) the apostle is very clear — “But and if she depart; let her remain unmarried....”  Even where the first marriage breaks down, the apostle did not approve of a second marriage.  Even then, remain unmarried. 

            In the end, it is not ‘happiness’ that determines right from wrong, it is obedience, even in unhappy circumstances.  The command is not, “And be ye happy,” but “And be ye holy.”  When a believer does that, even if it means remaining single, he or she will find happiness in obeying the Lord.  If the church starts to make ‘happiness’ the reason remarriages are justified, there will be no end to the divorces and remarriages they would have to approve.  The trouble is, nothing would be any different then than what the unhappy circumstances presently are in the church.

            You are right, better and bolder instruction concerning marriage as a lifelong bond is what the members of the church need, especially the youth.  It is what has been lacking in too many instances.  But then the churches will also have to maintain what they have taught when marriages begin to unravel, hard as it may be, or all the instruction will soon be seen to be just a matter of empty words.

Rev K. Koole  

All Around Us:

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

The Rev. Norman Kansfield Ousted

            As a follow-up of my last article concerning the President of New Brunswick Theological Seminary, the Grand Rapids Press had the following in its March 26, 2005 edition:

            The Rev. Norman Kansfield’s presidency at New Brunswick Theological Seminary ends Sunday, after school officials voted to replace him three months before his contract expires.

            …Ecclesiastical charges have been filed against him that could lead to a church trial at the RCA General Synod this summer.

            Although the board reprimanded Kansfield, 65, when it earlier voted to not renew his contract, a trustee at the New Jersey seminary insisted his early exit was not because of the publicity.

            “We were more concerned, and remain most concerned, about what makes New Brunswick good and effective going forward,” said Larry Williams, vice moderator of the board of trustees.

            …The board also authorized a search for a permanent president and expressed appreciation for Kansfield’s 12 years of “faithful service.”

            Kansfield declined to comment on the board’s action.  He has said nothing in RCA policy forbids marrying gays and the church calls for pastoral treatment of those born homosexual.

            A committee is investigating church leaders’ complaints that Kansfield violated his vows by performing his daughter’s wedding.  The RCA has no specific rule against such ceremonies, but the General Synod has declared marriage is only between a man and a woman.

            Synod President the Rev. Steven VanderMolen said he doesn’t know whether the issue will go to trial at the General Synod in June but is confident delegates will uphold the RCA stance that homosexual practice is “contrary to Scripture.”

            It remains to be seen what effect this will have within the Reformed Church in America.  Other denominations are being torn apart on this divisive issue.  What will happen in the RCA?

            Another issue is the faithfulness of the church in exercising Christian discipline.  Will censure and, if necessary, excommunication take place if this minister of the gospel continues to hold to his conviction that the homosexual practice is not “contrary to Scripture”?

Then:  the issue of divorce and remarriage

            In most denominations divorce and remarriage no longer is an issue.  It comes, therefore, as somewhat a surprise that a denomination as large as the Church of England officially holds the same position as does the PRC.  Yes, officially they maintain this scriptural teaching, though millions of divorced Anglicans have managed to get around the restrictions.  The question of divorce and remarriage has arisen in England especially because Prince Charles will marry the divorcee Camilla Parker Bowles.  If or when he becomes King of England, he becomes the titular head of the Church of England.  The Grand Rapids Press, March 31, 2005, reports:

            Millions of divorced Anglicans in Britain have done what Prince Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles plan to do next week — remarry in a civil ceremony followed by a blessing from their pastor.  But none of them have been heir to the throne and the titular leadership of the Church of England.

            …The couple’s decision to take the well-traveled path around Anglican objections to divorce and remarriage underscores colliding opinions in Britain that could eventually rattle the Church of England, which plays an anchor role for the world’s 77 million-strong association of churches known as the Anglican Communion.

            The report continues by explaining that liberal Anglicans “appear either indifferent to the marriage or hope it opens the way for greater Anglican tolerance of divorce and remarriage.”  Some believe that a remarriage is better than living together “in sin” as these two have the past many years.  The position of the Anglican Church is stated:

            But conservatives feel Charles is trampling on Anglican traditions by marrying his longtime lover.  The reason:  Her ex-husband, Andrew Parker Bowles, is still alive.  According to church tenets, only Charles would be free to remarry because his former wife, Princess Diana, is dead….

            Unlike the Roman Catholic Church, the Church of England does not grant annulments that would clear the way for a religiously approved remarriage.  It also consistently stresses that marriage is a “lifelong covenant” and generally closes the door on a second chance sanctioned by the church.

            In 2002, the church’s governing body, the General Synod, loosened rules on remarriage in the church and gave parish priests discretion to decide whether the couple meets certain “exceptional circumstances.”  Among them: The new marriage should not “consecrate the old infidelity” – which, many say, would be the case with Charles and Camilla.

            So the position of the Protestant Reformed Churches is not so weird, so unheard-of, so “out-of-step” as so many claim.  The Anglican Church, with all of its other many problems, still officially maintains the teaching of Scripture that marriage is a “lifelong covenant.”  Remarriage is not officially condoned while one of the former partners remains living.  They have closed their eyes to the “millions” of their membership who have violated their official position, they have even allowed some “exceptional circumstances” where remarriage is allowed, but officially they maintain the teaching of Scripture.

            But there will be some interesting developments perhaps in another week (at the time of this writing) when Charles and Camilla marry.

TNIV: The Smorgasbord Bible

            Newspapers and magazines have reported on a major project of Zondervan publishing company.  Having launched the NIV a number of years ago, they have now produced a revision of that translation called the “Today’s New International Version of the Bible.”  Several years ago Zonder–van created a storm among evangelicals when they proposed introducing a new NIV that would be “gender-neutral.”  The storm was so great that Zondervan backed down (at least in the United States) and promised that they would not go ahead with this project.

            Now they have introduced the TNIV.  The Denver Post, February 20, 2005, introduced it thus:

            In what’s described as the largest Bible translation launch in history, a modernized version of the standard-bearer of evangelical Protestant Bibles is being hyped to believers and spiritual seekers in the prized 18- to 34-year-old demographic.

            A decade in the making, Today’s New International Version Bible (TNIV) is the work of Zondervan, a commercial Christian publisher, and the Colorado Springs-based International Bible Society, which is publishing versions for churches geared toward evangelizing.

            A team of 15 biblical scholars made some 50,000 changes to the New International Version (NIV) Bible, which debuted in 1978 and accounts for one in three Bible sales.

            In all, nine versions of the TNIV have been shipped to bookshelves in the past two weeks, from Bibles for men and women to “The Story,” a translation in novel form.  By trying to update old language and reflect the latest theological thinking, translators took a risk.  After all, evangelical Christians hold the Bible as their guiding authority and the literal word of God.

            The riskiest task was choosing which masculine references to pluralize in places the scholars concluded referred to people generally, not just men.

            When the TNIV New Testament was released in 2002, more than 100 conservative Protestant scholars blasted the gender changes as theologically dubious and a front on a war against traditional gender roles.

            If TNIV’s advocates can minimize that damage, they face the challenge of selling a product to members of a hard-to-reach and savvy generation notoriously dismissive of marketing ploys aimed at them.

            The article continues by pointing out the various criticisms made against this new translation.  It quotes claims made that it is in fact more literal than the old NIV.  One would have to study it more carefully to know the facts of the case.  It is, however, disturbing to hear that there are nine versions of this TNIV:  one called “Strive” designed to appeal to men, another, “True Identity” designed to appeal to women, as well as other versions designed to appeal to youth and the unconverted.  All of this is in harmony with the principle guiding translators of the original NIV: “dynamic equivalence.”  The translators would not translate necessarily literally, but would use the “equivalence” in today’s language.  These nine versions go quite a step beyond that—a version for each of nine distinct groups.  One can only wonder how one version differs from another so as to appeal to a specific category of people.  And once again one must face the question: if the original writing of the Bible is inspired, infallible, and inerrant, ought not one translation suffice?  Ought not a translation be as close as possible to the originals?  Is this Bible being changed in order to attract people?  The memorization of scriptural passages will become ever more difficult.  Who knows whether a person quotes correctly?  From what version is he quoting?  It is disturbing, too, that now translations must be repeatedly modernized.  Does this in fact help—or does it create increased confusion?  One asks: “Which Word of God are you quoting?”  And: “Is that one really the very Word of God?”  I fear that the TNIV only contributes to the confusion related to multiple translations.  

Understanding the Times:

Mr. Calvin Kalsbeek

Mr. Kalsbeek is a teacher in Covenant Christian High School and a member of Hope Protestant Reformed Church, Walker, Michigan.
      Previous article in this series:  May 1, 2005, p. 357.

 Islam (3)

A Little Politics and Law: Shari’a (concl.)

Western-Style Shari’a Still Promoted

         With the abundance of historical evidence demonstrating the failure of the church and state working in concert to achieve positive, God-glorifying results, it would seem the part of wisdom for much of Western Christianity to reconsider its ideas on the kingdom.  Current church activity suggests, however, that we are in for still more of the same old attempts to establish unbiblical relationships between church and state.

            “Faith-based initiatives” approved by our government and encouraged by many church leaders is one obvious example.  The current wisdom seems to be that, since the church is adept at addressing many of society’s welfare concerns in a fiscally responsible way, the state will do well to use the church for this purpose.  The problem is that along with state money comes the inevitable puppet strings.  While the church may think the state’s money will help achieve great things for God’s kingdom, little does she realize (or care?) that the strings attached will keep her from properly serving her Lord in the dispensing of these government monies.  At the same time she will become dependent upon the state.

            Christian Reconstruction has its own postmillennial plan for church and state.  Proponent of Christian Reconstruction Gary North expresses their goal as follows:

 

            Christians are called by God to exercise authority in every area of life.  God has transferred the ownership of the world to Christians, just as he transferred it to Adam before he rebelled.  We now are called to take possession of the world in terms of God’s covenantal principles, and by means of God’s sovereign grace.[1] 

            In their view “biblical law is Christianity’s tool of dominion."[2]   While North insists “that political action is not [North’s emphasis, ck] primary,"[3]  and that they seek to achieve their goals merely by promoting social change, the fact remains, when all is said and done, that they end up with a rule by means of biblical law.  One wonders, which biblical laws will be enforced?  Just the 10 Commandments, or some of the other Old Testament laws as well?  If so, which ones?  Who gets to decide which biblical laws apply?  If just the 10 Commandments, how will the tenth commandment be enforced?  What about the consequences for those who do not obey?  Are the Old Testament penalties also to be exercised?  (Many supporters of Christian Reconstruction desire public stoning for many sins.)  How will this be any different from life under the Shari’a and Iran’s Islamic ayatollahs or the Taliban who formerly ruled in Afghanistan?

            “Focus on the Family’s” James Dobson seems to be promoting a similar program as he works to bring the Bush administration under the influence of the Association of Evangelicals.  With “about 90 denominations under the evangelical umbrella"[4]  and a voting block of about 30 million members, Dobson and his supporters obviously wield significant political clout.  As further reported in Time:

            Dobson has never been so baldly political.  Before the election, he stepped down from the presidency of Focus (he’s still chairman) to launch Focus on the Family Action, a fundraising and grassroots organizing engine free of the political spending limits imposed on the nonprofit Focus.  The move allowed Dobson to make his first presidential endorsement (for President Bush), to write to hundreds of thousands of Focus constituents in states with tight Senate races with political advice, and to appear in ads to unseat then Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle in South Dakota.  Last fall, Dobson hosted huge “stand for family” rallies—widely seen as supportive of Republican candidates—in close Senate race states, while Focus helped distribute an eye-popping 8 million voting guides.  “I can’t think of anybody who had more impact than Dr. Dobson” on social conservatives this election, says Richard Viguerie, the GOP direct-mail pioneer.  “He was the 800-pound gorilla."[5}

            While believers can agree with many of the causes that Dobson supports, by employing churches as a means to pressure the government he makes it clear that “The Dobson Way” is not the biblical way.  

            Closer to home, some in the Reformed camp also seem to be promoting an unbiblical role of the church with respect to the state because of a faulty view of the kingdom.  In his review of the book Light for the City:  Calvin’s Preaching, Source of Life and Liberty by Lester DeKoster, Prof. Barrett L. Gritters writes:

            The thinking [of DeKoster, ck] runs like this: God’s ultimate goal in the world in human history is not the gathering of His church but the reformation of the world.  The cities of the world will become the “city of God.”  Politically, culturally, socially, they must (and will) be transformed….  The instrument by which this transformation will take place is the church.[6] 

The Non-Shari’a Way

            Will the church never learn?  Examples from her own history in ancient times under Emperor Constantine, in medieval times under Pope Innocent III, and in modern times under a state-church in the Netherlands should be warning enough.  Today Islamic Shari’a shouts out its own warning to the church:  “Beware, this can happen to you too!”  

            Those who would be tempted to promote such relationships between church and state would do well to consider the biblical and confessional alternative:

            The state is separate from, and independent of, the church.  A strong doctrine of the separation of church and state is not an American theory.  It is the plain teaching of the Bible in both testaments….

            As an institution of providence, rather than grace, as an institution based on God’s revelation in creation, rather than the revelation of Scripture, and as an institution separate from and independent of the church, the state has its own peculiar calling.  This calling is radically different from the calling of the church.  The calling of the state is to maintain earthly peace and order in the life of the nation.  By carrying out this calling, the state proves itself the servant of God.[7]  

            By submitting herself to the God-ordained order of things, modern-day Israel demonstrates her faithfulness to her Lord and experiences His blessing.  

   1.   Gary De Mar and Gary North, Christian Reconstruction: What It Is, What It Isn’t (Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, 1991), p. 57.

   2.   De Mar, p. 160.

   3.   De Mar, p. 161.

   4.   Dan Gilgoff, “The Dobson Way,” Time 17 Jan. 2005:  p. 69.

   5.   Gilgoff, p. 65.

   6.   Barrett L. Gritters, “Book Review,” Protestant Reformed Theological Journal, vol. 38, Nov. 2004:105

   7.   David J. Engelsma, “Messianic Kingdom and Civil Government,” Protestant Reformed Theological Journal, vol. 37, April 2004:31 & 34.

Ministering to the Saints:

The Fundamental Work of the Deacons (9)

Caring for the Poor Who Move Away from the Congregation

 Rev. Doug Kuiper

Rev. Kuiper is pastor of the Protestant Reformed Church in Randolph, Wisconsin.
      Previous article in this series:  March 15, 2005, p. 278.

            The Christian, godly care of the poor is the fundamental work of deacons in the church of Jesus Christ.  To guide deacons of Reformed churches in doing this work, the Church Order approved by the Synod of Dordrecht (1618-1619) spells out the work of deacons in three articles — 25, 26, and 83.

            With one exception, we have explained fully the requirements of Article 25.  That exception, to be treated later if the Lord wills, is the requirement that deacons render an account of their work to the consistory.  We have seen that deacons must gather the alms, evaluate the needs of the poor, distribute the alms, and visit and comfort the distressed.  We have also argued that deacons must show their Christian, godly care not only to the poor within their congregation, but also to Christian poor of other congregations, and to unbelieving poor of whose need the deacons become aware.

            Several points in Article 26 remain to be treated, although we have already touched on this point, that diaconates must assist and consult with each other.

            For the moment, we examine Article 83, which reads:  “Furthermore, to the poor, removing for sufficient reasons, so much money for traveling shall be given by the deacons as they deem adequate.  The consistory and deacons shall, however, see to it that they be not too much inclined to relieve their churches of the poor, with whom they would without necessity burden other churches."[1]

            The Synod of Dordrecht did not adopt Article 83 as worded above.  The original wording, translated into English, is this:  “Furthermore, the poor, leaving for sufficient reasons, shall be given help from the deacons, according to discretion, provided that there is notification on the back of their attestation [papers] of the places where they intend to go and the help which one shall have given them."[2]

            Knowing the historical context in which this article was written will explain the original wording of the article.

            In the early days of the Reformed churches, many Reformed believers fled their homes because of persecution, or left to look for work in other areas.  These sought and received food, shelter, and money from Reformed diaconates in the communities through which they journeyed.  As often happens, lazy people in the community heard of the possibility of free handouts and pretended to be Reformed believers in need of help.

            To discourage these lazy people from asking for help, and better to help those who were truly Reformed and truly needy, the Synod of Emden in 1571 made provision for traveling Reformed believers to carry attestations, or certificates, which “should indicate the full name of the holder, his native country, trade, reason for moving, time spent in the Church giving the attestation, conduct, date of departure, destination, etc."[3]  Such attestations were given only to those who, in their consistory’s judgment, had good reason to move.  Those not producing such an attestation would not receive help from Reformed diaconates.  Those who did have such attestations could receive enough money to care for them while they were in that city, and enough money to bring them to the next Reformed church on their journey.  When finally they reached their destination, the Reformed church of that city would destroy the attestation.

            In light of the different times and circumstances in which we live, two changes have been made to the article’s original wording.  First, the reference to attestations has been removed.  Second, a warning to consistories and deacons was added, reminding them not to be eager to relieve themselves of their poor.  These changes were made by the Reformed churches in the Netherlands in 1905, and by the Christian Reformed Church in North America in 1914 — which change the Protestant Reformed Churches retained when they began in 1924.[4]

            Article 83 regulates the deacons’ activity toward the poor who move away from the congregation of which they are members.  When this happens, the deacons are to provide those poor with enough money as the deacons consider sufficient.

            Notice, first, that this applies to those who are poor.  The article does not suggest that anyone who moves away from the congregation may ask the deacons for monetary support.  Only the poor may do so.  In this particular instance, we may define the poor as those who have been dependent on the deacons for financial help for some time.  In other words, the article is not speaking to the case of one who has never needed diaconal help before, but now decides that the costs of his move are so great that he needs help.

            Secondly, the article applies only to those poor who move for sufficient reasons.