Vol. 80; No. 13; April 1, 2004
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.
Meditation – Rev. Martin VanderWal
Editorially
Speaking…
-- Prof. David J. Engelsma
Editorial
-- Prof. David J. Engelsma
Letters
· Response
· In
Favor of the “Vernacular”
Feature
Article
– Slabbert LeCornu
· The
Reformed Churches of South Africa
When
Thou Sittest in Thine House – Rev. Wilbur Bruinsma
That
They May Teach Them to Their Children – Prof. Russell Dykstra
· Two
Covenants, Two Schools (3)
Report
of Classis West
– Rev. Daniel Kleyn, Stated Clerk
News
From Our Churches
– Mr. Benjamin Wigger
· Varia
Rev. Martin VanderWal
Rev. VanderWal is pastor of Hope Protestant Reformed
Church in Redlands, California.
Come, See the Place!
“And
the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus,
which was crucified. He is not here: for he
is risen, as he said. Come, see the place
where the Lord lay.”
Matthew
28:5, 6
The women feared indeed!
They came with fear to the grave
early that morning on the first day of the week. They
had witnessed the horrible death of their beloved Lord upon the tree of the cross. They grieved at the shame He endured at the hands
of men. They trembled before the power of
God’s wrath executed in the three hours of darkness.
They were deeply troubled by their Lord’s cry, “My God, my God, why hast
thou forsaken me?” Then He had been
taken from them by the cold hand of death. Their
hearts were rent asunder by their Lord’s death.
They were also filled with fear. How
much light they had by His teaching! Now that
light was extinguished. How much peace they
felt in His company! Now there was only
restless brooding. What would their future
hold? Would they suffer the same ridicule and
scorn, perhaps the very same death?
In that fear they came to the
grave where their Lord had been laid.
Approaching nigh to that grave,
they met with another cause for fear!
That cause, and that fear, was
altogether different.
This fear was the fear of
sinners before the glory of a holy and majestic God.
The angels, sent by God to bear these glad tidings, brought with them the glory of
God. Before that brilliant glory these women
were filled with great fear. They were weak
creatures. They were sinners. Before that glory they felt their sins and their
corruption as never before. It lay upon them
as a heavy weight. Where was the peace they
thought they possessed? Would not this
burning fire of God’s glory consume them utterly?
Fear of men! Fear of God!
Where would they turn? Where was any
comfort and peace to be found?
That fear of men must be
banished. Their fear of God must not be
terror at impending destruction. That fear
must give way to peace. A proper, holy fear
it must rather be. Their fear of God must
rather be mingled with joy and love. It must
be that the great God of heaven and earth has saved them by great and terrible works,
works far beyond their ability to conceive. Their
tumult of soul must be stilled.
Peace is the purpose of the
glorious, glad tidings given on this first day of the week.
He is not here: for He is risen, as He said!
The angel himself speaks these
words. What a difference this must make! Suddenly, his glory is no longer a thing to
terrify! That glory now gives these words all
the weight necessary to cut through every doubt and every fear. By grace, that glory drives the glad tidings to
the depths of the soul, banishing all dread. There
is now peace and calm.
He is risen!
The Lord had been taken from the
women by the enemy. He had borne the shame
and ridicule of His enemies. The crown of
thorns, the lash of the whip, the nails, the cross, the spear He endured, even as
instruments to bring Him to death. Into that
cold hand of death His enemies thought to have given Christ over forever.
But now death is subject to Him! Over His enemies and their horrible instruments
He has triumphed gloriously! Let them now
fall silent, put wholly to shame.
Three days earlier the Lord had
left these women. Lonely must have been the
way to Calvary’s hill. No room had there
been for the disciples, let alone the women. The
Mediator must carry on His work alone. Alone
He must bear the wrath of God. He must be cut
off out of the land of the living. Alone He
must suffer in absolute darkness the hell into which He descended. Alone He must sink, even into death and the grave.
But now He has returned from
death and the grave. He has returned to be
their Savior and Lord!
He is risen!
As the words of the angel filled
the ears of these women, their hearts are filled with joy.
Their sorrow is gone. How great their
Lord is! They had known something of His
greatness by His past words and works. How
much greater He must be by His resurrection! How
much more glorious is He by His triumph over death and the grave! He is the Lord of glory!
Of that glorious triumph, which
gives true peace and joy, there is absolute proof. Not
only does the angel have something to tell, he
has something to show. He ushers the women
into the tomb with the words, “Come, see the place where the Lord lay!”
Those words were of great
significance.
The women had before seen that
place of which the angel spoke. They beheld
Joseph and Nicodemus lay the body of their dead Lord there.
Earlier on Sunday morning they had fully expected to find that body in exactly the
same place. To that body they wished to
attend, bestowing upon it the last care they might ever give.
Apart from the glorious words of
the angel, an empty tomb would only have increased their sorrow. They could have only supposed that someone had
stolen the body of their dead Lord. Frustrated
would have been their desire to bestow this last act of love. The one final opportunity to show honor to their
departed Master would have been denied them. Their
Lord’s body was no longer there.
But with the words spoken by the
angel, all is joy. The heavy burden is lifted
from their shoulders. Fear is banished. Peace now floods their soul.
Now that grave is a place of
great joy. For where the Lord lay He lies no
more. He has been raised. The emptiness of His grave is the joyful proof
that the Lord lives.
He lives!
Hear with the ear of faith the
call of the angel, “Come, see the place where the Lord lay.” See with your eye of faith the empty tomb. Know and understand that there the Lord did lie,
but no longer. He has been raised by the
mighty power of God.
Rejoice in that empty grave! Nothing there to see! Empty and void!
Grand and eloquent is the
testimony of this empty grave, accompanied by the words of the heavenly messenger! It speaks of great things. It speaks not only of the glory of the Lord who
had been laid there, but also of our salvation by that glory.
We bring to that empty grave our
questions. From it we hear answers most
blessed!
It bears witness of the
forgiveness of our sins. The One whose body
was laid there died for our sins. In our
stead He died on the cross. At Calvary He
took our guilt upon Himself, that we might be declared innocent. Upon that cross He died, going to death for us
His people. Only by suffering that bitter end
might He wholly remove our sin.
Was that suffering complete? Did He remove all our guilt and sin? Did God find the sacrifice of His dear Son the
perfect atonement for all our sins? Might
there be a sin remaining, one neglected out of so many, left uncovered? Might there be a sin so heinous that it could not
be covered?
Come, see the place where the
Lord lay!
That sacrifice is the full
payment. Our sins are forgiven. We are given the title to heaven, our inheritance
by His perfect sacrifice alone. Nothing can
possibly be added! Nothing was left undone!
That empty grave also testifies
to us of our present condition. We sin often,
and we sin grievously against God. We
determine to obey, and we disobey. We seek
the glory of God, but we fall far short. We
find within us every token of the corruption of sin.
Is there no deliverance? Must we
groan, despairing of ever doing anything good, anything pleasing to God?
Come, see the place where the
Lord lay!
Just as Christ was raised from
the dead, so are we raised up to a new life. Joined
as we are to Christ by the Holy Spirit of Christ, the chains of sin are broken. We are freed to love and serve God. So must we also, having reckoned ourselves dead
unto sin by the death of Christ, reckon ourselves to be alive unto God through Jesus
Christ our Lord.
Risen with Christ! The empty grave is the destruction of sin’s
dominion, never again to reign.
That empty grave also testifies
to us of our future. Apart from that empty
grave, our future would be truly bleak. Should
the Lord tarry, we will follow the generation before us into the grave. There our bodies will lie, undergoing corruption. They will fall into the very dust from which they
came. Generation after generation, born,
dying, buried, corrupted beyond any possible restoration.
Where is the hope? Where is the
comfort? How can we possibly bury our beloved
in their graves in hope? Why should we have
any hope or confidence, before the truth of our own death?
Come, see the place where the
Lord lay!
Just as Christ is risen, so also
shall we who die in the Lord rise in Him and by Him.
Through death unto life! As Christ has
risen, so shall He cause all His elect to rise again on the blessed day of His return. He shall utter His voice, and the dead shall rise. The elect He shall conform, even in their bodies,
to the pattern of His blessed, glorious body. All
of them shall He take to live with Him forever and ever.
His empty grave will become our
empty graves!
By faith hear the word of the
angel that drives out all fear. “He is
not here: for he is risen, as he said.” By faith see the place where the Lord lay. Rejoice
in His glorious resurrection! No fear: only
wondrous peace! Justified, sanctified,
glorified. All by the resurrection of our
Lord Jesus Christ.
“Come, see the place where
the Lord lay!”
Editorially Speaking...
In
this issue of the Standard Bearer, we
begin a three-part series on the history and present doctrinal and spiritual condition of
the Dutch Reformed church in South Africa. The
articles feature the Gereformeerde Kerken van Suid-Africa (Reformed Churches of
South Africa), known popularly as the “Dopper” churches. In the past, this has been the soundest of the
Reformed churches in South Africa.
Most readers of the Standard
Bearer have little knowledge of the Reformed church in South Africa and its present
struggles. The only mention of the Reformed
churches in South Africa by the religious press in North America has been castigation of
apartheid. The more important issues of
faithfulness in doctrine and worship are of no concern to these magazines and journals.
There are theological
developments in the Reformed churches in South Africa that are of the greatest interest to
all who love the Reformed faith. The report
that begins in this issue informs us of these developments.
The author is Mr. Slabbert Le
Cornu. Mr. Le Cornu is a fourth-year
theological student at the theological school of the Reformed Churches of South Africa in
Potchefstroom. We thank him for this account
of the Reformed church and faith in South Africa.
The editorial in this issue,
interrupting the series on assurance, is the text of a speech given to the students and
faculty of Covenant Christian High School in Walker, MI.
At the request of the administration of the school, I explained why Reformed
Christians, particularly the students at Covenant, ought not to attend the movie The
Passion of the Christ. The speech was
given the morning of February 25. The movie
was to be released to the public that evening. Because
many have requested a copy of the speech and because the speech may be of benefit to a
wider audience, I publish it here.
Editorial:
Prof. David Engelsma
*
The speech given to the students and faculty of Covenant Christian High School, Grand
Rapids, MI the morning of February 25, 2004. The
movie opened to the general public that evening.
Why a Reformed Christian May Not Attend the
Movie,
and What He or She Must Witness to Those Who Do*
Galatians
3:1: O foolish Galatians, who hath
bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been
evidently set forth, crucified among you?
Galatians 3:13: Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the
law, being made a curse for us: for it is
written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree.
Galatians 6: 14: But God forbid that I should glory, save in the
cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the
world.
Today, Hollywood—great enemy
of the Christian faith and destroyer of untold number of souls—releases a new movie, The
Passion of the Christ. Note the date: February 25.
Because the subject of the movie
is the suffering and death of Jesus Christ, many Christian leaders, churches, and
professing Christians praise the movie, attend the movie, and encourage attendance of the
movie. They praise and attend the movie as a
religious, spiritual experience.
I warn all of us against attending.
Whoever attends the movie will
be sinning. The sin will be grievous sin
against our beloved Lord Jesus Christ and His glorious cross. It would not be nearly so wicked to attend a
filthy, X-rated movie.
I will prove that attending
would be sin. The reasons for not attending
will also be the witness you can give to others, why they should not attend.
Blasphemy
To attend the movie, The
Passion of the Christ, would be to make yourself guilty of the blasphemy of the movie. Blasphemy is contemptuous insult of and bold
attack on the holy God and our glorious Lord Jesus Christ, by word and by deed. A sinful, shameful human—a Hollywood
actor!—dares to impersonate the sinless, glorious Jesus Christ. A corrupt man plays the “man of
sorrows.”
Blasphemy!
Besides, Christ is now risen
from the dead and become the spiritual Lord of glory at God’s right hand in heaven. It is wicked to try to present Christ “after
the flesh,” that is, in an earthly form. In
II Corinthians 5:16, the Bible says that true Christians do not know, or try to know,
Christ “after the flesh.”
In addition, although Jesus is a
true man, He is also God, and the divine nature of Jesus is never separated from His
manhood. Jesus’ Godhead was not
separated from His manhood even when He was on the cross.
Yes, especially on the cross, His Godhead was not separated from His manhood. Only because the one who suffered on the cross was
the eternal Son of God did His suffering have the worth and value to redeem you and me
from our sins.
A wicked human—a Hollywood
actor!—plays God.
Blasphemy!
The actor, the director, and the
movie itself break the first and second commandments of the law. About a man, they say, “This is God.” This breaks the first commandment, which forbids
having any other god than the triune, one, true, living, invisible God in heaven. About God, they say, “He has the form of the
Hollywood actor who plays Him.” This
breaks the second commandment, which forbids making any representation of God whatever.
Whoever attends the movie approves
the blasphemy, pays for the blasphemy, and participates in the blasphemy.
In Ephesians 5:11, the Bible
commands us, “Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather
reprove them.” The Passion of the
Christ is a blasphemous work of darkness. It
produces no fruit for God or for the church. We
reprove it.
The movie is blasphemous also
because it dares to dramatize and portray the once-for-all suffering and death of Jesus
Christ. It dramatizes the awesome crucifixion
of Christ. As God’s great deed in
history, to reveal His grace and justice, to redeem His elect church, and to judge the
wicked world (including the abomination that is Hollywood), the cross was perfectly
arranged by God in every detail. We have the
exact revelation in the Bible. For anyone to
try to reenact the cross is to spoil that marvelous deed of God in history. It is something like an ordinary house painter
touching up Rembrandt’s Night Watch with his paintbrush.
Fact is, the sufferings of Jesus
Christ may not, cannot, and must not be repeated. His
suffering was unique: the bearing of the
wrath of God as the substitute for His church. This
suffering cannot be pictured and dramatized.
Also, His sufferings were
completed when He died. They may not be
repeated. The Bible says, “Christ was
once offered to bear the sins of many” (Heb. 9:28).
The movie sacrifices Christ again.
Blasphemy!
Image
Worship
Second, to attend the movie
would be disobedience to the will of God that we learn Jesus Christ and His suffering only
from the Word of God: the Bible and the sound
preaching of the Bible.
The movie is not only, or even
mainly, entertainment. It intends to be, and
is, religious education and evangelism. It
has an educational and evangelistic effect on those who see it. It teaches the people about the “Jesus”
they see on the screen. It even converts
people to that “Jesus.” Protestant
and Roman Catholic leaders are urging their followers to see the movie for spiritual
benefit.
But the only way God is pleased
to give true knowledge of Christ and His cross is by the preaching and reading of His
Word. This is the teaching of Galatians 3:1,
which I read with you: Christ crucified is
“evidently set forth” to us in the preaching of the gospel and in the
sacraments. Our Reformed confession, the
Heidelberg Catechism, instructs us that it is God’s will to teach us “not by
dumb images, but by the lively preaching of His Word” (Q. 96). This will of God, that His people learn the gospel
of Christ only by the Word of God, is an important element of the second commandment of
the law.
To attend the movie with the
purpose of knowing the suffering of Christ, or knowing the suffering of Christ better,
would be sin against the second commandment.
The only other motive for
attending would be entertainment. Shall we
amuse ourselves of a Wednesday evening with the passion of Christ?
Regardless of the intention of
one who attends, the movie will educate him religiously.
But the education will be false and dangerous.
The movie teaches falsely about
Christ and the cross. It is not based on the
Bible alone. It is based also on
extra-biblical writings, specifically the supposed visions of a Roman Catholic mystic.
The movie teaches falsely also
because it gives the impression that the main suffering of Christ was physical—the
mockery, the beatings, the scourgings, the torture of the cross.
But the real suffering of Christ
was not physical. It was Christ’s
suffering of the wrath and curse of God, which no film can represent or picture. This is the teaching of Galatians 3:13, which I
read with you: God made Christ a curse for
us, for the Old Testament Scripture said, “Cursed is every one that hangeth on a
tree.” Because the real suffering of
Christ was the spiritual agony of hell, the Bible does not emphasize the physical
sufferings of Christ, or describe them in gory detail.
It mentions them. But it will not
allow us to concentrate on them.
Roman
Catholic Heresy
Third, one who might attend
would expose himself (deliberately, now that I have explained the movie to you) to Roman
Catholic teaching about Christ, the cross, and salvation.
The movie is Roman Catholic
propaganda. It will be released to the public
today, February 25. Why? Because today is Ash Wednesday, a Roman Catholic
holy day. The Roman Catholic director, Mr.
Gibson, has described the movie as a “Marian film.” The film features Mary, the mother of Jesus, as
much as it features Jesus. Mary is
prominently present at every step of the way to the cross, as at the cross itself. She is present in the movie as co-mediatrix and
co-redemptrix with Christ. She is a savior
with Jesus. We can only have Jesus as Savior
by means of Mary.
Not so subtly, the movie
promotes the Roman Catholic perversion of the Lord’s Supper, Rome’s mass. By the juxtaposition of images, the movie teaches
that the wine in the chalice of the mass has become the literal blood that flowed on
Calvary. By a scene in which, having kissed
the bloody body of Jesus, Mary turns to the camera with blood on her lips, the movie
teaches that we can and must drink the literal blood of Jesus with our physical mouths.
The very idea that people can be
saved by concentrating on Jesus’ physical sufferings and blood, so that they are
moved emotionally and thus attracted to Jesus, is a Roman Catholic notion. Where in this emotional attraction to a bloody
Jesus is knowledge of the righteousness of God? Where
is heart-felt knowledge of sin? Where is
repentance? Where is faith?
Roman Catholic teaching about
Mary, Jesus, the cross, and salvation is false doctrine.
Rome’s teaching about Mary is denial of Christ as the only mediator and
redeemer. Rome’s doctrine of the mass is
a denial of the one sacrifice of Christ and an accursed idolatry. This is not my judgment. This is your judgment, as of every other Reformed
Christian, for it is the judgment of the mass by the Heidelberg Catechism in Q. 80.
Rome’s doctrine of the
cross, that is, of the passion of the Christ, is a denial of the once-for-all sacrifice of
Christ. Rome’s Christ is never finished
suffering. This is evident in one of
Rome’s favorite images, the crucifix: a
cross on which Christ is still hanging. Rome
sacrifices Christ anew every time it celebrates the mass.
The Roman Catholic director sacrificed Christ afresh for the salvation of sinners
in the movie. The message of the movie is
that Christ goes on suffering and dying every time the film is shown.
You would not worship at a Roman
Catholic mass. You would not take instruction
from a Roman Catholic priest. Why would you
expose yourself to Roman Catholic heresy in a movie, which is a very effective form of
instruction?
Learning
the Cross at Church
Young people of the covenant of
God, to know Christ and His cross, go to the Bible, and go to church. There—there only—Christ Himself
teaches the truth about Himself and His sufferings, and He teaches in such a way that you
believe and are saved.
The movie threatens to ruin your
right knowledge of Christ and the cross, perhaps as long as you live. This morning, a Protestant leader said, on a
national network, “When you see this movie, you will never be able to read the Bible
again without the film’s images of the actor and of the crucifixion in your
mind.” The foolish man meant this as a
recommendation of the movie. God forbid that
you—or I—read the Bible or hear the gospel or come before God in prayer with
souls stamped by the vivid images of a movie.
Those who see the movie cry over
the sufferings of Christ. With the ticket to
this show come tissues.
Bathos!
We must not feel sorry for the
suffering Jesus. He told the weeping women
not to cry over Him as He was going to the cross: “Weep
not for me” (Luke 23:28).
Christ deserved His
suffering. He deserved all His
suffering. He had it all coming. His suffering was His just punishment at the hands
of God for your guilt and mine.
Don’t cry over the
sufferings of Christ, no, not one tear. Cursed
are the damp tissues. Cry over your sins that
brought Him to the cross, not over the cross.
The cross of Christ redeemed us. Therefore, as the Bible says in Galatians 6:14
(which I read with you), we glory in the cross of Christ.
The movie is evil. But it is a powerful medium. Satan will use it to hurt you, to corrupt your
pure knowledge of Jesus Christ.
Do not risk God’s judgment
upon those who involve themselves in the sinfulness of the movie.
Stay away! Rip up your ticket, if you already bought one!
Stay away, for your
Savior’s sake, who loved you and gave Himself for you.
Be separate from the profane
world and the foolish churches!
Give a witness. Give a witness by your behavior in not attending The
Passion of the Christ. Give a witness by
explaining your refusal to attend, when you have the opportunity. Give a witness by inviting people who want to know
about Christ and the cross to the gospel in our Reformed churches.
Say something like this: “Do you want to know Christ and His suffering
for sin? You can learn Him and His cross in
His church, not in a movie theater.”
— DJE
Letters
Delight
over Assurance
As
one who receives the Standard
Bearer
via overseas mail to the United Kingdom, I am always the victim of deliveries that are
either belated or not in sequence. Therefore,
I have to hand only numbers 7 and 9 of volume 80 containing your editorials on assurance. Nevertheless, I feel constrained to express my
delight at reading these two editorials on assurance.
As the assurance of which you
write is not ours, but a product of Almighty God’s gracious gift, it is a just and
inevitable consequence to claim that “it forms an integral part of salvation
itself.”
In the event that our earthly
experience has its weak moments, the assurance itself remains constant and irrevocable,
because it still rests in the hand of our Creator. Its
ownership has not been passed on to sinful man for him to manipulate. Assurance is not a
“work” of man.
Doubt of God’s assurance
is, simply put, unbelief. About this,
Scripture warns us, “Take heed,” because doubt is the fruit of an “evil
heart” (Heb. 3:12).
Let us, therefore, draw near to
God in full assurance of faith, not with full assurance of faith (Heb.
10:22).
Alan
J. Best
Cardiff,
Wales, UK
A few things need to be said, I think, about the recent discussion in our Standard
Bearer
concerning “gospel services” (Standard Bearer, Nov. 1, 2003,
“Mission Preaching in the Established Church: The
Gospel Service”).
I dislike arguments over
terminology, but the term “gospel service” to designate a particular type of
service for the particular purpose of engaging in missions strikes me as singularly
inappropriate. Every true worship service is
a “gospel service.”
Nor is the term biblical. While we may claim the right to invent our own
vocabulary to express certain ideas, and while we may pour into such terms Reformed
connotations, it is not wise to borrow terms from Arminian circles and attempt to give
them Reformed meanings. This is confusion.
A “gospel service,”
intended to be a deviation from the usual worship service in its character and purpose,
puts an emphasis on the human side to preaching, which the worship ought not to have. The idea suggests (if not implies) that
straight-forward preaching, which brings Scripture in all its force and is the kind of
preaching our churches strive to promote, is inadequate to reach unbelievers. For the purpose of reaching unbelievers, we need
to adjust our services with a different kind of preaching — a preaching that is
preceded by an advertising blitz and by a certain preparation of the members of the
congregation; that is adapted to ignorant people who have no knowledge of Scripture; and
that uses simple terminology, etc.
What needs to be emphasized in
our day of careless preaching is that the gospel is still the power of God unto salvation,
and that a profound sermon on sovereign predestination, including the doctrines of both
election and reprobation, can be (and frequently is) used by God to bring sinners to
repentance and faith in Christ. This is the
example set down in Paul’s epistle to the Romans — a letter to a newly formed
and profoundly evangelistic congregation. It
is the example we are to follow.
But it is the address of the
gospel in which I am particularly interested. This,
more than anything else, is the point at issue.
The minister in the local
congregation addresses the gospel to the local congregation. What is that local congregation? It is the gathering of believers and their seed. The minister is right when he begins the worship
service with the words: “Beloved in our
Lord Jesus Christ.” He does not, as in
so many churches, address his audience on Sunday morning with the words: “Esteemed audience,” “Worthy
hearers,” or something similar. The
minister addresses the congregation as God’s beloved, because that congregation is
the object of God’s everlasting love. It
is the bride of Christ for whom He gave His life. It
is the apple of God’s eye, a church so profoundly loved by God that God will do
anything and everything necessary to save her. It
is the church destined to live in glory forever in fellowship with God.
I find a great comfort in
hearing these words at the beginning of the worship service. The week has been extraordinarily difficult. Many problems had to be faced and the work was
great. I am weary. Sins multiplied and rose up against me prevailing
day by day. I almost was staggering
(spiritually) when I crept into church on Sunday morning.
The question would not be set aside: “Am
I worthy to appear before God in His holy temple? Will
God receive me after such a disastrous week?” It
is with a sense of profound relief that I hear God say — at the outset: “Beloved…!”
It is the example of the
apostles (cf. Rom. 1:7; I Cor. 1:2; II Cor. 1:1; Eph. 1:1; Phil. 1:1; and almost all the
epistles). It paves the way for the
benediction. I personally do not see how the
benediction can be pronounced when the purpose of the service is to speak to the
unconverted: “Grace, mercy, and peace be
unto you.” And only the church
can respond with the words, “Our help is in the name of the Lord….” What happens to these beautiful parts of our
worship when the address is to the unconverted?
The essence of the gospel is
Isaiah’s instructions for the content of his preaching? “Comfort ye, comfort ye, my people, saith
your God…” (Is. 40:1). The church
needs to hear that — every Sunday.
Special services for the
unconverted must necessarily involve something different:
special texts to be used, special vocabulary to be employed, special emphasis on
the demand for repentance and conversion. The
people of God are temporarily neglected, referred to only indirectly, and not the audience
for this particular service. I must express
my disagreement with the following: “the
danger that a preacher who holds to this clear teaching of the Bible faces is that he may
draw a wrong conclusion, that he is to preach to the church as those who are saved and
secure in Christ, who do not need to hear a call to repent and believe because they are
saved already. If this is his view, he would
conclude that there is no need for ‘mission preaching’…” (SB
April 1, 2003, p. 302).
Nothing could be farther from
the mind of a faithful preacher. Conversion,
repentance, and the call to faith in Christ must be preached in the church of Christ,
God’s Beloved (Heid. Cat., LD 31, Q. 84). Carnal
seed is present in the church — always. This
in no way detracts from the fact that that church, in spite of the wicked hypocrites in
her midst, is God’s beloved, Christ’s bride.
A farmer calls his field a wheat field because that is his purpose in laboring in
it — even though it has thistles and pigweed. God
calls His church His beloved, for such it is. The
presence of carnal seed does not alter that — any more than the presence of wicked in
Corinth altered Paul’s address.
Further, we live in a world of
sin and possess sinful natures. Every child
of God is in need of conversion, not only on the Lord’s Day, but every day of the
week. Every child of God must be called to
repentance and faith in Christ. Every child
of God must be pointed to his sin, which he must before God forsake. Every child of God must be torn by the power of
preaching from his inordinate love of the world to faith in Christ.
But we may not jump from this
obvious fact to the need for a special service, directly to the unconverted. The minister must tell the congregation: You are Christ’s bride by a wonder of grace. Now become what you already are. Live as Christ’s bride!
The church of Christ is a
witnessing church. I would even go so far as
to say that a church that is not a witnessing church may not expect the blessing of God in
the mission labors that that church performs through a called and ordained missionary. I am not, however, inclined to minimize the strong
witness of God’s people in the world. This
witness may not always be in word, and need not always be in word — although when the
occasion requires it and God sets someone directly on his path, he must confess the name
of his Savior. But the powerful and potent
witness of the members of the Protestant Reformed Churches, not to be minimized in its
effectiveness, is a witness of our Protestant Reformed Christian schools, the witness of
the stability of our family life, the witness of a strong and uncompromising condemnation
of divorce and remarriage, the witness of a sacrificial protest against ungodly labor
unions, the witness of faithful husbands and fathers who work diligently at their jobs
without engaging in the cursing, swearing, and foul language of those with whom they work,
the witness of godly covenant mothers who work day and night to establish covenant homes,
etc., etc. This is the kind of witness
noticed by the world. This is the kind of
witness to which Peter refers when in I Peter 3:15 he admonishes us to be ready always to
give an answer to those who ask of us a reason for the hope that lies within us. The implication of Peter’s admonition is that
we are asked! That is the important thing. We are asked why we are ready to support with our
taxes the government schools and at the same time pay enormous costs for covenant
education. We are asked why we are willing to
give up our jobs, when we have children at home that need food and clothing, to escape the
sin of membership in wicked labor unions.
America is not composed of
unconverted heathen who have never had contact with the gospel. It is a “Christian country”; i.e., a
country in which the gospel has been preached for generations. It is a country, therefore, in which God has
nearly accomplished His purpose. Let us not
underestimate the knowledge of the unbelievers about us.
Perhaps ignorance may be the problem with many, but it is an ignorance born out of
disinterest in their lives and in the lives of their forbears. God visits the iniquity of the fathers on the
children.
But our witness is strong and
powerful, and our neighbors, unconverted though they may be, see the parking lots of our
churches full twice on the Lord’s Day and our pews occupied by adults and children
morning and evening. They know why we do
this. They know why we have our own schools. Not only the public school on Riverbend Dr., but
also the Department of Education in Lansing, responsible for regulating the entire state
school system, knows our schools. Not only do
the workers in Keeler Brass know our stand against the union, but the UAW headquarters in
Detroit also knows.
This is not to say that God does
not save a remnant, brands plucked out of the burning.
But God is sovereign in His eternal purpose. Especially
in Europe and America God cuts off generations who are unfaithful and reject the gospel. He does not return to those generations. God does not continuously build walls in the
erection of His house; He puts a roof on it.
— (Prof.) H. Hanko
Response:
I have read carefully the
contribution of Prof. Hanko to our consideration of “Mission Preaching in the
Established Church.” Though the brother
expresses different ideas and some of them critical, we do appreciate them as it gives us
opportunity to develop some of them further and to work towards understanding in the minds
of our readers.
The brother makes the following
points, which I will attempt to address.
1.
The term “gospel service” is inappropriate as it is unbiblical and
Arminian.
2.
A special service for the purpose of bringing the gospel to invited neighbors is
wrong for two reasons: it emphasizes human
effort in bringing the gospel, and it conflicts with the unique character of worship,
which is Christ’s intimate fellowship with His body, the church.
3.
He criticizes the occasion for such a “gospel service,” which involves
the outreach of the members to their neighbors. He
offers two criticisms of such an effort: First,
the effective witness of the membership is the life and walk of each member, not the
speech (as is involved in canvassing the neighborhood, distributing literature, discussing
with them the truth, and inviting them to worship). Second,
the situation in America is much like that in Europe — people have had the gospel but
spurned it, hence God does not return to them and we cannot expect much results from such
effort anyway. There may be the remnant.
I will begin with the last one
because, if true, this method of outreach is ineffective and the entire subject of
“special services with a view to bringing the gospel to our neighbors” becomes
irrelevant and falls away.
The most important point that I
would like to make is that it is the duty and sacred privilege of every member of the
congregation to speak of his faith to his neighbors wherever he may be. He must do more than respond when others ask, he
must initiate such a conversation as God gives him opportunity. I agree that the foundation of such a witness is
the godly life of the believer. The Holy
Spirit expresses this in I Peter 3:15, 16: “But
sanctify the Lord God in your hearts and be ready always to give an answer….” Notice, the text does not say, sanctify the Lord
God in your walk, but it says, sanctify the Lord God in your hearts. Out of the heart comes forth the issues of life
(Prov. 4:23). This is called our conversation
in the New Testament (I Pet. 1:15). Such
conversation includes both our speech and our actions — word and deed. If we do this properly, we must be ready with our
defense of faith (“answer” in this text can be translated “apology” or
“defense”), since our neighbors will both hear and observe us and ask us the
reason for it.
The important role of the
individual believer in bearing witness of the gospel is repeated throughout the entire New
Testament. The so-called Great Commission of
Matthew 28:19, 20 includes foremost the task of the church sending forth missionaries and
pastors doing the work of an evangelist. The
success of such labors includes in a real sense the assistance of the members who give
their own witness. The apostles themselves
were surrounded with others, who assisted them and reasoned alongside of them, such as
Apollos (Acts 18:24-28). This passage also
refers to Priscilla and Aquila, who were lay-people, who explained the gospel in greater
detail to Apollos. We think of Acts 8:4,
which mentions that the persecuted Christians, who were scattered, went everywhere and
preached the Word. The Samaritan woman, upon
the occasion of her conversion, went and told the men of her city (John 4).
This is important to maintain
because this is the prophetic office that Christ gives to every believer. To be sure, much of the expression of this office
of prophet is within the domain of the covenant, within the home, church, and school. It is no less important to use it as we speak to
our neighbor. We are anointed by the Holy
Spirit, trained in the Word of God, motivated by love of God and the neighbor to initiate
speech with our neighbors. These neighbors
include those who work with us on the job, those who go to school with us in the
university, those who live next door or anywhere else.
The character of a prophet is irrepressible joy and conviction to speak the truth
in love. It is to nurture a godly
relationship with a non-Christian with a view to his salvation. This is not only biblical, it is also
confessional. The third reason the Heidelberg
Catechism cites as to why good works are necessary for the Christian (good works include
our proper speech as well as our actions) is that “by our godly conversation, others
may be gained to Christ” (Q. 86).
If God blesses such efforts, the
goal is to invite others to worship, to hear the voice of Christ Himself. Our witnessing is to speak about Christ to them
and to explain to them the reason of our hope as Christians. There is something far better, and that is that
they may sit with us at the feet of the Master to hear Him speak.
We are taught by the Word of God
that we may never limit our duty of labor because of the unlikely prospect of positive
results. We may never despise the day of
little things (Zech. 4:10). We must obey
Christ, no matter whether we may risk job, friendship, or even life. Even if all we may expect is the saving of a
remnant as a brand plucked out of the burning (Zech. 3:2), it is all worth while. The one lost sheep may be living right next door
to you or working beside you on the job, and God may have placed him there for you to
initiate love and care, to take an interest in him and speak to him of the wonderful works
of God. Yes, America and Europe are
abominable in their iniquity, and surely all workers of iniquity shall perish, but we do
not know who among them may be the elect of God. Maybe
our neighbor despises Christ like a Paul, but may yet come under the mercy of Christ unto
salvation.
One other thought, America and
Europe are changing with respect to who it is that populates the country. In my home town of Holland, Michigan, surrounded
by such Dutch enclaves as Overisel, Vriesland, Drenth, and such like, the Dutch are a
minority of only 36 percent. America as a
melting pot continues; there are peoples of virtually every nation surrounding us. And they take with them their idolatry or
philosophies, and more than likely many of them have never heard the gospel. We have a duty to them as well.
Is there a place, then, for a
special service in which neighbors, with whom members have diligently shared the gospel,
may join the congregation and hear the gospel preached to them? We agree, such inquirers may join the congregation
at any time and will hear the Word of God preached by a faithful pastor. This is not a matter of dispute. Our focus of interest is a special service for
this purpose. What about the two objections?
Is it an over-emphasis on the
human side if we put forth effort to meet special needs for non-Christians who may attend? This may include the choice of passage, simplicity
of message, use of illustrations, and such like. The
answer to this lies in the examples of Christ and the apostles as they adapted their
message to various audiences. Christ used
different words when addressing His disciples, Mary and Martha, Nicodemus, the Samaritan
woman, or the scribes and Pharisees. Paul
certainly preached quite differently to the Ephesians than he did to the philosophers on
Mars Hill or when standing before King Agrippa. This
may be applied to us as we encounter different circumstances, domestic or foreign
missions, conversations with individuals, and such like.
If the consistory decides to hold a special service because they have encouraged
the membership to invite their neighbors to the service, it is not a concession to the
human side of preaching to ask the pastor to choose an appropriate text and message for
this occasion. Rather, it is following the
example of Christ and the apostles to address the gospel to the audience God places before
him.
If there is anyone on the face
of the earth who champions salvation as God’s sovereign work, it has to be
missionaries and pastors. If I learned
anything in my twelve years in Singapore, it is that we never give up on God and never try
to do something without God. The work of
saving a soul is exclusively divine (Eph. 2:8-10).
More significant is the
objection that if the pastor takes into consideration the presence of such people, he will
fail to treat the congregation properly. How
can he speak the votum or the concluding blessing if non-Christians are present? It will interfere with his address of the gospel
and dilute the intimate and precious relationship that Christ enjoys with His own church.
I do not take this objection
lightly. The concern is well taken and the
pastor has to resolve this issue. I proposed
a solution in my series of articles. There is
no mention made of this. The church may have
unconverted members who are walking in sin (this does not mean that I view the
congregation as mixed or preach to them as such), who need to hear the gospel of
repentance and faith. Also we know from
Scripture that not all Israel are the true Israel, there may be reprobates in the
congregation who need to hear the word of warning and judgment. Because of their possible presence in the
congregation, the pastor must meet such needs on a regular basis. On the occasion of a service to reach
non-Christians, the pastor may very well pick a passage that addresses such needs in his
own congregation and preach it to them in the presence of the guests. If the text includes a reference to unbelievers or
unconverted, the application can be made to the church in worship and to those in the
audience who may be unconverted, as the pastor may choose to make the application. In this way there is no change in the character of
worship, only the adaptation of the gospel to an important occasion, a message that
emphasizes the gospel, the need to repent from sin and embrace Christ and His Father as
the only way of salvation.
My caution that a Reformed
preacher must not assume the salvation of his audience and that he has to put forth effort
to call to repentance and faith is to the point. Prof.
Hanko seems offended by this caution since every Reformed pastor knows this and will do
this. I sincerely hope so, but a caution is
never out of place and a reminder may go a long way to help. I did not intend to throw stones. I do not want this aspect of preaching to be
neglected.
Finally, there is the
terminology. Should we call such a special
service “gospel service.”
I have no special axe to grind
with its usage. In a certain sense, the good
news of the gospel is written on every page of the Bible and permeates every sermon. There is this aspect, which we must not overlook. When the word gospel is used in the New Testament,
great emphasis is laid upon the message of conversion, repentance, and faith. A few examples are Mark 1:14, 15; Acts 14:7-15;
Romans 1:16; I Corinthians 9:18, 19; Ephesians 1:13.
If we use the term “gospel service,” the emphasis of this service is that
the pastor preaches a gospel message, one that emphasizes a call to repent and believe.
Perhaps we could better call
such a special service a service of outreach. Maybe
that is a more accurate designation.
— (Rev.) J. Kortering
Contribution:
In Favor of the “Vernacular”
Rev.
Kortering addressed the issue of vernacular language in prayer and Bible translation in
his response to Rev. Stewart’s letter in the February 1, 2004, Standard Bearer. Rev. Kortering suggested that, in the context of
its evangelical mission, the PRC should accept the use of vernacular language by
“seeking souls.” I agree, but
maintain the use of vernacular language should not be limited only to “seeking
souls.”
It is time for the Protestant
Reformed Churches to embrace fully the implications of its Reformed heritage as they
pertain to the issue of vernacular language in Bible translation and prayer. Luther and Calvin understood the great importance
of speaking and writing in the ordinary language of the people. The Reformation rejected Rome’s
“high” and “reverent” Latin as the exclusive liturgical language,
replacing it with the language used by the common people in day-to-day life. Common people once again heard and understood
Scripture when the Reformers translated the Bible into the vernacular. Unquestionably, our Reformed heritage favors the
use of vernacular language in prayer and Bible translation.
However, Rev. Kortering suggests
that our use of old-fashioned language protects us from irreverence. To the contrary, it is just as possible to be
irreverent using Elizabethan English. Read
some of Shakespeare’s more bawdy scenes for examples.
Irreverence is not a necessary by-product of modern language, but an attitude of
the heart that can be expressed in any language, old or new. Arguments about reverence camouflage the real
issue, which is the principle of vernacular language established during the Reformation. The sad irony is that our dogmatic use of
old-fashioned English is more Romish than Reformed. By
glorifying old-fashioned English as more “reverent” or “spiritual,” we
create a “religion-speak” that is alien to our everyday lives and the lives of
all twenty-first century English-speaking people. As
the years pass, the arcane language of our Bible translation and prayers will only become
more disconnected from ordinary experience and operate as an ever growing barrier to
Scripture comprehension, prayer-life development, and evangelistic efforts. Again the irony:
this dualism and its ill effects are exactly what the Reformers sought to abolish
by translating the Bible into the vernacular and replacing Rome’s Latin with everyday
language.
As Protestant Reformed
believers, we should embrace vernacular English as our own — in our prayers and Bible
translation — rather than reserve it only for the uninitiated. To do otherwise is to ignore our Reformed
heritage.
Stephen
VanderWoude
Hammond, IN
Feature Article:
Slabbert LeCornu
Slabbert Le Cornu is married to Dorothea, and they
have three daughters: Joanette (6), Hannelie (3), and Doret (1). He is a fourth-year theological student at the
Reformed Churches of South Africa’s Theological School, in Potchefstroom. They are members of the Reformed Church,
Potchefstroom-South. Slabbert is the
founder and director of Die Esra Instituut (‘The Esra Institute’), which
is a teaching ministry to advance the biblical-reformed faith and worldview in the world
today. He is also the editor of the magazine Die
Esra Verslag (‘The Ezra Report’). For further information, he can be
contacted at: esra@netlab.co.za
The Reformed Churches of South Africa: A Reformed Perspective on the History and Current Struggle in the Dopper Churches of South Africa
1.
The Current Crisis in the GKSA
“We have currently arrived
at the biggest difference of opinion in the 144-year existence of the Reformed Churches in
South Africa (GKSA = Gereformeerde Kerke van Suid-Afrika). The difference of opinion is irrefutable, but our
prayer is that the Lord will keep us from a church schism.”
This is quoted from
professor-emeritus JH van Wyk, currently editor of Die Kerkblad (The Church
Magazine), the official church magazine of the GKSA, in the December 2003 edition of
this magazine. This verdict was reached as a
result of certain decisions that were made at the GKSA Synod in January 2003. These decisions could lead to a church schism in
the GKSA, unless the Lord sees fit to spare us from this.
Some of the controversial recommendations and decisions that have been made are the
following:
not recognizing the Sabbath as a creation ordinance anymore, but rather just as something which we follow because of the examples of the early church and the Apostles;
freedom to use individual glasses (‘kelkies’) on certain grounds, together with the cup at the Lord’s Supper;
changing the words of the Apostles Creed from “descended into hell,” to “who, to death, has undergone the anxiety of hell”;
opening the office of deacon to women; and
accepting a new non-messianic rhymed psalmbook (2001), to be used alongside the older messianic rhymed psalmbook (1936).
It was especially the last two
decisions that sent stirrings through local congregations.
Many local churches were not prepared to accept and implement the above decisions,
while others have taken a ‘neutral’ stance, not accepting or rejecting the
decisions, but rather waiting for further developments.
Some churches have sent ‘open letters’ to all churches, in which they
openly reject the last two decisions as being against Scripture, the Three Forms of Unity,
and the Church Order. One church has declared
openly its official grieving (doleer), stating that they are now to be known as
“The Reformed Church of Waterberg (Dolerend).” The signs of church schism were seen most clearly
when in October 2003 two very different kinds of meetings were held in Pretoria. One gathering of Doppers praised and thanked the
Lord for the new Psalmbook (which contained the new rhymed 2001 editions of the psalms),
while the other gathering of Doppers questioned and rejected the new 2001-rhymed psalms,
lamenting before the Lord the deformation in the GKSA, which — it was argued —
is the consequence of a change in our view of God, Scripture, and the Church. In November 2003, the regional-synods of the GKSA
answered negatively to the cry of concerned members and churches to call out a
‘special synod’ to discuss the doctrinal issues and differences of opinions that
are threatening the unity of the churches and could end in a schism in the GKSA.
To
understand the current crisis of the GKSA more clearly, we need to go back in history, all
the way to 1652.
2.
The historical background
a.
1652 - 1800
The Reformed faith in South
Africa originated with the arrival of the Dutch settlers on 6 April in the year 1652 of
our Lord Jesus Christ. Jan van Riebeeck, as
the representative of the Dutch East India Company (DEIC), set foot in the shadow of Table
Mountain, to establish a half-way station for
the Dutch ships traveling to and fro between Europe and Asia. The DEIC had been founded by dedicated Calvinists,
the product of the United Provinces’ war against Catholic Spain, fighting for freedom
of worship. Seeking freedom of worship, if
necessary by ‘aggressive commercial expansion,’ by force if need be, the Dutch
were ‘bent on the destruction of Spanish power.’1 The Catholic Portuguese had already discovered
the Cape at the end of the fifteenth century, though by God’s sovereign and gracious
providence they and their Roman Catholic religion did not settle there. It was to be the Dutch who would start a
settlement at the Cape, bringing with them the religion of the Dutch reformation: the
Statenvertaling, the Psalmbook, and the Three Forms of Unity as established by the Synod
of Dordt 1618/19. Just before landing at the
Cape, Jan van Riebeeck prayed an official prayer for the success of his mission, including
the following important words: “…We
are here to maintain the law, and, if possible, to propagate and reveal the reformed
Christian faith amongst these wild and uncivilized people, to the glory of your holy
Name.…”2
The Dutch Calvinists were
strengthened by the arrival of the German settlers in the 1660s and the French Huguenots
in 1688.3 For the first thirteen years there were no
ordained ministers, but only able laymen, called sick-comforters, who served the Reformed
church at the Cape. The first permanent
minister was Johan vanArckel in 1665. At the
end of the seventeenth century people were beginning to settle further inland, as the
so-called free burgers, which would later prove to be to the advantage of the Reformed
faith. From these people grew an independent
people, who were later known as Boers (boere = farmers) and later as Afrikaners. These were God-fearing, hardworking people, who
placed high priority on private family devotional gatherings around the Statenvertaling,
the Psalmbook, and the confessions. It was
not always easy to go to church because of distance and difficulty of traveling. Congregations were started at Stellenbosch (1687),
Drakenstein (1691), Roodezand (1743), Zwartland (1744), etc. For the next two centuries Reformed believers
formed one church, united by the Scriptures and by the Reformed confessions and liturgy as
determined by the Church Order of Dordt 1618/19.
Two factors must, however, be
mentioned which had a negative influence on the development of the Reformed church at the
Cape.4 First, the Reformed churches of the Cape fell
under Classis Amsterdam according to Article 29 of the Church Order, and for 150 years
this classis ordered the church life of South Africa from as far as the Netherlands. This had a negative effect on the independent
development of the churches and would have grave consequences at the beginning of the
nineteenth century. Second, at the Cape the
state also ruled over the church, so that the Dordt Church Order could not be put into
full practice. The church at the Cape was not
a free church but a state church, in fact a ‘department of the state,’ which
would also have its disastrous consequences at the beginning of the nineteenth century. It is important, at this point, to mention also
the following fact, which would later help explain the church schism of 1859: “So for
the majority of the Dutch colonial period in South Africa, Datheen’s psalms were
sung.… No great change in church music
occurred in South Africa until 1814, with the addition of hymns.”5
At the end of the eighteenth
century, however, there was a growing deformation in the churches which paralleled the
deformation in the sister Reformed churches in the Netherlands. The influence of Cartesian philosophy on modern
science, the humanistic spirit of the French Revolution, the growing rationalistic
liberalism, and the pietistic-mystical reaction of the churches with their
‘cure,’ the introduction of the so-called ‘Evangelical hymns,’ also
arrived at the Cape to give the Reformed church of the Cape its death blow, at least for a
while. In this period, more or less the end
of the eighteenth century and the first half of the nineteenth century, Reformed believers
became more and more worried about the spiritual condition of the churches, especially
about the doctrine of many preachers. Although
they were devout Bible readers, they also read the ‘oude schrijvers’ of
the Dutch Second Reformation, including writers like ŕ Brakel, Smytegelt, and
d’Outrein, who taught them of the fall of man, his inability to do good, and
“the predestinating grace of God and the absolute sovereignty of God.”6
The Cape church was growing more
worldly, and the Boer Calvinists in the churches of the interior, were growing — by
God’s grace — more holy. This would
lead to an antithetical clash. The big
revolution would come in the first half of the nineteenth century, when the one Reformed
church of South Africa would split into three separate denominations: the Nederduits Gereformeerde Kerk (1843),
the Nederduits Hervormde Kerk (1853), and the Gereformeerde Kerken (1859).
b.
1800 - 1859
The Reformed Church of the
Netherlands was a state church, which meant that the Dordt Church Order could not be
implemented effectively. When the French
Revolution occurred, the Netherlands, in both state and church, became more liberal and
rationalistic. The authority of the Bible and
the confessions was rejected, and in 1816 King William of Orange ordered a church
regulation for use in the Netherlands State Church.
The Dordt Church Order was discarded, and the name of the church was changed to ‘Hervormd.’ Because of the unbiblical form of church
government, liberalism in doctrine and teaching was introduced in the churches. A strong reaction came from a movement called the
Revéil (Awakening), with leaders such as Bilderdyk, Da Costa, and Groen van Prinsterer,
which laid the foundation for church reformation in the churches in the Netherlands in the
first half of the nineteenth century. The
great reformation, called the Afscheiding (the Separation), came under the
leadership of Rev. H. de Cock of Ulrum, who preached boldly and furiously against the
liberalism in the church and also against the liberal evangelical hymns that had been
introduced in the churches in 1807. When the Hervormde
Kerk wanted to remove him, he and others started the “Afgeskeie Christelike
Gereformeerde Kerk” (Separated Christian Reformed Church). These were the churches that decided at their Synod
of 1857 to send the Rev. D. Postma to South Africa, to investigate the church situation. More about him later, however. Let us return to South Africa.
In 1795, after about 150 years
of Dutch government, the Cape fell into the hands of the English. According to the Peace of Amiens (between France
and England), however, it was decided that the Cape would be returned to the Dutch, under
the government of Jansens and De Mist. These
men were the French Revolution incarnate. In
1804 De Mist introduced a new church order, which testified to his liberalism. Some of its contents were as follows: all churches
were equal; the church should help to foster good citizens; the name of the church was
changed to the ‘Hervormde Kerkgenootskap’ (‘The Reformed Church
Society,’ which meant that the church was an open organization depending on the free
will of man to be part of it or not = humanistic Arminianism); the document did not use
the Lord’s Name, but mentioned a ‘Higher Being’; state education was
introduced, and the roles of parents and church were undermined; the synod was the highest
form of government, and the church fell under the government of the state.
With this, “the Reformed
principle (as accepted in the Three Forms of Unity by the Synod of Dordt, 1618/19) was
abandoned, and therefore we could speak of 1804 as the year of the death of the Reformed
Church in South Africa.”7
The church in the Cape was no
longer a Reformed church but rather a deformed church, and not much protest was heard. Because the Reformed church had never been allowed
to become an independent church in South Africa because of state influence, and because
Classis Amsterdam had never allowed it, it could not handle the onslaught by De Mist. In 1806 the Cape once again came under the
government of the British Empire, and they did not only bring with them the winds of
revolution, but also a foreign culture. Contact
between the church of the Cape and that of the Netherlands was reduced. There was a great need for pastors, and governor
Somerset used this sad situation to further his political goals: he wanted to anglicize
the church at the Cape by bringing in English pastors and missionaries to serve the
Dutch-speaking people. The schools were also
anglicized. The problem with the new English
and Scottish pastors was not only the language and cultural barrier, but most importantly
the new spirit that they brought with them, that of Methodism, which was foreign to the
Reformed believers who had been fed by annotated notes of the Statenvertaling and the
Reformed confessions.8 These believers rejected the new doctrine and
preaching, which said “man has his own will to salvation,” and they sorely
missed “the pure doctrine of predestination or election.”9
The first official synod in
South Africa was held in 1824, when under the De Mist Church Order, the Reglement of
the Nederlandse Kerkgenootskap of William I of 1816 was accepted. This was the final blow to the Dordt Church
Order. Collegialism was now the official form
of church government in South Africa. This
Synod also failed to test the ‘evangelical hymns,’ the new hymnbook that had
already been introduced in the churches in the Cape in 1814.10
These hymns promoted the spirit
of Rationalism and Enlightenment, which proclaimed a common grace to all people; it was
“blunt Pelagian humanism: man must only do his duty and then the ‘light’
will go on for him; it furthers Romish doctrine; and this hymnbook worked together with
Liberalism for the downfall of our Church.”11
Therefore, “if the Church
Order of De Mist was the death of the Reformed Church in South Africa, then the Synod of
1824 was the solemn funeral of it.”12
From the day that the hymnbook,
the product of deformation, was introduced, a great battle was fought in churches in the
Cape, and later also in the Free State and Transvaal (independent countries
of the Afrikaner people in the second half of the nineteenth century), after the ‘Groot
Trek’ (‘Great Migration’) had taken place, because many citizens of the
Cape had decided to trek to the hinterland to start a new country under their own
government, free from British rule.
c.
The Nederduitse
In 1843 another synod was held,
which abolished the church order of De Mist, and made certain changes to the Church Law of
1824. The name was changed from ‘Hervormde
Kerkgenootskap,’ to ‘Nederduitse Gereformeerde Kerkgenootskap’
(NGK), and so the NGK was officially formed. Unfortunately
there was no return to the Dordt Church Order, and their preachers were still trained at
the liberal seminaries of the Hervormde Kerk in the Netherlands. The liberal pastors of the Cape did not believe in
the Trinity, the infallibility of Scripture, miracles, the Godhead of Christ, etc., and
one of them even said that he did not believe question 60 of the Heidelberg Catechism.13 The reaction against this rationalism came in the
form of Methodism, with its emphasis on man and his feelings: revival services, hymns, praying that the Holy
Spirit must be poured out again, and so on. But
this was still not the Reformed answer to man’s sin and tyranny. Reformed believers were still hoping and praying
for true biblical reformation of the church in South Africa.
d. The Nederduits
As mentioned above, between 1836
and 1838 the Great Trek took place, when thousands of burghers decided to leave the Cape
with their families and belongings and trek farther north into the unknown, to begin a new
life as a free people under God, rejecting the tyrannical government of the British
empire. The Cape Synod of 1837 accused them
of rebellion, and therefore no official pastor was sent to minister unto them. As a direct result of the Great Trek, two
independent republics were founded under Afrikaner rule: the Orange Free State and the
Transvaal. When the pastors of the NG Kerk
began serving the people of these republics, the people were afraid that the Cape church
would try to bring them under British rule once again.
Therefore, Rev. Dirk van der Hoff, a proponent of the Nederlandse Hervormde
Kerk, was called as pastor, and the Nederduits Hervormde Kerk was formed in
1853 as the state church of Transvaal, South Africa.
Although understandable in their situation, this was unfortunately more of a
politically motivated decision than a church reformation in the biblical sense of the
word. The NGK and the NHK were basically one
in doctrine, liturgy, and church order. They
disagreed politically rather than doctrinally (which is more or less the same situation
today). The Reformed people were still
waiting for true biblical reformation in the churches of South Africa.
e. The Doppers
The
name ‘Dopper’ is the unofficial nickname of members of the Gereformeerde
Kerken van Suid-Afrika (GKSA),
even today. This name was given to a group of
believers who had existed long before the Reformed church was reestablished in 1859. The origin of this name is uncertain, but the
following two suggestions seem most probable:
‘dorpeling’ (‘townspeople’ — ‘dorp’ is the Afrikaans name for ‘town’);14
‘domper’ (an instrument that was used to extinguish a candle). The Doppers were accused of extinguishing the ‘new light’ of the new times at the Cape. The Doppers themselves see this, in fact, as their calling!15
These were common farm and
townsfolk who daily worshiped, lived, and worked under the instruction of the
Statenvertaling and the Reformed confessions on a daily basis, as established by the Synod
of Dordt 1618-19. They lived mostly on the
outskirts of the Cape Colony, near the Orange River, on the frontiers. They vehemently rejected the ‘new light’
of theological liberalism and emotional methodism. These
were not revolutionary people, because for many years, even decades, during the first half
of the nineteenth century, they had prayed and worked for reformation in the churches. They were patient, but in the end they had to be
obedient to God rather than to man, and were left with no other option than to reestablish
in 1859 the Reformed church of 1652. Their
whole battle against humanism and liberalism culminated in a battle to decide what should
be sung in the churches to the glory of God? The
battle for true doctrine and true church government was most clearly revealed in the
battle between the Psalms and the evangelical hymns.
As mentioned previously, in 1814 the hymns were first introduced in the churches of
South Africa without any testing or church decision.
In 1833 in Cradock voices of protest were heard against the hymns, and the Ring of
Graaff Reinet drew first blood when in a so-called ‘Pastor’s Letter’ they
accused the pro-Psalms believers of ‘heresy,’ that they ‘pierce the body of
Christ,’ and that they were guilty of ‘church schism,’ because they did not
want to sing the hymns. The Ring said that
the hymns were acceptable, because the pastors had said so!16 The years and decades following were years of
great struggle concerning the confessions and church government.
The Doppers wanted a church run
according to the principles of the Synod of Dordt 1618/19.
In 1858 SJ Kruger, P Venter, and JJ Venter, as leaders of the concerned members in
the NHK, tried to convince the NHK to call a minister who did not sing the hymns for them
from the Netherlands. The NHK of Rustenburg
gave permission for this. Meanwhile, without
knowing of each other, the Christelike Gereformeerde Kerken van die Nederland had
decided to send Rev. Dirk Postma to investigate the situation in South Africa and to offer
help to the Transvaal government via pastors and teachers.
When the Transvaal government heard about this, they told the concerned members of
Rustenburg that if Postma fulfilled their demands, they could call him as their pastor.
f.
The Gereformeerde
Dirk Postma was born in 1818 in
Dokkum, Netherlands. In 1840 he became the
pastor of the Christelike Gereformeerde Kerk of Minnertsga and a leading figure in
the church. When he arrived in the Transvaal,
he and Rev. van der Hoff of the NHK at first had good relationships. At the General Church Meeting of 10 January 1859,
Postma’s doctrine was examined and the Meeting was satisfied. This Meeting also decided that the evangelical
hymns must and should be maintained in the NGK. Just
as in the case of the Ring of Graaf Reinet (1841) and the Cape Synod (1847), this was
‘a binding of consciences’ (‘gewetensbinding’), because they
wanted to force the concerned members to sing the hymns.
The concerned members had to choose between bowing before men and bowing before
God. Therefore fifteen men, including men
like PJW Schutte, Ph. Snyman, SJ Kruger and Paul Kruger (who would later become the famous
State President of the South African Republic) according to the above decision, were
forced to leave the NH Church, to form the ‘Free Reformed Church, according to the
doctrine, service, and discipline of the Dordt fathers.’
From this act, the Reformed
church would be reestablished on 11 February 1859, on the basis of the confessions and
Church Order of Dordt 1618/19, with Rev. Dirk Postma as their first pastor. This was the fruit of decades of struggle against
false doctrine, service, and discipline, which were incorporated into the churches by the
humanistic spirit of the enlightenment age, and the mystic methodism that was the reaction
to it. For Postma, after the reestablishment,
the Reformed people “could serve God once again according to his Word. God’s Word as the final source of authority,
knowledge and the standard for the church in all its service, doctrine, church government,
liturgy, and life, must not be ‘lost’; on the contrary, ‘according to
article 7 of our Confession (Belgic Confession — SLC), the Word of God above all
else’ must be the ruling principle of the Church of the Lord and not our ‘own
opinion.’ The Church of Christ must
submit in doctrine and life to the discipline of this Word.”17 One of the first members, HJJ Kruger, stated
as follows:
After a long struggle,
of which the tracks could be followed back to the 1830’s; after years of resistance
against false doctrine which had been tolerated in the churches; after years of sighing
‘because the church wants to force the people’s consciences to accept human
ordinances and teachings contrary to the Word,’ relief has finally come.18