Letters to the Editor

Letters to the editor are most welcome! We love receiving feedback from our readers. Whether it’s a short note to express your agreement or to add your thoughts to what we’ve written, or whether it’s a letter to disagree and present an alternative point of view, we welcome your reflections. Or maybe you have an idea to share with us about how things can be improved at Clarion or perhaps elsewhere in our church circles. All such letters are appreciated and will be read with interest!

We aim to print as many letters as possible. That said, the letters that we publish must fall within these guidelines:

• Maximum 300 words
• Written in a Christian manner
• I.e. showing due respect and love for God and neighbour; speaking the truth in love; writing in line with the doctrine of the Word of God also as it is summarized in the Three Forms of Unity
• Submitted either as an Microsoft Word document or simply written in the body of an email

Letters longer than 300 words may, at the discretion of the editor, occasionally be published under “Reader’s Forum”.

Send your letter to: letters@clarionmagazine.ca

To keep our workflow at Clarion efficient, only those letters approved for publication will be responded to indicating the same. If you do not receive a reply from Clarion within 2 weeks of submitting your letter, please understand that this normally means your letter will not be published.

Please be aware that we reserve the right to edit a letter for clarity.

Submit an Article

We at Clarion also welcome readers to submit an article for publication. For such an article to be considered for publication, it must fall within the following guidelines:

• Be original to the author (i.e. no plagiarism)
• Be a piece never yet published or, if published elsewhere, submitted with formal permission from that publication to publish in Clarion
• Normally a maximum of 1600 words (longer would require discussion with the editor)
• If a series of articles is envisioned, the entire series must be presented up-front and approved before any in the series will be printed.
• Written in a Christian manner
• I.e. showing due respect and love for God and neighbour; speaking the truth in love; writing in line with the doctrine of the Word of God also as it is summarized in the Three Forms of Unity
• Be on a topic of the kind normally published in Clarion and which would be of benefit to readers
• Be clear, coherent, and readable with a minimum of content-editing needed
• Be well-written (i.e. to current standards of grammar and syntax) with a minimum of copy-editing needed
• Use the ESV in Scripture quotations (as a rule)
• Include subheadings (approximately every two paragraphs)
• Preferably be submitted as a Microsoft Word document

If possible and appropriate to the subject matter, please also submit images/photos (high quality resolution) for printing. These images must belong to the person submitting them or else be free from copyright.

Send your article as an attachment to: submissions@clarionmagazine.ca

To keep our workflow at Clarion efficient, only those submissions approved for publication will be responded to indicating the same. If you do not receive a reply from Clarion within 3 weeks of submitting your article, please understand that this normally means your piece will not be published.

Facebook as a social media platform has been servicing the general public since around 2006. It got into the game early, rose to prominence, and continues to dominate its field. When I previously wrote about Facebook some eleven years ago[i], the platform had 900 million users. Today it has more than 2.7 billion active monthly users – nearly a third of the earth’s population (and growing)! For the owners and managers of Facebook, that’s an almost unprecedented level of influence on humanity and one of the reasons I’m wondering if it’s time to say goodbye to Facebook. The following concerns have given me pause and perhaps they’ll give you pause too.  

From friend to customer

            I use the word “influence” deliberately because the very platform of Facebook itself is not neutral. No platform or media outlet or even any person can ever truly be neutral. We all have a way of looking at the world and our ethics and business practices naturally flow out of that. Facebook is a business, and its primary founder, owner, and CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, is out to make money. That’s one driving force behind the way the app works. Zuckerberg also has his beliefs and political views; these also shape the way Facebook operates. 

On the business side of things, the algorithms have changed to favour paid advertising over the organic reach of ordinary (non-paying) users like most of us who joined Facebook for the social connection. Algorithms are the complicated formulas at work behind the scenes, dictating which posts or ads will show up in your personal news feed. In the early years of Facebook, these algorithms gave a lot more allowance for the posts of your personal friends and contacts to appear. Being on Facebook then felt more like socializing among a broad range of your friend group, a group you controlled (in terms of access) and were comfortable with. 

This made it fun to share or comment on pictures, funny stories, an event, a joke, or the like. Conversely, expressions of grief, support, and encouragement could be readily offered. The more you shared, or others shared with you, the more the algorithms noticed you and made your posts more likely to appear to others in your wider friend group. Your social activity would attract interest from friends of friends and your circle of contacts would grow naturally. This is part of what is called “organic growth.” Your network of contacts expanded according to how you used Facebook. 

Over time, however, the algorithms were adjusted (and they continue to be tweaked) to cater to businesses and advertisers.[ii] Soon people began to notice a decrease of postings in their feeds related to their friends. It seemed like a restriction had been imposed on the reach of friends into each other’s network. Your social circle became smaller. In its place, you began seeing many more ads and an increasing number of articles and news items which someone had paid to advertise in your newsfeed. A change was underway: Facebook social users steadily became customers of a variety of merchants. It’s not that being a customer is bad, or that advertisement is inherently evil. But I personally don’t like being manipulated by algorithms on a platform that drew me in for the social experience. It feels like a bait and switch to me and that’s a turn off. 

Privacy invasion 

            Facebook is free for anyone to sign up, but, as mentioned, Facebook is a business. So how can Zuckerberg make money off users who don’t pay anything for his service? By taking something of value from users that he can sell to others. That something is our personal information and data. This is a growing concern with other Big Tech players like Google, YouTube, and Twitter too. We can use their handy and (in many respects) helpful services but in turn they receive basic information about us (our personal info we sign up with) and, even more importantly, they receive data about our habits, interests, and patterns of usage on their platforms. Facebook (and the others) turn around and use that data to attract paying advertisers of products (which the algorithms suggest would interest you personally) who view you and me as customers. We become targeted by merchants. Ever notice how after reading an article on a certain topic or searching for a certain subject that the next day you begin seeing ads pop up that are related? Or paid news or blog items of a similar nature appear in your newsfeed? In 2010 this practice was in its infancy and barely noticeable, but now the tracking of our personal data has become so sophisticated and so accurate it’s uncanny how they “know what we’re thinking.” And creepy. Some might like this feature because it gives you lots of what you want, but I don’t like the feeling of being stalked. I’ve stopped Tweeting, I now use Duck-Duck-Go instead of Google, and Facebook might soon be in my rear-view mirror.      

Throw­-away content

            As Facebook has shifted from primarily a place to share fun things among friends, more and more content has crept into our newsfeeds in the form of blog posts, news items, full length articles, and all kinds of “click bait” items. Videos are also populating the platform like never before. Businesses of all kinds are vying for our attention. The volume of information is immense. No one could ever read (or watch) all of it and it’s a never-ending stream. It reminds me of the old cable or satellite TV where you could watch hundreds of channels. There was (still is!) something to watch every minute of the day, 24-7, but what is the quality of the content? What good does it do us? No one could possibly watch even a fraction of all that video, so what is the value of it all? Very little, in my estimation. 

            There is so much to watch but so little to see. There is so much to read but so little worth retaining. Let’s be honest. While certainly you can wade through the sea of content to find the odd informative article or truly educational video, isn’t the vast majority of it simply forgettable? Throw-away? And how much time do we waste looking for the occasional pearl? It’s long been established that Facebook is addictive (and designed to be!) and so it’s a simple matter to thoughtlessly scroll for long stretches at a time (where did that hour go? that evening?), multiple times a day, and what have you got to show for it in the end? How much useful knowledge is gained? Does Facebook make us wise? Are we helped as Christians to grow in our faith? Precious little if any of that actually happens. Mostly it’s the other way around, isn’t it? Facebook steals our time, our mental energy, and our focus. I think we should steal them back.       

Censorship

            Another annoying and concerning trend at Facebook (and the other Big Tech companies) is censorship of content. It comes down to this: if Facebook doesn’t like what you post, it will get publicly flagged and ultimately taken down. In fact, you don’t even own your own profile or page, Zuckerberg does. And he is legally allowed to take it/them down anytime he wants. More than a few have had their pages “disappeared” with barely an explanation. If you violate the “values” of Facebook (whatever those are), you risk getting booted off. Twitter famously did this recently with President Donald Trump, and if the President of the United States can be deactivated, you know it can happen to you too. 

            Here is where being a Christian and posting biblically-based content can run us into trouble. Apparently, Facebook values do not align very well with the teaching of the Bible. Christian pastor and writer Paul Washer had a sermon taken down from his account because it was deemed “hate literature.”[iii] The Christian satirical website the Babylon Bee had its account suspended a couple of times because Facebook thought their joke was serious.[iv] The values of Facebook align with the progressive left which means that anything that offers criticism or even perceived criticism of homosexuality, transgenderism, feminism, Black Lives Matter, radical Islam, and the like is subject to censorship and likely to get the boot.[v] As Facebook (and other) social media platforms seek to shut down contrary voices (and Christians are among them), I feel increasingly like an unwanted stranger. I ask myself: why wait till Facebook’s inhospitable environment becomes outright hateful and oppressive?  

Makes me judgmental

            So far I’ve mentioned serious concerns with the platform itself, but there are also problems on my side as a user that make me think of quitting. I’ve noticed myself becoming judgy. Maybe you can relate. What I mean is, there are people I know or have an acquaintance with whom I like and think well of. But then they post a picture (or a bunch of pics) or recommend an article that makes me question how I feel about them. Or I notice a trend in their posts that I interpret as self-centred or egotistical. They’re all about themselves, I catch myself thinking. The article they post raises questions about their politics or their theology. Suddenly I find that my opinion of them has soured.

Without full context, without a discussion on why they posted that piece or what they think about the topic, I find myself inwardly critiquing them and thinking ill of them. In short, I become judgmental. This is judging a person rashly and unheard, and it’s wrong in God’s eyes. It also only serves to break down my relationship with those neighbours. It soon bothers me that I have formed unfair negative opinions of people based on such incomplete information, and this is another powerful motivator to get off Facebook. Friendships and acquaintances are far and away best to form and enjoy and develop in-person.   

Divisive arguments

            One thing I’ve learned the hard way over the years is not to engage in debates on Facebook (or on any social media). Arguments can start very quickly with a provocative comment or the posting of an opinionated or pointed article. Whether or not it’s intended, people can quickly become offended and soon fire back with offensive remarks. I am currently part of several discussion groups (all of them Christian, some within our Canadian Reformed community) and, as long as the comments or questions raised are informational or without a hidden agenda (which is never really hidden, is it?), people can usefully answer queries, share helpful facts or tips, and generally be of benefit. But, when someone wants to start a discussion or debate (even with the best of intentions, namely, to broaden the discussion and learn), it isn’t long before uncharitable assumptions are supposed and harsh comments follow, which often include name-calling and insults. In some Facebook groups it seems that these chippy arguments are the norm. As Christians, are we honouring our heavenly Father by the manner in which we interact on Facebook? 

            I also wonder: has anyone actually changed their mind on a topic by means of a Facebook debate? Has greater understanding developed and a consensus appeared among participants? Do people on opposite sides of the issue grow closer to each other, gain a respect for one another, and show true Christian harmony and love? From all that I observe, the results trend in the opposite direction: people get upset, they entrench in their own views, their opinion of others who hold different views is lowered, and, in the end, there is greater division. Surely this too does not please the Lord who gave his life for his church which he earnestly desires to be united as one body (John 17:20-23)! This aspect of Facebook is, frankly, an embarrassment for us Christians and for me another good reason to leave Facebook behind. 

Don’t get me wrong: discussions and debates are absolutely important, but let’s have them in person, face-to-face, where we can look each other in the eye, read body language, and hear tone of voice. Let’s do it accompanied by prayer and with every intent to stay unified. Then, in the grace of the Holy Spirit, we will be much better positioned to understand one another, see the bigger picture, and maintain unity and love even when we disagree. 

Will I leave Facebook? I’m still undecided. Is there a case to be made to stay involved? Maybe. Perhaps one of our readers will write a compelling letter to the editor convincing me. Meanwhile, I’m edging toward the exit. How about you?  

Thursday, October 1.

By James Visscher

The ancient Psalmist once remarked that the righteous "will still bear fruit in old age, they will stay fresh and green" (Ps 92:13). In so many ways these words can be applied to the life of the Rev. W.W.J. VanOene. In the year 1985 he retired after serving more than forty years in the ministry of the Word. Together with his wife Ieke, he moved from Fergus, Ontario, to Abbotsford, British Columbia, and there he continued to "bear fruit" and "stayed fresh and green." He preached regularly, kept on writing, learned how to go online, made money for his favourite charities, and travelled regularly to Ontario. He barely slowed down.

Many years later on Sunday, September 8, 2013, he climbed the pulpit once again in the first congregation that he served in Canada, namely the Maranatha Canadian Reformed Church, Surrey, B.C. (formerly, the Canadian Reformed Church at New Westminster, B.C.). He was even privileged to administer the sacrament of the Lord's Supper.

It would, however, be the last time. The following week he became ill, was taken by ambulance to the Abbotsford Hospital, and was diagnosed as having a number of serious medical issues. Taking into account his wishes, the family decided that drastic medical intervention would not take place. On Monday morning, September 23, 2013, at the age of ninety-three years, he breathed his last and was taken home by the Lord. Thus the earthly journey of this faithful servant of the Lord came to an end.

Still, there is more that needs to be written.

By Klaas Stam

Editorial

Infallible and Inerrant? How True is the Bible?

By Klaas Stam

Recently I learned that there is a great difference between the infallibility of Scripture and the inerrancy of Scripture. Please do not be alarmed. I am running a bit behind. This difference has existed for some time already and apparently major theologians have accepted it. Seems to be legit. Everyone should learn to accept this difference and work with it. Otherwise we may fall into fundamentalism, literalism, Biblicism, and populism etc. Not good.
Recently these monikers were liberally applied to me because of what I wrote in a previous editorial about Bible-thumping. It was also suggested that if we accept and apply the difference between infallibility and inerrancy we can better appreciate the efforts of scientists and will refrain from science-bashing. Clear skies and smooth sailing will follow. I am sensitive to that because I love clear skies and smooth sailing.
So much for that. I plan later Deo Volente to write something about evolutionism and Scripture-criticism. Right now an explanation of the terms infallibility and inerrancy is necessary. This is not easy, for the terms do overlap. Infallibility means that the Bible is true and trustworthy for it is not a human but a divine word. This is a logical consequence of the doctrine of inspiration. Simply said, God cannot be wrong and so his Word is completely true. Infallibility leads to inerrancy.
But what do we do with obvious errors in Scripture?

By Eric Kampen

Children often have a difficult time learning good manners. Parents have to be persistent to make their children say "please" and "thank you."  To get a child to say "please" may be a challenge, but it is usually not as difficult as the "thank you," for once a child has what he or she wants, well, the "please" has accomplished its purpose. A child may have to be prompted, or even called back as he or she walks away, and be asked, "What do you say now?" A belated "thank you" may follow. It is a challenge to teach children good manners done spontaneously, without prompting.

This training in good manners can also be extended to our life as children of our heavenly Father. We need to be taught to say "please" and "thank you" for his spiritual gifts. We confess in Lord's Day 45, Q/A 116 of the Heidelberg Catechism that "God will give his grace and Holy Spirit only to those who constantly and with heartfelt longing ask him for these gifts and thank him for them." It takes some time for us to do that spontaneously, without prompting. Good manners, however, are not only to be shown for the spiritual gift of our salvation from sin. They are just as necessary for all the material gifts of life.

A creation ordinance

When you think it through, good manners of "please" and "thank you" for material gifts are something that are even more fundamental than with respect to the gifts of our salvation. They are rooted in the creation. In the Garden, after all, it was not yet necessary to say "please" and "thank you" for the gift of salvation, but it was necessary to say these words with respect to the gifts of creation. We might even say that good manners with respect to our material blessings are a creation ordinance.

The annual Thanksgiving holiday is a good occasion to bring this out.

By James Visscher

Organized or unorganized?

I ended my last editorial ("Reaching Out" Part 2) with the words, "Readers, just how good is your church team? Is it all defense? Is the offense nowhere in sight? Then bring on the offense. Strive for biblical balance!" By using words like "offense," "defense," and "biblical balance" I was trying to get across the message that reaching out is not a matter of either-or.

Often that is what we make it out to be. Some of us stress the need to "preserve" the truth and hence we are suspicious of "increase." Others among us stress the need to "increase" the church and think that to "preserve" is an obstacle on the way to achieving that goal. All the while we forget that Lord's Day 48 of the Heidelberg Catechism sees them as partners and not opponents, as two sides of one and the same coin. It all highlights the fact that we so easily create dilemmas where none exist.

The same applies to the distinction of "organized" and "unorganized." When I was growing up in the 1950s and 1960s, and even beyond that, I was told by some that the church should not be involved in "organized" evangelism efforts. It should all come naturally. Believers should simply live as believers. They should just let their light shine. They should embrace their prophetic calling and work it out with gusto. Sounds good! And it is!

But then a rider was attached, namely that we don't need anything else. In the church there should not be such things as organized evangelistic activities. Hands off local church! Leave it to the members! Do not go where you are not called to go.

Clergy or laity?

Still, this was not the only dilemma making the rounds in my youth. There was another and in some ways it was akin to the old clergy-laity distinction that was so rampant in the Roman Catholic Church at the time of the Reformation. According to this view, only the ordained can really do evangelism. They took the words of our Lord at the end of the gospel of Matthew about making disciples, baptizing them, and teaching them as applying only to the "eleven disciples" (Matt 28:16) and used them to supposedly prove that evangelism work is ordained work.

They did the same with the word "preaching." They said that this too is something that only ordained folk can do, so hands off you people in the pew.

False dilemmas

Is this true? Can one drive a proper wedge between "organized" and "unorganized," between "clergy" and "laity"? I would suggest to you that these are false and improper dilemmas.

For why does "organized" need to be pitted against "unorganized"? Can one not say that in truth these are two aspects or dimensions of one and the same calling? True, the members of the church should be witnesses to Christ in this world without having to be told, trained, and programmed. They should do what comes naturally to new people. But at the same time what is wrong with the church giving them some additional training? What is wrong with programs and efforts that compliment and supplement these things? Can and should the two not go hand in hand?

As for that other matter of clergy doing the heavy lifting when it comes to evangelism and the laity more or less standing on the sidelines, since when is that a biblical model? Those who say that the ending of Matthew's gospel applies to the ordained only are over-reaching themselves. They overlook the fact that the last verse of that ending reads, "And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age" (20). Are those words only for the eleven disciples, or for the ordained? I thought that these wonderful words of comfort applied to the whole church? You see, this ending is not about just some in the church. It is about all in the church.

By Cornelis Van Dam

An important part of our worship on the Lord’s Day is singing praises to God. Indeed, this element of our liturgy is something we will one day continue to do in God’s presence! Someone once noted that the congregation of God is not en route to an eternal sermon, but it is on its way to eternal song. Our singing in holy worship therefore should entail a foretaste of that eternal joy. All of this makes singing a tremendously important part of our Sunday liturgy. It is therefore worth reflecting on some aspects of our singing.

A sacrifice of praise

It is noteworthy that God’s Old Testament people when approaching the Lord for worship were exhorted to do so with singing and praise. “Worship the Lord with gladness; come before him with joyful songs!” (Ps 100:2). Praise is central when singing before the Lord. This fact is also evident from the many times that “hallelujah,” the Hebrew equivalent of “praise the Lord,” is used in the book of Psalms. Indeed, the Psalter ends with the repeated exuberant hallelujahs of Psalm 150.

All this praise was only possible because of God’s forgiving grace by which he blotted out the sins of those who came to him confessing their iniquities. This grace was evident in all those bloody sacrifices that were ultimately fulfilled when our Saviour offered himself on the altar of the cross. The author of Hebrews alludes to this reality and then exhorts: “Through Jesus, therefore, let us continually offer to God a sacrifice of praise—the fruit of lips that confess his name” (Heb 13:15). Thus, in response to Christ’s sacrifice and on that basis (“through Jesus”) we may present to God our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving.

It is striking that our singing is called a “sacrifice of praise.” That reminds us of the peace offering which was also called the “sacrifice of praise” (in the ancient Greek translation) or, as the Hebrew can be translated as well, the “sacrifice of thanksgiving” (Lev 7:12). In other words, our singing which gives thanks and praise to God for his redemption is considered by God to be a sacrifice pleasing to him (cf. Ps 50:14). Indeed, it is part of our giving our entire life to God as a thank offering (cf. Rom 12:1). And so when we approach God today, we don’t come with animal sacrifices as in Old Testament times, but we present ourselves sacrificially to him and we do so with “the sacrifice of praise, the fruit of our lips that confess his name” (Heb 13:15). The singing at worship can therefore not be missed. And that singing must therefore be to his praise and glory!

This means that our singing includes proclaiming God’s great deeds of salvation.

Declaring God’s great deeds

Indeed, David sang: “I will praise you, O Lord, with all my heart; I will tell of all your wonders ... proclaim among the nations what the Lord has done” (Ps 9:2, 11). Similar exhortations are found throughout the Psalms. “Give thanks to the Lord, call on his name; make known among the nations what he has done. Sing to him, sing praise to him; tell of all his wonderful acts” (Ps 105:1–2; similarly, e.g., Ps 71:16; 145:5, 12).

Such a declaration in song is also described in Scripture as prophesying. Thus when Miriam, Aaron’s sister, led the singing and dancing declaring their praise to God for his deliverance from Egypt, she is called a prophetess (Exod 15:22). Likewise, the music ministry of the temple, was called a “ministry of prophesying” (1 Chron 25:1). This ministry included the sons of Asaph and their prophesying included the composition of Psalms 50 and 73 to 83 (cf. 1 Chron 25:2).

All of this means that when we in the course of our worship sing of the great deeds of God, then we are prophesying in the biblical sense of the word. Surely this aspect is also part of the fulfilment of Joel’s prophecy that the day would come when God would pour out his Spirit on all people and “your sons and daughters will prophesy” (Joel 2:28). Moreover, one can think here of how the Heidelberg Catechism defines our prophetic task as confessing Christ’s Name (Q.A. 32). Confessing Christ must include confessing God’s great acts of redemption in our Saviour. If that is the case, then we also do need to take note of the biblical exhortation to sing a new song! “Sing to the Lord a new song!” (Ps 96:1; also, e.g., Ps 33:3; 98:1).

Singing a new song

Reformed churches have followed the early Christian church by focussing their singing in their worship services on the Psalms. However, the early church also sang the New Testament hymns. After all, God’s great deeds continued in Christ! Scripture has given us the Song of Mary (Luke 1:46-55), the Song of Zechariah (Luke 1:68-79), and the Song of Simeon (Luke 2:29-32). Hymn-like passages are also found in Philippians 2:5-11 and Colossians 1:15-20. Furthermore, the New Testament also records the song of the angels. “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to men on whom his favour rests” (Luke 2:14). There are also heavenly hymns in the book of Revelation such as: “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God almighty, who was, and is, and is to come” (Rev 4:8). There is evidence that the early Christian church produced hymns, but most of them disappeared, probably because it was recognized that they were not inspired. Reformed churches have therefore gone back to the early church’s practice of prioritizing the inspired Psalms and biblical hymns in worship.

At the same time, there was also the recognition that in this final age of the Spirit we may

“Sing to the Lord a new song, for he has done marvelous things” (Ps 98:1). Churches of the Reformation have therefore also sung hymns which were not inspired but which conformed to biblical norms, especially that they offer the sacrifice of praise to God.

It is remarkable that although Scripture teaches us that our singing should be directed in praise to God, yet, it is also a fact that in singing there is another aspect, namely that we address each other as members of Christ.

Speak to each other with psalms

The Apostle Paul after exhorting his readers to be filled with the Spirit notes that such a condition results in “addressing one another in psalms, hymns and spiritual songs” (Eph 5:19). These apostolic words show that our singing praises to God is done in fellowship with other believers. Although our worship has very important personal aspects, it is not individualistic. There is an important corporate aspect. Filled with and united by the one Spirit of Christ we praise God with our singing, but in the process also address each other. This speaking to each other is clarified in the Apostle’s words to the Colossian Christians. “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom, and as you sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs with gratitude in your hearts to God” (Col 3:16).

With our singing, we remind each other what God has done for us in Christ, rejoice in the purpose of God for our lives, and share in the joy of redemption. At the same time, the Apostle says the singing of biblical songs with gratitude in our hearts is one way in which we can teach and admonish each other. Since the psalms and hymns of Scripture speak of Christ and the redemption to come, singing these songs means that we let the word of Christ dwell in us fully. This being the case, such singing will serve to remind, instruct, and indeed admonish if our life does not conform to what we are singing.

This reality adds to the meaningfulness of our singing in Sunday worship. But such singing is not restricted to the Lord’s Day but should characterize our entire life as Christians so that the biblical lyrics fill our lives. The Spirit uses singing the psalms and biblical hymns to mould, sanctify, and equip our lives so that we can be equipped for all circumstances of life in a fallen world. Being filled with the Spirit and having the word of Christ live in us with biblical song, also enables us to teach and admonish each other with all wisdom.

And we may do so in expectation of that great day!

Singing has a glorious future

As we worship and praise God today, we may do so in anticipation of the perfect worship that will one day take place on this present earth completely renewed. Then we will have entered the true Sabbath rest (cf. Heb 4). That perfect worship will include singing God’s praises in new songs celebrating the complete redemption of all creation. Scripture gives us some tantalizing glimpses of that heavenly worship. Around the throne of the Lamb a new song was sung in his honour (Rev 5:9-10). The elect are also pictured as singing a new song before the Lamb’s throne (Rev 14:3). We also read of a great multitude in heaven shouting and rejoicing in worship and praise that the wedding feast of the lamb has come. “Hallelujah! For our Lord God Almighty reigns. Let us rejoice and be glad and give him glory! For the wedding of the Lamb has come, and his bride has made herself ready. Fine linen, bright and clean, was given her to wear” (Rev 19:6-8).

But all these glimpses and images of that perfect worship in song is not enough to satisfy our heartfelt longing to know more of that coming reality. As a wise pastor said years ago: Don’t speculate. Just wait and see! It will be better and more than we can imagine! “No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived what God has prepared for those who love him” (1 Cor 2:9).

By Peter H. Holtvlüwer

I’m not a reader. Maybe that surprises you. He’s a minister and not a reader? C’mon! But it’s true. Of course, I do read things, and once I’m into it I often enjoy it, but it’s not my first love. I don’t naturally curl up with a novel or eagerly sit down with a devotional. Commentaries and study books stand open on my desk because I need to pour over them to make sermons, not because it’s a fun hobby. Even spending time in the Bible requires commitment. For me, reading is work – can you relate to that?

Video culture

I think many of us can, and the younger we are the more this seems to be the case. I and many ministers and elders in various churches have noticed that as a community we are reading less and less, especially those of us under forty-five. Elders ask around: Do you make time for personal devotions? Not as much as I should, is the common answer. That’s code for: hardly at all. How about reading faith-building articles or books? Blank looks. Visiting in homes often shows a sizeable collection of DVDs and a big flat-screen TV but non-fiction books and magazines are hard to find.

We surf the net and watch plenty of YouTube videos; we may even flash through the odd blog someone posts, but fewer and fewer of us are spending significant time reading books and articles. The only hold-outs I see are the fair number of ladies who love to read novels. And that’s fine – much can be gained from well-written stories – but how many sisters read non-fiction? Whatever that number is, only a fraction of it applies to our younger men, most of whom rarely read anything that resembles a book or magazine which challenges the mind and heart. When asked why, many say: I’m just not a reader.

Big deal?

So what if I don’t read? What difference does it make? Is this a big deal? Yes, for at least three reasons. First, it’s by reading God’s Word that we come to know God and our salvation! How can we hope to grow in our love for Jesus Christ if we don’t encounter him and his promises in Scripture? How can we know how to conduct ourselves in daily life if we don’t learn from the Lord’s commandments and example? By choosing not to read we shut off the tap of God’s life-giving Word (1 Pet 1:23; 2 Tim 3:15).

Now, maybe you’re thinking: well, I still do read the Bible, at least a little. Meal-time devotions usually. But do you take the time to ponder it carefully? Compare for a moment: how much time you do you spend searching through your Bible versus scrolling through your phone? The Bible is not a quick-read. Wisdom is not gained in five-minute snippets. While it is valuable to read whole Bible books at time (at a quicker pace) to get the big picture, we need to also slow down and take a magnifying glass (so to speak) to each smaller passage. The Holy Spirit presents us with sixty-six books of varying genres, from narrative (story) to prophecy, poetry, proverbs, letters, and even apocalypse. It takes work to make sense of them.

The Lord knows this and instructs us to make time and meditate on God’s Word: “This Book of the Law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do according to all that is written in it. For then you will make your way prosperous, and then you will have good success” (Josh 1:8). There is nothing quick about meditation. It means taking the Word in slowly and thinking on it carefully. God wants us to chew it over in our minds. What was true for Joshua is true for all of us; Psalm 1:2 describes the righteous person as one whose “delight is in the law of the LORD, and on his law he meditates day and night.” Day and night – it’s got to percolate in the back of our minds as we do our daily work and even as we lay on our beds at night. Read any stanza of Psalm 119 to have this confirmed.

Preparing to lead

If we don’t read, will we be able to lead the next generation? That’s the second reason we need to take this seriously. No matter how you slice it, those of us in our 20s and 30s will be tomorrow’s leaders – yes, that’s especially you, young men. Many of you will serve as deacons and elders, so ask yourself: will I be ready to shepherd God’s flock? Deacons must “keep hold of the deep truths of the faith with a clear conscience” (1 Tim 3:9, NIV): do I know what these deep truths are? Elders must watch for doctrinal errors and ward off wolves: do I know what God teaches? Can I defend the truths of the Bible? You can’t start learning these things the moment you get put up for election. Figuring these things out takes years of soaking yourself in the Word and becoming acquainted with the errors and falsehoods of our time.

You will be charged with the care of souls – have you any idea how to advise or help a struggling believer? Do you know what to say to a young person drifting away from the faith? Or a twenty-something sister suffering from depression and anxiety? What does the Bible say to the grieving and hurting? To the childless and the widow? What Scripture would you bring to a same-sex attracted church member and how would you pray with him/her? What is a Church Order and how does a classis or synod work? What authority do they hold in comparison with the consistory?

As an elder or deacon, you’ll be expected to know such things and more, and you can’t just YouTube it a half hour before your visit or meeting! There, no doubt, are some helpful teaching videos out there, but you only get to a certain maturity of knowledge and conviction through a long, steady pattern of reading, starting with the Bible itself. There are also many fine Christian books that help us with these questions and dig out the treasures of Scripture even more, but we must get reading!

Parenting

Many of you (sisters included!) will be parenting children and instructing young men and women in their walk with the Lord, so ask yourself: am I prepared for that? Teenagers come with a lot of questions – good ones, deep ones, tricky ones, hard ones! Giving them simplistic answers will not help and may lead them to seek answers from worldly sources. Our children need guiding. We have to shepherd their hearts by teaching them to love the LORD and his commandments as he said through Moses, “You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way and when you lie down and when you rise” (Deut 6:5).

You can’t teach God’s commands and promises diligently if you don’t know them yourself intimately, and that takes thoughtful contemplation. Thinking and reflecting. Reading and pondering. Reading books on the Bible, doctrine, and the application of it to our lives are also very helpful for this as their insights help us deepen our understanding and obedience. Discussing it with family, friends, and Bible study groups goes even further. But the start of it is to read and engage. God takes our teaching task as parents very seriously – are you prepared to explain to God that you didn’t teach and prepare your kids very well because you “just aren’t a reader”?

Critical thinking

Videos, smartphones, and smart TVs all have their useful functions. We’ve got them at our home too. They bring many pictures, shows, and programs in to entertain us and occasionally to educate us, but what they aren’t very good at is getting us to think carefully and analyze ideas. Videos (at least the common ones we watch for amusement) don’t build up or break down arguments. Their purpose is not to reason but to entertain.

Dramas, sitcoms, comedies, romance stories, or action films don’t explain themselves or tell us what worldview they are operating out of. We are presented with the end-result, a whole package of perspective which is designed to amuse us, not engage us in critical thinking. And yet, we are influenced by those worldviews and can easily adopt their ideas without realizing it, much less having carefully thought about them.

Selling vs. telling

It’s for this reason that people with agendas love to use video to sell their beliefs – think of how shows insert happy gay characters to make everyone think of that lifestyle as normal and good. Beer ads always depict a “happening,” cool atmosphere that makes us want to be part of it by buying their product. Or think of how politicians use thirty-second commercials, sound-bites, and photo-ops to sell us themselves, to get us to like the person and vote for him (e.g. Justin Trudeau and his “Sunny Ways”) rather than detailed discussions or in-depth debates about the soundness of their policies. 

Authors of non-fiction books and articles (like this oneJ), however, can’t get away with that so easily. They are forced to tell the reader their perspective and their reasoning and to do so in some detail. That’s how such writings work. They seek to convince our minds with reasoned arguments. Unlike videos (or novels), there’s no way for them to show what they intend us to see unless they explain it first – and that is a great help to us. It means we are presented with propositions backed up with reasons and proofs. We have no choice but to give thought to their ideas and that leads much more naturally and easily to evaluating them.

Discernment needed

Critical thinking is something we need badly as Christians, for we are called to discern between good and evil, right and wrong, wise and unwise. If we don’t read, this skill will not get honed. If we have a steady diet of movies, shows, and videos, we will be well-entertained but only poorly trained at understanding the world we live in and how God wants us to think about it and conduct ourselves within it. How can we guide our children well if we are not well aware both of God’s will and of the world’s ideas and practices? How can we shepherd God’s people and teach them to be discerning if we ourselves are dull in this talent?

Valid reason?

So, reading is necessary and beneficial in many ways, but what if “I’m just not a reader”? We have to ask ourselves: is such a reason acceptable in God’s eyes? Are we born either readers or non-readers? Can we help it if we don’t feel like reading? Let’s be honest: yes we can. Unless we have a disability of some kind which prevents us from comprehending words on a page, the vast majority of us are able to read but many choose not to. This is a will thing, not a skill thing. It’s like other things that are good for us but require conscious effort: daily exercise, two-way conversation, thinking about and serving other people ahead of ourselves.

These also don’t come easily to many of us, but for most people isn’t it simply a cop-out to say: I’m not into exercise or I’m not much of a conversationalist or I just am not good at helping other people? Those are just excuses, aren’t they? It takes prayer for the Lord’s help and effort to make changes, but changes can be made. By God’s grace we can become better at all these things and in the same way we can become people who choose to read, study, and reflect on the deeper matters of life.

Practically speaking, how can we develop a reading habit? I hope to write with a few suggestions in the near future; but for now, go ahead and make a start. There are lots of good books – but the best place to start is with the Good Book.  

By Eric Kampen

Minister of the Canadian Reformed Church at Orangeville, Ontario rev.e.kampen@gmail.com

This issue of Clarion will be in your hands at the same time of the year as Father’s Day. While we can try to ignore it as just another day when people are pressured to buy a card and a gift, it is hard not to notice it. We may as well take the opportunity to have some scriptural reflections on fatherhood. In this editorial, we will focus on the way a father is the head of the family. In short, we will focus on headship.

What prompted me to write on headship was not only the way it was my turn to write an editorial that would appear around Father’s Day, but also recently having had the privilege of listening to a sermon by a younger colleague dealing with the seventh commandment. In the sermon, he made the remark that, while he was aware many sisters discussed and read books on how to be submissive to their husbands, he was not aware of men discussing or reading books on how to exercise headship. Afterward, I expressed my appreciation for the sermon and the way he had given me a seed thought for a future editorial.

Discussion not missing altogether

While there does not seem to be much discussion on exercising headship within the marriage relationship, it is not so that conversation on headship has been lacking altogether. One who has followed issues dealt with at general synods over the past decade will be aware that there has been much talk about headship. The focus was not on exercising headship in the family, but it had to do with the question as to whether the sisters in the congregation should be involved in voting for office bearers. Headship was brought into the discussion as it was seen by some that voting is an exercising of authority. The argument then followed that if voting is an exercise of authority, the sisters should not participate in voting, for that would give sisters authority over men. As the discussions progressed over the years, the conclusion was that voting is not an exercise of authority and, as such, sisters should be able to participate in voting for new office bearers.

The intention in mentioning this is not to stir up the question of the involvement of sisters in choosing new office bearers. The intent is to show how the thought that tends to arise when one hears the word “headship” is “authority” and, let’s face it, that has a bad ring to it. Whether we like it or not, “authority” evokes thoughts of authoritarianism, of heavy-handedness, of calling the shots. There is the danger that a husband may let this authority get to his head and think it is the obligation of his wife to be submissive to him since he is the head. Husbands, however, should not spend time thinking what their wives are called to do. They should spend time thinking about what they are called to do in their position as head. This is best done by avoiding thinking of the headship principle and instead thinking about the headship passage.

Headship passage

Every husband should know where to find the headship passage, namely, Ephesians 5:25-33, and he should know the content. It is in the part of the letter to the Ephesians where Paul is calling his readers to “walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called…” (4:1). It is in a way which is different from the way of the unbelievers, still darkened in their understanding (4:17). It is the way in which we are to be imitators of Christ and walking in love (5:1). Beginning in chapter 5:22, Paul works out what that looks like in the various relationships of life. Wives are addressed first, and husbands are called their heads, but they are addressed in only three verses, while husbands are addressed in nine. It is in those nine verses that husbands learn what headship is all about by the way Paul points to their role model, namely, the Lord Jesus Christ.

To understand headship, you must understand the relationship of Christ and his church. When you understand that, you will soon begin to wonder if the term “authority” is really a helpful term in understanding headship. We see this when we note how Paul’s first instruction to husbands is to “love your wives.” I highlight that “love.” Any thought that headship means making sure one’s wife is submissive and does what she is told without questioning is banished. The first word that should come to mind when thinking of being the head of one’s wife is love!

Paul goes on to explain what love is by pointing to what Christ did for his church, namely, give his life for his church. Love is focussed on the other. Love is self-denying, sacrificial. As Christ gave his life to make the church beautiful to himself, that is, without sin, a husband must act in a similar way toward his wife. Paul brings this out further by elaborating on the relationship of the head and the body. The husband should see his wife as his own body. As he will look after his own body, he should look after his wife. It is the marvel of marriage, after all, that husband and wife in effect become one flesh, though they are two people.

The headship passage, therefore, brings out that the husband does not say, “What should my wife do for me,” but, “What am I called to do for my wife?” Christian men should realize that when they marry, they become responsible in part for the sanctification of their wives. They may have married a beautiful, godly woman, but as the marriage progresses, she should become a more beautiful, godly woman. He cannot simply leave that to her own efforts by having her read self-help books and discuss submission with her woman friends.

The marriage form

Now the question that will arise is how a husband is to do this. We have some excellent directions in that most compact marriage manual, the Form for the Solemnization of Marriage. This is something every Reformed husband should be familiar with. Most likely, a minister will have gone through this form in some premarital talks with a couple. Most certainly it has been heard numerous times, at one’s own wedding and when attending weddings of family and friends.

Husbands get direction in the section on the Duties of Marriage. Right after mentioning that the husband is the head of his wife and shall love her as his own body, it spells out three key responsibilities: namely, to guide, protect, and comfort her. These are spiritual responsibilities. The common denominator for these activities is the Word of God. A husband must conscientiously lead his family in the way of the Lord, be ready to point out spiritual dangers, and give comfort and encouragement. A husband should be just as well versed in the Scriptures, if not better, than his wife, in order to fulfill this important task. My observation is that the wives often spend far more time studying God’s Word than the husbands do. To address this is not to have wives study less, but to have husbands study more. It is essential if they are going to be a true head in the marriage relationship.

In addition, the form states that a husband should “live with her wisely and honour her, because she is an heir to eternal life together with you; then your prayers will not be hindered.” Living wisely with one’s wife requires awareness that a woman is different from a man. God made the woman to be a helper to the man, to supplement what he lacked. Together, a husband and a wife make a whole. They complement each other’s weaknesses and strengths. There is also the need to realize that one’s wife is one’s sister in Christ and should be respected and valued as such. Husband and wife together stand as sinners in need of Christ. Failure to realize and respect this will lead to hindered prayers (see 1 Peter 3:7).  Hindered prayers suggest the inability for husband and wife to pray together because of tension, as well as conflicting prayers going up the Father.

Man talk

At this point, it is necessary to make it clear that what has been written is not because, as writer, I claim a high level of achievement in this department. As we confess in Lord’s Day 44, we only make a small beginning in the new obedience to which we are called. These words have been written as a reminder of what all husbands have promised in their marriage vows. Further, as it was said earlier husbands should not be busy seeing if their wives are submissive enough, but the sisters need to reflect on God’s will for them, so wives should not be busy seeing if their husbands are exercising headship properly. It is the responsibility of every husband to reflect on how he is doing in fulfilling his calling as head of the family, whether he loves his wife and seeks to be a blessing to her. Not only should this stir up reflection, but it should also stir up some man talk, just as the women have woman talk about their calling. In such man talk, brothers might ask each other to share thoughts on how to fulfill the task of being a head in the family, and to evaluate each other and challenge each other to be godly husbands and fathers.

It is nice to bask in the love and attention of Father’s Day. It is not enough to bask in that glow of that day and let it get to one’s head, but in humble faith it is necessary each day of the year to seek to grow in being a head in the family. This comes down to growing each day in love for one’s wife and children.

By Arjan de Visser

Professor of Ministry and Mission at the Canadian Reformed Theological Seminary in Hamilton, Ontario ajdevisser@crts.ca

Way back in 1986, when I was still a seminary student in Kampen, The Netherlands, I attended a symposium at the Free University in Amsterdam. The main speaker was Edward Schillebeeckx, a prominent Roman Catholic theologian at that time. Within his own church, Schillebeeckx was a controversial figure who was summoned to the headquarters in Rome several times during his lifetime to explain and defend his views. One of his main critics, interestingly, was Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the future pope Benedict XVI.

The Free University, always eager to provide a platform to free thinking theologians, thought it was a great idea to get Schillebeeckx to give a series of lectures on the theme “Jesus in our Western culture.” I remember the Flemish theologian laying out his view of salvation as something that must happen in this world, not in the next world. Christians should be earthly-minded, not heavenly-minded. At one point, Schillebeeckx’s theological emphasis came together in a powerful and rather startling statement when he exclaimed: “Extra mundum nulla salus” (translation: outside the world there is no salvation)!

It was a clever play on words and perhaps a little mischievous as well. Schillebeeckx used the well-known doctrinal adage extra ecclesiam nulla salus (outside the church there is no salvation), changed one word (church – world), and so signaled a radical rethinking of various key theological concepts. Salvation, for example, would be no longer defined in terms of forgiveness of sin and reconciliation with God but rather in terms of wholeness of human life, emancipation, liberation from oppressive structures, and social justice.

Schillebeeckx also presented a different understanding of the person and work of Jesus Christ. In his view, Jesus Christ did not really have to die for our salvation.  The death of Jesus was rather inconsequential. His main role was to show with his life what God’s intentions are with this world and with mankind. Understandably, the role of the church needed to be redefined as well. The message of Schillebeeckx was that the church should focus on doing good in the world rather than on saving souls from the world.

Listening to Schillebeeckx was a difficult experience. On the one hand, I respected him because of his deep concern for those suffering in this world and his desire that Christians should make a difference. On the other hand, I was appalled by his redefinition of key theological concepts, such as his view of salvation and his understanding of the person and work of Jesus Christ.

Schilder

I was reminded of my Schillebeeckx experience recently as I was reading the dissertation by Marinus de Jong on Klaas Schilder. This excellent study was published last year and is available for download from the TU Kampen website.[i] The title is: The Church is the Means, the World is the End: The Development of Klaas Schilder’s Thought on the Relationship between the Church and the World.

As the subtitle indicates, De Jong describes the development of Schilder’s views regarding the relationship between the church and the world. He does so by placing the development of Schilder’s thought in historical and biographical context, taking the reader through four phases in Schilder’s life: his early years (1890-1925), his development as a theologian leading up to his appointment as a professor of dogmatics in Kampen (1925-1934), his involvement in the tensions within the Reformed Churches leading up to the Liberation (1934-1944), and the final years when Schilder was the leader of the Reformed Churches Liberated (1944-1952).

I found it fascinating to read about the development of Schilder’s thought. It helped me to understand and appreciate my own vrijgemaakte background better. When I think back of the teaching I enjoyed during my years as a teenager in catechism class, the kind of preaching and teaching I heard in those years, the kind of views my parents and others instilled in me, De Jong’s dissertation confirms that Schilder was a major influence.

I’m thinking here of concepts such as the cultural mandate of Christians in the world, complemented with the awareness that there is an antithesis between the church and the world. Schilder was not as optimistic as Abraham Kuyper about the results of Christian activity in the world, but he did maintain that Christians ought to be active in various spheres of life, such as politics, arts, and education. The church was supposed to be the hub of the various spheres of life Christians are involved in. As a result, we were brought up with the idea that a small minority of faithful believers can have a significant impact on the world.

A central feature

I found De Jong’s description of the various aspects of Schilder’s thought insightful, but there is one important aspect in the dissertation that did not convince me. It is the very idea that is expressed in the title: “The church is the means, the world is the end.” This statement is repeated at various points in the book and it is clearly something De Jong wants to get across as a major discovery of his research. To quote one example, he claims that in Schilder’s thought “the church, as Christ’s body, finds its fulfillment in restoring God’s attention for his creation through the human cultural mandate. The church is the means, the world is the end.”[ii] I found it interesting that in a footnote De Jong expresses his amazement that no other Schilder scholar (he mentions Batteau, Dee, and others) has noticed “this central feature” of Schilder’s ecclesiology. I remain skeptical. If De Jong is the only one who has seen this supposedly central feature in Schilder’s theology, it might be an indication that it’s not really there!

There is a difference between saying that the church is “the hub” of Christian activity in the world and saying that the church is “the means” and the world “the end.” The first statement points to the all-important role the church has to play to motivate its members to Christian activity in the world. Without a doubt, Schilder would agree. The second statement, however, could be understood to mean that the church is merely an instrument and that the world is really the ultimate goal of the Lord’s plan of salvation. I do not think that Schilder would say this. He would certainly agree that the church has cosmic relevance, but he would object to the idea that the church is merely an instrument.

The church was really important in Schilder’s thinking. He emphasized that Christ bought the church with his precious blood and that the church is the beloved bride, the wife of the Lamb (Rev 21). He worked hard to promote the idea that the church is a dynamic entity, always being opposed, but always being gathered and preserved by her Lord. He often quoted the words of the Catechism that the Son of God is gathering for himself, from the beginning of the world to its end, a church chosen to everlasting life (LD 21). He loved to quote from John 17, the chapter about Christ as High Priest praying for “the people whom you gave me out of the world” (John 17:6). With all this in mind, I cannot imagine Schilder agreeing with the title of De Jong’s dissertation. I think Schilder would have said that the church is both the means and the purpose of God’s plan of salvation.

Implications

Despite the critical comments in the previous paragraphs, I enjoyed reading De Jong’s dissertation, and I would recommend it to anyone who wants to understand the theological roots of the Canadian Reformed Churches. I also recommend it because of the discussions that are happening among us with respect to the missional calling of the church in the present circumstances. Let me make three brief comments in application.

First, since it is the purpose of our Lord Jesus Christ to gather a church for himself, a church chosen to everlasting life, there is no place for coldness or indifference with respect to our missionary calling as churches. The call to evangelism and missionary effort needs to be heard continually and we need to grow in mission-mindedness.

Second, in our time it is quite popular to say that “the church exists for the world.” With some regularity I see the statement of William Temple being quoted: “The church is the only institution that exists primarily for the benefit of those who are not its members.” While we can appreciate the missionary zeal underlying such comments, it is not balanced. Biblically speaking, the church exists for three purposes: for the edification of its members, for evangelizing the nations, and for the glory of God. In my estimation, one of the challenges for our churches is going to be how to become more missional without losing the focus on the edification of the members.

Third, in our time it is quite common to have high expectations regarding the impact Christians can have on the world. People speak about “transforming the culture” or “redeeming the city.” Again, we can appreciate the zeal to be a blessing to the world. But we can learn from Schilder that we should not be too optimistic about the prospects of changing the society. More importantly, we should watch out for the opposite effect: that instead of the church impacting the world, the world might have an impact on the church. Let’s not underestimate the power of sin and worldliness! We are to be in the world but not of the world (John 17:14-16). The enmity between the seed of the woman and the serpent continues to be a reality (Gen 3:15).