Reading for Preaching

Arie C. Leder

The constant pressure of relevance drives some preachers to movies and novels as illustrations or even as the fundamental texts for their sermons. Because contemporary seekers do not know–may even be offended by–the old, old story, contemporary fiction is an effective bridge to a hearing of the gospel. This assumes, of course, that the preacher’s fiction of choice is a known quantity for the seeker. What if they haven’t seen the movie or read the book? Not to worry, just retell the story to get into that story, so that maybe they’ll be willing to hear the old, old story during the last few minutes of your “talk.”

Wait a minute! Isn’t that what we used to do, take time to read and explain the old, old story? Do teachers of English literature use a “known” contemporary text to get the student into an “ancient” text, Pride and Prejudice, The Canterbury Tales, or even The Great Gatsby? Do you first watch one movie in order to understand another?

What is the relationship between our reading, or movie watching, and hearing the gospel as expressed in the ancient texts the Church privileges as Scripture?

Reflecting on Madeleine L’Engle’s fiction, Sally Thomas recalls that “as a child, raised on a relatively secular diet of mainstream Protestantism and utterly unaware of the existence of any theological problem beyond being mean to somebody on the playground, I was captivated by the notion that there was such a thing as evil and, conversely, that there was such a thing as good. The idea, further, that even the weak and the flawed were called to the battle–that there even was a battle–roused something in my imagination that years of Sunday School had somehow failed to touch.”(“Fantasy and Faith,” First Things [November 2007], 16.) But the biblical story is filled with wickedness and evil, goodness and grace. Why weren’t those stories told? Maybe because the teachers couldn’t abide the womanizing Samson, hatred between brothers, the depravity of sin manifested in the lives of all the biblical saints. And reconciliation.

Thomas concludes: “the novels themselves were not the gospel, and I don’t think I ever mistook them as such. But they awakened my mind to the idea of a universe in which, even in distant galaxies, God is praised in the familiar words of the Psalms.” Burying oneself into good literature is fine, La Suite Française is achingly beautiful. But it isn’t privileged Scripture. Why not read Scripture as intensively? Ask of it the questions you address your favorite fiction? It has long been the classic that discloses the human condition for what it really is, that speaks the truth about impious believers and arrogant seekers, and that, if you are willing to hear it, will move you mysteriously to the grace of God. Let that classic help us to penetrate to the human condition depicted in all sorts of fiction.

Dear BOT: About the proposed new Form of Subscription

Christian Reformed Church in North America
Attn: Form of Subscription Revision Task Force
2850 Kalamazoo Ave. SE
Grand Rapids, MI 49560

Dear Fellow Servants of Jesus Christ:

We are writing to your committee to communicate our comments and suggestions regarding the proposed revisions to the Form of Subscription circulated to the churches through a memo from the office of the Executive Director dated August 27, 2007.

We wish to express our appreciation for the thought and effort that has been put into your initial report and for your efforts that have prompted our council and, we are certain many others as well, to once again think seriously about what it means for the Christian Reformed Church to be a confessionally Reformed denomination in 21st century North American culture. While we do indeed appreciate the obvious thought and effort evident in the document, we must also raise a number of serious concerns regarding the proposed revisions and the theological assumptions that seem to lie behind them.

There are, first of all, a number of logical inconsistencies or fallacies in the report. The report states on page one, “[T]he second [assumption] (that a regulatory instrument is needed to keep us orthodox) is increasingly being called into question.” Simply because it [the FOS] is being questioned, does not mean that the aforesaid questions are valid. One is left to wonder, if no regulatory instrument exists, then by what standard will we be able to judge ourselves to have remained orthodox, if that is indeed our desire. It is questionable given the historical experience of our tradition (the Afscheiding of 1834 and the Doleantie of 1886) that orthodoxy, in any meaningful sense, would long survive the revisions proposed by the committee. On the contrary, if history is any indicator, these proposed revisions would likely lead to heterodox church doctrine and practice, and occasion the very schism they wish to avert. Individual conscience appears to be the only safeguard remaining to preserve orthodoxy, but this is an unreliable defense at best. The proposed revisions would open to the door for individual interpretation and privilege such interpretation over and against communal interpretation of Scripture and theology.

The report also states, “Ironically it has been under the current FOS’s stern watch that a significant and increasing neglect of the confessions has occurred.” There are two logical problems with this statement. First of all, because deviation from accepted norms has occurred, “under the current FOS’s stern watch” does not in any way imply a weakness or deficiency in the FOS, but rather in our willingness to live up to our covenantal promises as officebearers. Second, it strains the limits of credulity to believe that the proposed revisions will resolve the problem of neglect that the committee identifies. If anything the proposed revisions are likely to further exacerbate the problem rather than resolve it, unless one considers ignoring the problem an acceptable solution. The proposed “Covenant of Ordination” states, “We accept the historic confessions: the Belgic Confession, the Heidelberg Catechism, and the Canons of Dort, as well as Our World Belongs to God: A Contemporary Testimony, as faithful expressions of the church’s understanding of the gospel for its time and place, which define our tradition and continue to guide us today.”

It is difficult to understand how the confessions could offer any guidance or serve to define our identity if we are able to reject them at will if they conflict with “our understanding of the Scriptures”. It is also difficult to understand how the confessions could be viewed as, “faithful expressions of the church’s understanding of the gospel for its time and place,” if they are so evidently deficient.

In addition to these logical fallacies, there are also historical inaccuracies in the report. Some of these, including the occasion of the Afscheiding of 1834 and the Doleantie of 1886 and their relationship to a similar attitude of confessional laxity have already been alluded to. In addition, the report states, “It seems clear to our committee that, historically, the FOS has functioned negatively to effectively shut down discussion on various confessional issues rather than positively to encourage the ongoing development of the confessions in the life of the church. In other words, the FOS has been used to define a standard of purity in the church more than being a witness to unity.” This is simply not the case as recent discussions/disagreements regarding women in office, the revision of Q&A 80 of the Heidelberg Catechism, children at the Lord’s Supper and many other issues clearly demonstrate.

On a more technical note, the committee has clearly gone beyond its mandate to proposed revisions to the FOS. The proposed revisions are in actuality a replacement of the current FOS, not a revision of it. In addition, the inclusion of Our World Belongs to God: A Contemporary Testimony, as a document equal to the confessions also goes far beyond the mandated bounds of the committee’s assigned work. For these reasons we encourage the committee to significantly re-think the proposed revisions.

In the Service of Christ and his Church,

First Christian Reformed Church
1450 Catherine Ave.
Muskegon, MI 49442

Michael Borgert, Pastor
Allan VanderPloeg, Clerk of Council

Published with permission

Latest Meeting of the Returning Church

by The Returning Church Committee

On September 13 there was a meeting of the Returning Church in Oskaloosa, Iowa, organized by Rev. Marv Leese (Bethel CRC, Oskaloosa) and Rev. Jack Gray (Sully CRC, IA). There were about 85 in attendance which is a good starting point and a show of God's blessing.

Rev. Leese opened the meeting with a mediation on John 17:20-23 and Jesus' prayer for unity in the church. Rev. CJ denDulk (Trinity CRC, Sparta, MI) followed by speaking on II Kings 22 and Josiah's reforms based on the discovery of God's Word. Unity and God's Word certainly were central themes for the evening.

There was also a Q&A time where various issues and topics were raised, including biblical complementarianism, nurturing our covenant youth, the "Form of Subscription" revisions (see below) and other challenges to ministry. It was noted that the CRC has always sought to be biblical, and that must be encouraged and insisted upon going forward.

The question was asked, "What are you 'returning' to?" That is a great question and one that needs to be brought up often. The reply went something like this - we are prone to wander - as individuals, as congregations and as denomination. And recognizing that fact we must return to God every day, seeking Him at His Word. This Returning Church movement is not issue-centered, as some have claimed, but focused on returning us back to God and living for His glory each and every day.

This meeting in Iowa was almost one year to the date of the first Returning Church meeting in Byron Center, MI. God has seen fit to draw many people into the discussion around both the U.S. and Canada. May God answer our prayers and bring genuine revival and reform to the CRC.

The following day, Rev. Henry Reyenga (Family of Faith CRC, Monee, IL) and Rev. Ben Tol (1st CRC, South Holland, IL) invited several pastors to meet at 1st CRC in South Holland, IL, to further the discussion about particular issues and to introduce others to the ideas behind this movement. Many expressed a growing need for theological classes – where churches can show their unity in working together without binding their consciences. Again, biblical complementarianism and the "Form of Subscription" were discussed.

All of your church Council's should have received a copy of the proposed revision to the “Form of Subscription” that all office-bearers sign in the CRC. There are some concerns with the revisions. If you’d like to see more of that discussion, go to www.returningchurch.blogspot.com. Several pastors are meeting next week in West Michigan to discuss this with the hopes to come up with an outline that churches can use to formulate overtures if they so choose. That outline will be available if you would like it. The “Form of Subscription” stands at the heart of the CRC being a confessional church, so this won’t be the last email mentioning it.

We encourage the gathering of pastors and elders in your area and when you do, to stay in contact with us. We will advertise on the blog and also via email, if you'd like. In the meantime, keep our denomination a matter of your prayers. We certainly all need it as we tread these waters and seek to faithfully minister to the congregations and community in which God has placed us.

In Christ,
The Returning Church

The Sufferer's Wisdom: The Book of Job

by Ellen F. Davis

“It is safe to say that at the present time the church makes little use of the book of Job for its pastoral ministry. This has not always been the case. The medieval church made heavy use of it in preparing Christian souls to deal with suffering without falling away from their faith. But the modern church has pulled back, even in recent decades. Episcopalians may discover a sign of our retreat in the latest revision of The Book of Common Prayer (1979). The Burial Office retains the luminous affirmation: “I know that my Redeemer liveth” (Job 19:25). But gone is Job’s statement of resigned grief: “The Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord” (1:21). “The Lord hath taken away”–does that in fact express resignation, or is it the beginning of an accusation? That troublingly ambiguous statement is in the 1928 version of The Book of Common Prayer, but the 1979 version pitched it out. And one must ask, Why? Have we grown afraid to lodge the responsibility for our grief with the Lord, as Job so consistently does?

"The focal point of the book is not God's justice . . . , but rather the problem of human pain: how Job endures it, cries out of it, wrestles furiously with God in the midst of it, and ultimately transcends his pain--or better, is transformed through it."

-from Getting Involved with God (Cambridge: Cowley, 2001), 121, 122.