Reformation Day Conference Publicity

A Preacher on the Fence

A Preacher on the Fence

From out of the millions of the earth
God often calls a man
To preach the word, and for the truth
To take a royal stand.
“Tis sad to see him shun the cross,
Nor stand in its defense
Between the fields of right and wrong:
A preacher on the fence.

Before him are the souls of men
Bound for Heaven or Hell;
An open Bible in his hand,
And yet he will not tell
All the truth that’s written there, It haveth an offence -
The joys of Heaven, the horrors of Hell
-A preacher on the fence.

Now surely God has called the man
To battle for the right.
“Tis his to ferret out the wrong
And turn on us the light.
And yet he dare not tell the truth,
He fears the consequence,
The most disgusting thing on earth
Is a preacher on the fence.
If he should stand up for the wrong,
The right he’d not defend;
If he should stand up for the right,
The wrong he would offend.
His mouth is closed, he cannot speak
For freedom or against.
Great God deliver us from
A preacher on the fence.

But soon both sides will find him out
And brand him as a fraud,
A coward who dares not to please
The devil or his God.
Oh God, free us from fear of man,
From cowardly pretence;
Cleanse out the dross and fear of loss,
And keep us off the fence.

–Author Unknown

Unpublished Letter to the English Churchman on Divorce and Remarriage

Unpublished Letter to the English Churchman on Divorce and Remarriage

"What God hath joined together, let not man put asunder' ...Dear Sir,Re: Divorce and Remarriage in Holy Scripture and TraditionThis letter is not a condemnation of those who differ from the views of Mr. J. F. Burrows on divorce and remarriage but a humble and sincere plea that the Word of God on the issue be considered afresh.The teaching of the Early (i.e. the first four centuries, incl. Eastern) and Medieval (i.e. pre-Reformation) Western Church are reflected in the consensus patri (viz. Church fathers) whereby marriage was regarded as an unbreakable or indissoluble bond (vinculum) which was broken or dissolved only upon the death of one spouse. The Early Church was virtually unanimous on this issue (with very few exceptions, contrary to the Catholic understanding of the teaching of Christ as handed down by the Apostles).The Church of England maintained the 'indissolubist' view of marriage which was enshrined in canon 107 (The Constitution and Canons Ecclesiastical, 1603) and in that respect differed from the continental Reformed Churches and the majority of the Protestant Reformers; and legal separation a thoro et mensa (i.e. a 'divorce' NOT amounting to a right to remarry) remained its OFFICIAL position until only recently (i.e. 1970s). In response to Mr. Alan Bartley: Cases of nobility and the wealthy seeking full divorce (which is usually brought about by an Act of Parliament, e.g. the Lord Ross case, 1669) and opinions expressed by the laity do not alter that fact. Also, the apostate Roman Church did not depart from the Catholic view but reaffirmed it at the Council of Trent (1563), canon VII (24th session).I would urge that the classical evangelical exegesis of Matthew 19 (i.e. the Christic as opposed to the rabbinical exposition) be re-examined. It is clear that DIVORCE (i.e. putting away) is only permitted on grounds of adultery (i.e. sexual sin on the part of the guilty spouse) in response to the Pharisaical (trap) question; and Christ immediately adds - in typical proleptic and terse manner in verse 9 - that REMARRIAGE on the part of the innocent spouse constitutes adultery and not just the person who marries the guilty spouse who has been divorced! The force of logic implicit in the 'exception clause' (of Matt. 19:9) is that the marriage bond is still intact. Cf. Matthew 5:32, Mark 10:11-12, Luke 16:18, Romans 7:2-3, 1 Corinthians 7:39 on the absolute prohibition of REMARRIAGE during the lifetime of the other spouse.For Christians, marriage is mirrored in the love of Christ (the divine Bridegroom) for the Church, His Bride (Ephesians 5:23-33) which is ultimately grounded in the intra-Trinitarian relations of the Being of God (i.e. the perichoresis or mutual indwelling between Father and Son with the Holy Spirit as the vinculum amoris, i.e. BOND of love as the 'archetypal' Covenant relationship.

Rev. Douglas Kuiper
Rev. Kuiper is pastor of the Protestant Reformed Church in Randolph, Wisconsin.
The Election and Installation of Deacons (6)
Tenure of Office
We have examined the principles of Scripture and our Church Order regarding the election and installation of deacons. Before leaving the subject, however, we should treat a few related issues. One issue regards how long deacons should serve in office. The second regards how long the deacon must be out of office before being nominated and installed into that office again. And the third regards the resignation or removal of the deacon from office. To the first two of these issues we now direct our attention.
The basic question concerning how long deacons should serve in office is the question whether a deacon should serve for life, or for a limited tenure. The practice that most, if not all, Reformed churches follow is that of term elderships and deaconships. This practice is prescribed by the Church Order drawn up by the Synod of Dordt, 1618-1619. We read in Article 27: “The elders and deacons shall serve two or more years according to local regulations, and a proportionate number shall retire every year. The retiring officers shall be succeeded by others, unless the circumstances and the profit of any church, in the execution of Articles 22 and 24, render a reelection advisable.”
Notice clearly three things.
First, the article does not prescribe how long a deacon’s term must be. It does give the minimum of two years, but allows for a longer term. The specific length of term is left up to the individual church’s discretion, as is clear from the phrase “according to local regulations.”
Second, the article clearly does not allow a man once elected to serve in that office for life. It requires “a proportionate number” to retire annually. Should a church desire an elder or deacon whose term is ending to continue in his office, a new election, a new period of approbation, and a new installation are all required, in accordance with Articles 22 and 24 of the Church Order. A church might do this, for instance, if she has no other men qualified to serve in that office, or if she judges one of her retiring officebearers to be so eminently able and qualified to serve in office, that she desires him to continue in it.
To this requirement that a proportionate number of officebearers retire annually, the Protestant Reformed Churches have added this allowance: “In case of difficulties in the congregation, the office-bearers then serving shall continue to function until their chosen successors can be installed” (Classis of June 1934; and Synod of 1944, Articles 66, 67). This allowance does not violate the principle of the article, for in such an instance not one, but all of the retiring officebearers continue in office, and then only until the circumstances are such that all can be replaced.
Third, in saying this is the practice of most, if not all, Reformed churches, we use the term “Reformed churches” in the narrow sense, distinguishing them from most, if not all, Presbyterian churches. By “Reformed churches” here is meant those that subscribe to the Heidelberg Catechism, Belgic Confession, and Canons of Dordt, and who are governed by the Church Order adopted at Dordt. While Presbyterian churches are also historically and confessionally Reformed in doctrine, their form of church government differs in some ways from that of Reformed churches. One difference is this, that they do not practice term elderships and deaconships, but consider the one elected, approved, and installed, to serve for life, unless for good cause he should resign or be removed from office.
What are the arguments for and against terms of office?
Against the practice of having terms of office, and in favor of having officebearers serve for life, weighty arguments are put forward.
Some of the arguments are of a practical nature.1 One such argument is that it is not good for the church to have her best, most qualified men be unable to serve for periods of time. Another is that her officebearers are deprived of good experience, which would help them perform their work, by being relieved of their duties after several years. A third is that the continuity of the work of the consistory or council is interrupted by retirement of officebearers and installation of new ones.
More weighty are the arguments based on scriptural data. It is pointed out, for instance, that Scripture nowhere speaks of such limited tenure; but, on the other hand, it does seem to teach the principle of lifetime service. In the Old Testament, the kings of Israel/Judah, in the line of David, served in office for life or until sickness or old age prevented them from carrying out their work; the priests served many years in the temple; and the prophets also were not limited in their tenure. In the New Testament, we find no limit on the length of service for deacons or elders. And our own practice, as well as that of the church throughout history, has been that our ministers serve in their office for life. Consistency would require us, then, to allow elders and deacons to do the same.
Against the practice of life elderships and deaconships, and in favor of terms of office, are also put forth practical arguments. One is that by having her officebearers serve for a term, a church guards against hierarchy. Furthermore, the amount of time and energy that the officebearer must give to the work, and the sacrifices that his family must make while he is in office, necessitate a break from the work. Besides, replacement of officebearers is good for the church because the new officebearers bring with them new energy and new ideas. And, if any of the office-bearers do not perform their work well, having them serve for a term is the easiest way to remove them from office.
More weighty, again, are the principle reasons. One is that Scripture, being silent on the issue, leaves it to the liberty of the churches to do as they please. The fact that God does not expressly require that officebearers serve for life means that He could be glorified either way. Another argument is that, generally speaking, the Holy Spirit has given the gifts of ruling and shewing mercy to many people in the church. By having terms of office, more people are given the opportunity to use their gifts in the service of the church and God.
Because the arguments that appeal to Scripture and scriptural principles are more weighty than the practical arguments, our evaluation will concentrate on the scriptural arguments.
First, by way of evaluation, it is certainly true that if God desires the church to do something, He must make that clear in Scripture, either by express command, or by giving principles that necessarily lead to a certain practice. That Scripture makes no express command pertaining to the length of term of officebearers is clear to all. Nor, in my judgment (and that of Reformed churches), does Scripture set forth principles that require the church’s officebearers to serve in office for life unless health, age, or other compelling reasons require him to put down his work and office. The church of Jesus Christ is therefore at liberty in this regard to do what she thinks is most conducive and edifying to her members. That church is not wrong that requires her elders and deacons to serve for life; nor is that church wrong that has her officebearers serve for terms.
Secondly, an examination of the scriptural data, especially as found in the Old Testament, will help us better to understand that it is not wrong for the church to have limited terms of office. It is true that the kings from David’s line served for life. But this was particularly because the Christ would come from David’s line, and would reign over His people forever. That David’s sons were to rule successively and for life pointed Israel to this everlasting rule of Christ, as II Samuel 7:12ff. makes clear. Christ does now reign over His church; and He does so through elders. However, no elder is personally a type of Christ, and therefore the church is not required to keep any individual elder in office for life. As regards the prophets in the Old Testament, they did not necessarily prophesy for life, but only for the length of time that God was pleased to use them. Some apparently prophesied only for a very short time. And of the priests and Levites, God specifically required that they not begin their work in the temple before age 30, and must finish it by age 50 (Num. 4:3, 23, 30; 8:25). Certainly twenty years of service is a lengthy time, and might seem to favor life service more than terms. But we know also that in the time of David there were 24 courses of priests — each course serving in shifts (I Chron. 24:1-19 et. al.), indicating that, while priests held the office continuously, they did not do the work of the office continuously, because there were more priests than were necessary for the work. All of this indicates to us that it is not wrong for our officebearers to serve for limited terms.
Thirdly, the point is well made: “The office does not cleave to the person, but to the church. It is the church who puts a man into office. The church, therefore, may determine how long a man shall have the office."2 The offices in the church are perpetual. The office of deacon, as well as that of elder and pastor, must always exist in the New Testament church. And if the office exists, the church must see to it that men fill the office. But those men may be replaced by other men at any given time, when such is conducive to the well-being of the congregation. The continuity of the office does not depend on any one man holding that office.
How long ought a term be? We have already noticed that the Church Order says “two or more years,” but leaves it to each church to decide just how long her officebearers will serve.
Interestingly, in Geneva during the time of John Calvin, all officebearers served one-year terms. They could be immediately reappointed if they had served well. Some Reformed churches have their officebearers serve terms of four, five, or even six years.3 Many require a three-year term of service.
Certainly two years ought to be the minimum length of term; and most often two years is not enough. A two-year term means that half of the council is replaced annually; that could greatly affect the ability of a council to do its work. Yet, if the terms are for four or five years, the danger would be that the officebearers become weary of the work before their term is finished, and that the sacrifice required of the families is too great.
How long must the deacon be out of office, before being nominated and perhaps elected to that office, or the office of elder, again?
The Church Order’s requirement in Article 27 is this: “The retiring officers shall be succeeded by others, unless the circumstances and profit of any church, in the execution of Articles 22 and 24, render a reelection advisable.”
The general rule, therefore, is that the retiring officebearer cannot be immediately nominated for office again. He must be out of office for at least one year. This is profitable for the congregation and officebearer alike. That the office-bearers not be immediately reelected is in keeping with the practical reasons for having terms of office. Whether officebearers are eligible for reelection after being out of office for one year, or whether a longer time period is feasible, each congregation is at liberty to decide for herself.
The rule, however, is not hard and fast; for in small congregations it is possible that there are no other men able to serve, and that the retiring officebearer must be nominated or even appointed immediately. The Church Order takes such into account when it allows for reelections if the circumstances or profit of the church make such advisable.
In either case — that of a retiring officebearer being immediately reelected, or that of one being reelected after having been out of office for a year or more — not only must the man be elected to office again, but he must also be installed again. This is because he was elected to a term of specific length, which term cannot be arbitrarily extended. This is also in keeping with the significance of installation, of which we have spoken in a previous article.
1. Unless specifically noted, the arguments for both sides of the debate are gathered from VanDellen and Monsma, The Church Order Commentary, 1941 edition, pages 125-126; Rev. G. VandenBerg’s article “Compulsory Retirement of Officebearers” in the Standard Bearer, volume 33, pages 69-70; and P.Y. DeJong’s book, The Ministry of Mercy for Today, pages 126-127.
2. Rev. R. Cammenga, “Term of Office,” Standard Bearer, vol. 68, page 22.
3. VanDellen and Monsma, page 124.

Dissolution of the ERCS

The ERCS classis on 3 March 07 decided to dissolve the ERCS. The effective date is on 30 June 07. This date gives members of FERC sufficient time to transfer their membership and for the finance and management committee of the ERCS enough time to put their house in order before closing shop. May the Lord be merciful to us.

The Urgency of Preaching by R. Albert Mohler, Jr

The Urgency of Preaching
R. Albert Mohler Jr.
And how will they hear without a preacher?Romans 10:14
Has preaching fallen on hard times? An open debate is now being waged over the character and centrality of preaching in the church. At stake is nothing less than the integrity of Christian worship and proclamation.
How did this happen? Given the central place of preaching in the New Testament church, it would seem that the priority of biblical preaching should be uncontested. After all, as John A. Broadus--one of Southern Seminary's founding faculty--famously remarked, "Preaching is characteristic of Christianity. No other religion has made the regular and frequent assembling of groups of people, to hear religious instruction and exhortation, an integral part of Christian worship."
Yet, numerous influential voices within evangelicalism suggest that the age of the expository sermon is now past. In its place, some contemporary preachers now substitute messages intentionally designed to reach secular or superficial congregations--messages which avoid preaching a biblical text, and thus avoid a potentially embarrassing confrontation with biblical truth.
A subtle shift visible at the onset of the twentieth century has become a great divide as the century ends. The shift from expository preaching to more topical and human-centered approaches has grown into a debate over the place of Scripture in preaching, and the nature of preaching itself.
Two famous statements about preaching illustrate this growing divide. Reflecting poetically on the urgency and centrality of preaching, the Puritan pastor Richard Baxter once remarked, "I preach as never sure to preach again, and as a dying man to dying men." With vivid expression and a sense of gospel gravity, Baxter understood that preaching is literally a life or death affair. Eternity hangs in the balance as the preacher proclaims the Word.
Contrast that statement to the words of Harry Emerson Fosdick, perhaps the most famous (or infamous) preacher of this century's early decades. Fosdick, pastor of the Riverside Church in New York City, provides an instructive contrast to the venerable Baxter. "Preaching," he explained, "is personal counseling on a group basis."
These two statements about preaching reveal the contours of the contemporary debate. For Baxter, the promise of heaven and the horrors of hell frame the preacher's consuming burden. For Fosdick, the preacher is a kindly counselor offering helpful advice and encouragement.
The current debate over preaching is most commonly explained as a argument about the focus and shape of the sermon. Should the preacher seek to preach a biblical text through an expository sermon? Or, should the preacher direct the sermon to the "felt needs" and perceived concerns of the hearers?
Clearly, many evangelicals now favor the second approach. Urged on by devotees of "needs-based preaching," many evangelicals have abandoned the text without recognizing that they have done so. These preachers may eventually get to the text in the course of the sermon, but the text does not set the agenda or establish the shape of the message.
Focusing on so-called "perceived needs" and allowing these needs to set the preaching agenda inevitably leads to a loss of biblical authority and biblical content in the sermon. Yet, this pattern is increasingly the norm in many evangelical pulpits. Fosdick must be smiling from the grave.
Earlier evangelicals recognized Fosdick's approach as a rejection of biblical preaching. An out-of-the-closet theological liberal, Fosdick paraded his rejection of biblical inspiration, inerrancy, and infallibility--and rejected other doctrines central to the Christian faith. Enamored with trends in psychological theory, Fosdick became liberal Protestantism's happy pulpit therapist. The goal of his preaching was well captured by the title of one of his many books, On Being a Real Person.
Shockingly, this is now the approach evident in many evangelical pulpits. The sacred desk has become an advice center and the pew has become the therapist's couch. Psychological and practical concerns have displaced theological exegesis and the preacher directs his sermon to the congregation's perceived needs.
The problem is, of course, that the sinner does not know what his most urgent need is. She is blind to her need for redemption and reconciliation with God, and focuses on potentially real but temporal needs such as personal fulfillment, financial security, family peace, and career advancement. Too many sermons settle for answering these expressed needs and concerns, and fail to proclaim the Word of Truth.
Without doubt, few preachers following this popular trend intend to depart from the Bible. But under the guise of an intention to reach modern secular men and women "where they are," the sermon has been transformed into a success seminar. Some verses of Scripture may be added to the mix, but for a sermon to be genuinely biblical, the text must set the agenda as the foundation of the message--not as an authority cited for spiritual footnoting.
Charles Spurgeon confronted the very same pattern of wavering pulpits in his own day. Some of the most fashionable and well-attended London churches featured pulpiteers who were the precursors to modern needs-based preachers. Spurgeon--who managed to draw a few hearers despite his insistence on biblical preaching--confessed that "The true ambassador for Christ feels that he himself stands before God and has to deal with souls in God's stead as God's servant, and stands in a solemn place--a place in which unfaithfulness is inhumanity to man as well as treason to God."
Spurgeon and Baxter understood the dangerous mandate of the preacher, and were therefore driven to the Bible as their only authority and message. They left their pulpits trembling with urgent concern for the souls of their hearers and fully aware of their accountability to God for preaching His Word, and His Word alone. Their sermons were measured by power; Fosdick's by popularity.
The current debate over preaching may well shake congregations, denominations, and the evangelical movement. But know this: The recovery and renewal of the church in this generation will come only when from pulpit to pulpit the herald preaches as never sure to preach again, and as a dying man to dying men.

Spiritual Israel: A book, "Christianity and Neo-Liberalism" by Paul M. Elliot

Spiritual Israel: A book, "Christianity and Neo-Liberalism" by Paul M. Elliot

The ERCS (Evangelical Reformed Churches in Singapore) will be taking a vote concerning the matter of the dissolution of the ERCS. This will take place in the Class is of 3 March 2007. I would like to offer my personal reflections on how this state of affairs came to the ERCS after bring existence since 1982.

1. The teaching of Divorce and Remarriage were not clearly and explicitly preached and taught. This is evident when the older members cannot recall a single sermon devoted to such a topic. This teaching was neglected, perhaps, they did not see a real need for preaching on a topic or a scenario that did not exist in that time.

2. There was a growing group of people that preferred the theology of the Westminster Confession of Faith rather than the 3 Forms of Unity, as represented by the Protestant Reformed Churches. So, naturally, when the issue came up many opted with the viewpoint of the Westminster Confession of Faith.

Lessons learnt from this controversy

1. The whole counsel of God must be taught, even though there was no current case. In fact, through our controversy we have learnt that it is much too late to wait for an existing case to happen to begin preaching. When this controversy came about, the ERCS classis forbid preaching on this matter.

2. Churches must preach the Word of God concerning D & R, and not be silent on this matter. Furthermore, the life of the churches ought to reflect the new distinctive and not deny this truth.

3. There is a need to separate from the other church that takes another view, that is, Remarriage of the Innocent party.
What are the reasons?
a. The issue is a matter of sin, and not an indifferent matter or a matter of opinions but a strong conviction of God's Word
b. A continance in this denomination or association will cause us to deny the truth of No - Remarriage. This is the case bacause whenever there are combined meetings there is an unwritten rule of understanding that we are not to speak of things that divide but speak of things that unite.
c. Such an association will hamper the growth of the Church so that she will not be able to grow as she ought to
c. If we ever have joint activities, we must go there with the aim to call them to repentance. Fellowship is out of the question as they have committed an error and such an error will lead to sin.

A book, "Christianity and Neo-Liberalism" by Paul M. Elliot

This is an excellent read. If you are a pastor, elder and deacon you ought to get a copy to read it. It is a very tragic account of a reputable theological seminary and groups of churches denying the fundamentals of the Christian Faith. This is a sad account where a reputable reformed seminary and group of churches succumbing to false doctrine. That this was deliberately kept from the people for about 30 years. And the tragic consequence is that this institution has produced ministers, missionaries that has infiltrated the Reformed churches with their errors. Now, the error is not a minor error but concerns the way of salvation. This is a worthy saying, "The church that does not learn from its errors are condemned to repeat its errors"

I have learnt the various lessons:
1. Do not condone false doctrine by our silence, connivance and accommodation.
2. False doctrine, if left alone will grown an affect the entire church, even entire denomination
3. False doctrine must be dealt with swiftly by disciplining those who teaches false doctrine
4. There must be a antithetical preaching and teaching to expose false doctrine so that God's people know errors from truth
5. Elders and Pastors must be vigilant in upholding the truth and not for the sake of friendship sell the truth for the pottage of popularity, reputation and what not.