Friday, July 14, 2017

Culture Shock, continued

A while ago a brother in our church suggested that "Women in Office" was a real "hobby horse" for me. He came to this conclusion after I had published a few articles on our church's Facebook page.
I had done so in response to two developments. First, the GKv churches were meeting at their regular synod, and this time there seemed to be an urgent push in the church community to 'legalize women in office'. Reading the Nederlands Daglad and listening to people around me I was convinced that this decision would indeed be made. Second, while our pastor can be characterised as "evangelical reformed" and loves to learn from John Piper and Timothy Keller, yet het held a 'teaching sermon' in which he explained the report on "Serving Together as Man and Woman" (written by a study group to advise the Synod on this issue) without any pastoral warning or guidance. Yet, I discovered -to my surprise and horror- that this report follows the same rationale as Bill Webb does in his progressive redemptive hermeneutic. (see: post Shelob's Web: August, 2014)

Meanwhile, fairly recently I had learned that at 'my seminary' and in the Fellowship of Evangelical Baptist churches the teachings of Bill Webb have been rejected. Wayne Grudem, for instance, has written a fairly thorough critique of Webb's "Slaves, Women, and Homosexuals".
On the other hand, however, in the churches where I grew up in Holland, many or most now embrace the kind of hermeneutics of Bill Webb proposes. Ironically, they used to consider themselves 'the true church' with 'the pure doctrine', while they considered Baptist churches unworthy of the label "Church of Christ". Yet, at this time it seems to me that Baptist leaders like D.A. Carson and John Piper are now closer to the Truth than most Reformed churches and their leaders, at least here in The Netherlands.

So, what is my position on "women in office' and how and why is it different from others in 'our churches' here?
Since most people tend to think that there are only two answers possible, they will automatically try to peg me in either hole. So, before I answer the question, I usually describe the other options before us.  Please note that many nuances exist and variations exist within each of these viewpoints.

1 the traditional position
In several passages, Paul clearly argues that women must be silent in the meetings. Even if we cannot understand his rationale or have a tendency to object from our cultural perspective, we are called to obey the Word of God and the apostolic teaching.
Sure, women were prophesying in the early church, but we don't have this kind of prophesying anymore. Perhaps women were allowed to be deacons, but many older people would object, to this and we are to keep the peace. Besides, this could lead us onto a slippery slope, whereby opening up one office might soon lead to opening up all offices. Better safe than sorry.

My response: Over against the "women must be silent" in the meetings we can also find passages where women were encouraged to speak in the meetings, and they were applauded for their leadership functions. If we bar women from the office of deacon without clear instructions from Scripture to do so, then we are not living by God's Word but by tradition and culture. We do not respect our women and the gifts God gives in and through them. Such practices do not build up but weaken the church.

2 the egalitarian position
A century ago the women in our culture were not treated with the same respect as men. In civil elections, for instance, women were not allowed to participate. Especially after WWII feminism fought for liberty and equality, and slowly but surely many situations of systemic injustice were removed.
Although the Church of Christ ought to defend justice in the public realm, in reality they often lag behind the surrounding culture. Today, most churches are ashamed of their chauvinistic past and seek to undo the mistakes of the past.
If women finally get their fair place and position in society, why should we not do the right thing and do the same in the churches? If we read the Bible from this perspective, it becomes clear that there is a movement after the Fall from inequality and injustice to justice and equality. We are called to continue in faithfulness to this storyline and do the right thing for our women.
If there are a few passages where Paul would call women to be silent, we must look for good reasons for him to do so. In Corinth, for instance, there were special problems with domineering women. Therefore, Paul's instruction there was specifically directed to that situation. Besides, Paul was careful in his day and age not to run ahead and enforce changes the congregations were not ready for.

My response: In the writing of most proponents it is clear that they are searching for scriptural approval, or at least leaway, for what they -informed by the surrounding secular culture- deem to be the right tyhing for God's Word to say. Just like the traditionalists, ultimately they let culture and tradition determine what is right of wrong for them to do. The Bible passages that support their conclusions are then highlighted, the others, apparently opposite, are then relativized. Now Synod has decided all offices should be open, many people again argue that we ought to maintain the (new) status quo in order to maintain the peace.

3 the relativistic position
Some people cannot understand me. In China we could worship together with Catholis, Pentecostals, and Baptists. Now we are back in Holland, we make issue about "such trivial matters" as women in office. Many preople argue that, really, we should have no separate denominations: Do not all Christians share in the same faith and baptism? Are all these schisms not an abomiation for the Truth? Look, even in our churches there are many people sincerely trying to understand God's Word and to live by it. And they come to all kinds of interpretations and applications. So, God's Word is not clear at all. We must not be so proud as in the past, and we must stop fighting for our viewpoint as if that were the only valid one. Let's live in harmonious love together and stop fighting!

My response: We must indeed watch out not to judge others or other churches too easily as 'unbeliever' or 'false church'. We must be prepared to listen before we speak, to evaluate our views in the light of Scripture, also from other perspectives. We must always try to maintain a balance between apparently contradicting passages in Scripture. Yet, it seems that many people and leaders here have moved into a view of relativism. Although in Paul's letters (for instance to Timothy) and Jesus' letters (to 'the seven churches') warn us all the time against false doctrines, this concern seems of little importance for the modern church today. Satan will make use of his opportunities that readily come available today!

4 the complementarian position
Most orthodox scholars today agree that in the first letter to Corinth (chapter 14) Paul tells women (not just certain women!) to be silent when it comes to evaluate what has been said to the (male or female) speakers in the church meetings. In his letter to Timothy Paul warns that women are not to speak authoritatively. To summarize: the final authority and responsibility for the teaching must be with the elders or bishops, who ought to be ordained men. We must ensure that all other roles in the church are readily available to women as to men.
In our modern culture people cannot understand that men and women are equally valuable before God while at the same time they have different roles to play. They also think it sounds terrible that a woman are called to follow, serve, and obey her husband. Yet, they fail to see that the husband is called to love his wife sacrificially, like Christ loved his church when he gave up his life for her! if a godly man will sacrifice everything for his wife, he cannot and will not enforce his will on her against her will. Yet, if she experiences his real, self-sacrificing love in this way, she will love to serve him and to follow him! This must not surprise us: Paul and James call thenselves slaves of Jesus, not because their Lord is a cruel slavedriver, but because they have understood and appreciated his amazing grace. They trust him so much, that -in loving thankfulness- they voluntarily become his slaves!

This view, in my opinion, is the only one that seeks to do justice to passages on both sides of the spectrum: those passages that seem to say: 'Women may speak and lead in public, just like men.' and others that seem to say: 'Women must be silent, while men may speak.' Also, it avoids the problems of traditionalism and egalitarianism that drives people to force their personal preferences on their exegesis and/or hermeneutics. In this way, it also avoids ineffectivity in missions, as Newbigin and Keller would say, "Traditional churches do not listen to, dialog with, or understand those outside the faith. Yet, mainstream churches, in their efforts to accomdate secular culture, have lost the unique message of the Gospel, which is both inviting and confronting."

Of course my description of the views had to be short. The complementarian view has been promoted by D.A. Carson, Tim and Kathy Keller, and John Piper. These are the leaders of The Gospel Coalition. To gain a better understanding, and I hope appreciation of this view, I encourage you to read some of these publications:

Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womenhood

What's the Difference?

50 Questions and Answers

Jesus, Justice, and Gender Roles

The Gospel Coalition on Complentarity: search their website, using as search term: complementarity




Saturday, July 8, 2017

Culture Shock

It was almost two years ago that we (temporarily, at least) remigrated to the Netherlands. We left as young family with two little children in 1983, and now we're back again... even in my home town.

In the meantime we have learned by experience a number of essential things.
First, the global church of Christ is much wider than one particular denomination, and there is not one denomination which can lay claim on the perfect truth. Therefore, I have not apriori rejected or condemned Christians from other denominations; rather I have learned from them.
Second, in this process I learned to look at biblical teachings and denominational doctrines from multiple perspectives. This is how I could also identify wrong teachings in "our" churches in Canada.
However, in this process I also discovered some serious abberations from the biblical truth in other churches and cultures. (In other words, I have not drifted from an ecclesiastical ethnocentrism to a doctrinal relativism.)
In these blog posts I have discussed a number of these dangerous movements and trends, such as: a shift in hermeneutical methods whereby our cultural mindset of today is used as a governing template for reading and applying the Scripture (Shelob's Web: August 20, 2014) and for instance: how Satan manages to infiltrate the evangelical churches with New Age beliefs and practices. (The Last Battle, and Beauty and the Beast: January, 2015).
In China we worked well with Christians from Jewish, Roman Catholic, Baptist and Pentecostal backgrounds and not because we watered down the truth; in fact in my preaching and teaching I always tried to learn from them and to respectfully show the differences and explain why some of these really mattered.

After eight years of service there, we had a real sense that God wanted us to wrap up our work in China and to move to The Netherlands. My parents had experienced some medical crises and my mother was beginning to struggle with dementia, which in turn made life for my father rather stressful. This sense of calling was further confirmed in events such as government intervention with our (officially illegal) ministry and the fact that I was offered a job (even though I had no residence or workpermit yet) in a town close to the place my parents lived. The job was at a "Christian" school, but outside the fact that I had a few sincerely Christian colleagues, there was nothing visibly Christian about it. The 'devotional material ' we were to use was clearly humanistic, pluralistic, and at times vaguely spiritual. The Gospel (that is: the reality of our sinfulness and the only redemption through faith in the crucified and resurrected Christ) was carefully cut out from the religious messages which tried to ensure that (the teachings of) all religions would be equally respected.

For various (mysterious) reasons my contract was not renewed, so I had to look for another job. In the meantime we had felt led to join a GKv (Liberated Reformed Church) with evangelical tendencies. The new pastor was a 'follower' of John Piper and Tim Keller, so we were very hopeful that this was indeed the place for us to be.
Well, as it happened, the Reformed Junior High School in my home town (where my father had been one of the first two teachers when it was instituted) had a vacancy in my subject areas that year, so I found a new job, much closer to home. An (official) condition for employment was that I'd be a member of a GKv church, but that was no problem anymore. I am now finishing up my first year at this school, and I have enjoyed a very good year. I am looking forward to another good year with wonderful colleagues and students!

Now, as we started to get absorbed into the GKv community and culture, we began to experience a 'culture shock'. I will share two events here, and in the next post I will address a third issue.

1 Undoing the Reformation
2 No Need for Missions
3 From Traditionalism to Feminism and Postmodernity

1 Undoing the Reformation
The same week that I was to start my teaching job at the Reformed Junior High School I also had a start a seven-week track of daily (5 times/week) radiation sessions to combat the prostate cancer which had been found in me. As a result I had to miss a multi-day spiritual retreat with the staff. The school leaders had registered this retreat with a Roman Catholic monastry (Dominican monastery at Huissen).
At first I was not too overly apprehensive. We had come to know evangelical Christians from a RC background, and we had found that with them we had a common base of faith on which we could work well together. Note that we never shunned the discussion about important differences. (Report from China: the catholic connection: July, 2015)
When I got to read more detailed information about the place and the program some alarmbells started to go off.
First, the monastery and chapel are dedicated to Maria, Queen of the Most Holy Rosary. In China we had made it a point not to tour the pagan temples. But, was this not another temple, dedicated to another non-god? Okay, it would not have stopped me from joining the colleagues, but I became somewhat reluctant.
Second, we would be invited to join the local monks at the Eucharist. Now, this became more serious. I had to be "Reformed", and in the "Reformed confessions" it states that the Popish Mass is an accursed idolatry. In the past I did object to such strong, condemning language, but in China I learned to draw a clear line between Worship of the Living God and Idolatry. So, as I sat down with a cup of coffee in the staffroom, I challenged my beloved colleagues, "Who will participate in the accursed idolatry of the Popish Mass?" Nobody had discussed this; the leadership thought it was a good thing, and they assumed we would readily agree to it. Well, most of them saw no problem. I asked them, "Do they not bow before the 'bread' and worship it as if it were their God?" The response was, "Well, we don't have to agree on all the aspects of their doctrine; it would still be wonderful to celebrate the union of our faith!" I was not impressed. When I brought up this concern with the leadership, they responded: "Why, Roman Catholics are Christians, too! Is it not wonderful to celebrate our union in Christ?
Third, as part of the program there was a workshop on meditation, as I found out later. I questioned several colleagues about this: "What kind of meditation was it? Was it meditating on the Word of God? Or was it emptying our minds to become receptive for spiritual oneness?" They agreed that it had nothing to do with the Bible. Now I got very concerned. The Bible urges us to put on God's full armor in the battle against the forces of darkness, and our Christian leaders tell us to shed all armor to open up to whatever spirits? Anybody, who -like Paul- takes the raging spiritual battle very serious would freak out about such developments in the church!
This year is the 500 year anniversary of Luther's protest against the corruption in the Roman (Catholic) Church(es). The Nederlands Dagblad newspaper is still read by many GKv members as it used to be a leader in the doctrine of the church. Today the paper sees little reason for celebrating the Reformation. According to many contributions, we must no longer see the Reformation as God's way of preserving the truth among a righteous remnant; rather, it was an unholy breaking-up of what God had put together!

2 No Need for Mission
Since the day that we met two Chinese women at the (GKv) church have we not only joined that church but we have also been active in assisting those who seek to settle in this land as refugees. A number of programs were in place already, some of which are organized by an interdenominational team of women. One of their programs is to assist (annabe) refugee women in the learning of the Dutch language. Marioka (my wife) was quite involved with this and other programs.
A few months ago she asked me (several times, I must admit) if I could not start such a program for the men. One of my colleagues at school had also shown interest in helping out. Since we had done similar courses for ESL (English as a second language) in Canada and China, I thought, "Big deal! Let's go!"
We already knew a group of men, who received biweekly Bible instruction at another GKv church in town, and they were quite interested in language help. So, we had teachers and students, but we still needed a building. The church building (of the other GKv congregation) seemed to be a natural, but the person-in-charge insisted we do this through the proper channels so that the church would not have to pay for extra heating costs and such. Apparently, an interdenominational fund existed to which various churches donated to share the expenses. Well, I was not used to such an overly structured way of helping others. First I contemplated bearing the cost myself and then deducting it from my monthly church contribution. But another option was suggested. There was a PKN church (building) nearby, and they had very good facilities for this work. Besides, they already worked closely together with the GKv church in search of greater unity. So, I approached their pastor and another elder. A few weeks later, I received a reply, asking, "Who are you? and, With what organization do you work?" I replied something like, "We are born-again believers, who seek to show the love of Christ in helping the stranger and the sojourner among us. We need no organization to do the will of God." A couple of weeks later I received a letter of response. There were two practical concerns, especially about the income of their caretaker and the supervision of their facilities during our presence. But, these were followed by a policy-objection. "Church council does not support Bible study for non-Christians. Especially Muslems experience threats and exlusion when they associate with Christians. Therefore it is not right to isolate such people from their own people and faith as their future is already one of uncertainty."
Wow! This response at least suggests that these church leaders do not think they ought to present the Gospel to Muslems, and that their troubles here should be of greater concern than the judgment of God that might well await them later, and that our greatest expression of love is not to teach them about salvation through the sacrifice of Christ. To me this suggests that they fail to see or accept the essence of the Gospel! And 'our' church sees no obstacle to work on closer unity with them!? Scary!


Thursday, May 18, 2017

The End of Pillarization

Most middle-aged Dutch people are somewhat ashamed of the post-war years (fifties and sixties) when Dutch society was strictly compartmentalized. The identity of Dutch citizens was marked by the “pillars” to which they belonged, and the majority of the association and commitment to such a pillar was still based on choices of parents and grandparents. The major pillars were Reformed, Roman Catholic, Socialist/communist, and Liberal. The Reformed pillar was actually divided up in several sub-pillars, which were also quite separated from each other. Typically, people within each pillar had their own political parties, broadcast stations, societies, schools and universities, hospitals, etc. So, Catholic folk associated with other Catholics, shared Catholic viewpoints, maintained Catholic traditions and  propagated Catholic beliefs, traditions, and habits through the generations.

This pattern of pillarization, or strict compartmentalization of society, is mostly broken down today. It is far less predictable which newspapers people will read, TV programs they watch, or political parties they vote for. There is far less group-commitment and far more emphasis on the virtue of personal freedom of choice. How did that change?

First, it became much more likely that people learned more about “other folk” from other pillars, countries, and cultures. access to diverse TV programs, the immigration of Moslems, the increase of holidays abroad, and the higher levels of education contributed to a much broader spectrum of exposure. Typically, when we get more exposure to a greater variety of cultures, we tend to become less chauvinistic about our customs and beliefs and more open to other ideas and viewpoints.
In the geographic sector there was a shift from an agricultural to an industrial, and then to a service sector dominated economy. These shifts generally came with a centralization of jobs and a net population migration to urban areas and cities. In these areas people found a greater diversity of thoughts and ideas and furthermore a decrease in community-living and peer-pressure.

These shifts certainly had an impact on trends in religious adherence. The character of churches changed dramatically, and most of them became less dogmatic, less confessional, less strict in teaching and in discipline. Especially in the more urban areas church attendance, membership, commitment, and participation dropped dramatically. Part of this is good, I believe. Traditional church with a strong peer pressure tend to produce man-pleasers and people who follow the rules to be accepted by their social group- and those are not marks of Christians. Typically, when the majority suddenly switches thoughts about what is acceptable or appropriate, or find out that many people just followed the party-line, the character of the group can quickly and dramatically change. 


When we visited an international church plantin Beijing, a young fellow said he was impressed by the contribution of the Netherlands to the church of God. When I looked puzzled, he referred to the Synod of Dordrecht, held in 1618, 1619. I told him that things had changed a lot over four hundred years. Things have changed, especially during the last fifty years! After 32 years we live here again, and it’s quite a different place! The church is under attack and many don’t seem to notice it.

Saturday, May 6, 2017

Back to the Future... Living in The Netherlands

After eight years in China, about which I have just entered a relatively small number of posts, we moved in the summer of 2015 to The Netherlands.
The first reason was that we felt God sent us there for a number of years to support my aging parents.
That is also the reason for us settling in my hometown, Drachten.
Drachten is a relatively new town (established after 1640, when under the direction of one of my ancestors, Mr. Bolleman dug a canal to facilitate the digging of peat in the area. Drachten is a significant centre of Christianity. While there are about 45,000 residents, we find quite a few, relatively large churches of Reformed background and "De Bethel", a Free Baptist megachurch.

I was blessed to get a teaching job in the area, even when we still lived in China. That was at a "Christian" school in a nearby town. Since I was not rehired for a second year, I had to find another job, which I got at a Christian school in Drachten, which originally was established as a parentally organized school for Reformed Christians (Liberated).

I have started a website, www.depoarte.org to share my theological views and concerns in the Dutch language. I also translated Stephen Westerholm's "Justification Reconsidered", and later I found a Christian publisher willing to publish this book in the Dutch language.

If I have the time I hope to share some of our experiences of living in the old country, where church and society have changed so much. Yet, we also have changed, and so -it seems- we have a somewhat different perspective on the current developments as those around us. What's new?

Drachten, May 2017