Spiritual Viruses, part 2: Submission to the Word of God

As I was challenged (by the dramatic shift in thinking in the GKv churches on "women in office") to research God's design in humanity as male and female, I heard of Kathy Keller her book: "Jesus, Justice, and Gender Roles: A Case for Gender Roles in Ministry".

As this book gives a good explanation of God's design in terms of "the complementarian perspective", I decided to translate the book into Dutch in the hope that many Christians would recognize the dangerous shift.

Kathy writes about her discovery that the Bible is the reliable Word of God. "No one among my family or friends believed that; so it wasn't a view I was raised to hold, and it brought with it massive consequences. For instance; now I trusted God's Word as truth, written to aid my flourishing and not to diminish it, my choices needed to be submitted to Scripture. When my choices and God's commands clashed, he won."

Around the same time we were listening to Franchis Chan on a youtube clip where he expressed his willingness to surrender all to Jesus and to obey God's Word, even where it didn't make sense to him. He said something like, "If the Bible would tell me to stand on my head, and it seemed foolish to me, I would still do my best to stand on my head... in faithful and loving submission to God!"

In a lecture by D.A. Carson entitled "Subtle Ways to Abandon the Autority of Scripture", he suggests that throughout the centuries the Church has been tested to see whether or not she would continue to submit to the authority of the Word of God. Sometimes the issues appear trivial and insignificant, until you recognize it to be another scheme of Satan to drive a wedge between the Church and her God. Carson suggests that issues like "women in church leadership" and "homosexual lifestyles in the church" are of this calibre. 

6 "Men and women are equal." 

Jordan Peterson, professor of clinical psychology at the University of Toronto has angered feminists by insisting that men and women are not equal. If we give them true freedom to choose -research shows- women will be much more likely (about 20 : 1 in Scandinavia) to choose to be a nurse, where men will be much more likely to choose to be an engineer. 

We all know that men and women are created differently, and we know that form and function are closely related in God's created order. People of all times and places have known this to be true.

If we read in Genesis about the world before the Great Flood, we see how men became violent and abusive to women. Throughout history men have abused women for their own service and pleasure. Yet, to dismiss or ignore the male-female differences is not going to solve this problem!

If we look at Jesus and the apostles, we note that men and women are equally valuable in the Church of Christ. Christ has shed his blood for men and women alike. And although a husband and his wife must submit to eachother, this does not make the relationship symmetric. Jesus and his apostles maintain unique roles for men and women, and they did not do so for fear that the church was not yet ready for what it really ought to be (as some have slanderously suggested).

I have heard the slogan "men and women are equal" many times. Usually it started with the equal value, but a few sentences later the same slogan shifted to mean that also in the church the roles for men and women ought to be the same.

Ernst Leeftink, a GKv pastor who has thought and written a fair bit about the issue of "women in office" also reviewed Kathy Keller her book. He valued her insights, but in the end he was disappointed that she could not answer the question 'Why God had decided to assign the offices of elder and preacher only to qualified men'. Actually, Leeftink paraphrases Kathy her question in this way "Why Jewish tradition and the practice in the early Christian church restricted the guarding of the truth to the men." (waarom in de joodse traditie en dus ook in de eerste christelijke gemeente de taak van het bewaken van de gezonde bijbelse leer alleen bij mannen is neergelegd) Her failure to answer this question, according to Leeftink, proves that Kathy her argument has no objective basis and may therefore be dismissed. Notice the shift from "God's will" to "Jewish tradition and early Christian practice". Contrast Leeftink's conclusion with the voluntary submission to the biblical authority that we found expressed by Kathy Keller and Francis Chan! 

Schemes of the Devil

What are the most effective ways to spread spiritual viruses in the churches? 

A key position of strategic importance would be the training school for the ministry. I realized this when I studied for the ministry at Heritage Theological Seminary. Professor Webb was promoting his progressive redemptive hermeneutic, whereby essentially our modern perception of "the way things ought to be" (according to the godless culture around us) is presupposed to be superior to Paul's perception (as influenced by the primitive culture of his time, rather than inspired by the Holy Spirit). Dr. Webb was a clever academic and the year I was a full-time student there I heard hardly any objections against his teaching from faculty or students. I realized that, if this virus continued to infest the churches, the damage could be horrendous.

Another powerful agent is the press. When I grew up in the GKv, the churches found much unity and strength in their national daily newspaper, the "Reformed Family Paper".  Over the years, however, the nature of this paper changed a lot. In 1967 the name was changed to "Dutch daily" to reflect a desire for a greater audience. Twenty-five years later the editorial staff opened up to any self-professing Christian, and over time the paper sought to present a broad scope of ideas and opninions from all who called themselves Christians. Many or most of the older members remained faithful in their subscriptions as the paper remained a source of church news and family announcements.

7 "Living in Faithfulness and Love"

Whenever we visited our families in Holland, we would inevitable read the "Dutch Daily" to familiarize ourselves with the developments. We noticed in this paper a growing preference for articles that promoted the idea that all churches are equally good, that there is nothing wrong with sex outside marriage (even with unbelievers), and homosexual practice is not condemned by God's Word if it happens "in faithfulness and love", which usually implies that it is practised with one exclusive partner. 

Although the Bible has no passage condoning "men sleeping together" but consistently calling it an abomination, the virus has done its work. Even before synod has come to a conclusion, they are advised not to keep homosexual couples from the Lord's Supper.

"How could God be so cruel not to give a fulfilled life to our children whom he has given a homexual inclination? How could a church be so unloving not to accept these covenant children as brothers and sisters in the flock.

Four years ago, I wrote in a post:

Behind Dr. Webb's views I now see a world-wide web, woven by the Evil One.  It entangles many church leaders and teachers, and in its deception the Enemy seeks to destroy the church.  According to Dr. J. van Bruggen, the new hermeneutics is now making strong inroads in the Reformed churches in The Netherlands.  This brings many pastors and elders to re-interpret Paul, for instance on the matter of female pastors and elders in the church.  Such a change has not yet been accepted, but the momentum exists and the common opinion seems to be that the acceptance of ‘women in office’ is just a matter of time.  However, it’s not the acceptance of women in office that will be the turning point. If the new hermeneutic is already embraced, the Horse of Troy is within the walls! 

The gates are wide open to the enemy; time will tell for those who keep their eyes wide open and stand strong in the armor of God!

Spiritual Viruses (Seven schemes to destroy the church), part one

In the previous couple of posts I have given some examples of the spiritual decay that we recently observed in the churches of our youth. A generation ago most leaders in these churches would have understood and shared our current grief and serious concerns. The common reactions in the same churches now are dismissal, apathy, and anger. A few of our closest friends have been willing to listen and to be challenged in their thinking and -after months- begin to slowly understand what we are saying and why we are concerned.

What happened? How is it possible that so many leaders of these churches -whom we saw as pillars of the church- are now following -or even leading- the flocks into the ravine?  Over the years, they have begun to think differently; a slow but persistent paradigm shift. The denomination seems to have been transformed from a fairly closed group of churches that tried to see the world from the apostolic perspective into a significant group that seeks to be contemporary and relevant for today's culture and hence tries to read and interpret the apostolic writings in a way that must facilitate this goal.

What we noticed (after twenty four years in Canada and eight years in China) is that certain new convictions have become established in the popular mindset. These convictions are often expressed as metaphores or slogans that appear attractive against the backdrop of the pillarized, ethnocentric past. I want to briefly discuss seven of these 'spiritual viruses' as we have observed and experienced them during our three years in our 'old country'.
What do I mean, then, with 'spiritual viruses'? They are metaphores and slogans that have gone viral in the churches (have become popular and widely appreciated), have become lodged into the minds of the church leaders and members, with the result of a serious impairment in spiritual discernment in the whole denomination.

1. "We must not judge!"
Marioka and I had been appointed small group (or "cell-groep") leaders in our church. In the first three or four meetings it happened somewhere in the discussion after I had said something that sounded controversial, that one older brother would shout: "You are judging! You are judging, Aize!" If I would try to explain my statement, he would stop me abruptly, by repeating this behavior. After the first meeting, when this happened again, I would reply by saying: "So, is that your judgment of what I am doing?" or "Are you judging me for saying this?" (It did not help. Only after I had invited him for a coffee and explained him who I am was this problem resolved.)
Also, when I was an elder, the chairman of the self-appointed "spiritual management council" told me I was judging. In none of these cases where I was accused of judging was I judging in the sense of rashly condemning somebody personally or declaring that he was not a Christian. No, the 'judging' that was opposed in this way was the expression of spiritual discernment, to distinguish between what is according to the Scriptures and what is not.
As Don Carson so clearly describes in his book "The Intolerance of Tolerance", Tolerance has become the highest virtue, and it no longer means allowing other people to express their personal opinion, but that we may not criticize or oppose the expression of an opinion that deviates from the popular concensus. 
The obvious (?) consequence of this attitude is that the church leaders may no longer discern between good and evil in doctrine or in life. Paul writes to the Ephesians (read: "The Holy Spirit speaks to the church of all times and places) that we must stand firm against the schemes of the devil and his evil spirits. If the church adopts as motto "We may not judge" in the meaning as described above, it capitulates to Satan by taking off the armour of God.

2. "The Bible is a difficult book."
When I started to write critical material about the current tolerance towards the "new hermenutic" (read the post: Shelob's Web), few people replied. I was thankful for the openness of the pastor's wife, however, when she expressed her concern about a growing separation in our ways of thinking. Her response was: "But, Aize, the Bible is a very difficult book!" 
At the surface this, too, may look like an innocent remark. Christians, even Christians who truly seek to submit to the Word of God, do not agree on every aspect of the biblical teaching. Yet, diligent study and comparing passages do result in a great concensus among the church of all times and places. In the past we have too readily assumed that the infallibility of Scripture could be transposed to our presumed infallibility to our church's understanding of the Scriptures. But now, in step with the paradigm shift in western thinking, many have succumbed to relativism. In spiritual terms this is expressed along these lines: "X says he is a Christian. So, we should respect him as a Christian and celebrate that fact, rather than discern if X's views and actions line up with the apostolic teaching." and "On this partuclar passage we find different interpretations among the pastors in our churches. Therefore, we must humbly accept that the passage is unclear and tolerate the different views existing."
Don Carson points out (with reference to an article by Michael J. Ovey) that Satan has used this scheme already for centuries. Of course there are issues on which we must admit "I don't understand it", but when we insist "This is unclear" it quickly takes on the meaning "Nobody can understand this." Once that virus takes hold, it effectively labels anybody who does claim to understand it as a bigot and if it is applied to a biblical passage, it eliminates the biblical authority.

3 The Final Act
To see the biblical story as an unfolding drama has been a helpful metaphor. It reminds us that throughout and behind the books of the Bible there is one story. It is the story of creation, fall, and redemption. Tom Wright wrote about it, and then Goheen and Bartholomew expanded on this metaphor by suggesting we are part of the final act; we have the task to embody God's Kingdom here and now.
But in some circles this was further modified to suggest that the current age is significantly different than the age of Peter and Paul. What these apostles thought and wrote in their times gives us some insight into the intentions of God, but it is up to us to see what and how we can or should use from their writings for the church today.
Imagine, we find a formerly unkown Shakesperean drama. It was never finished; the last act is missing. It is our task to write the final act. The author is dead (!), but he has left us with the first five acts, and it is up to us to use this material to construct the final act.
At this stage we have opened the door to the new hermeneutic. The apostolic teaching is no longer normative, because the apostles were mere men, trying to make sense of God's will in the context of their culture.

The Bible can be seen as a Tom-Tom. If we rely on it, we will at times get lost or stuck in a dead-end road. We must face the reality that the cultural landscape today is different from what it was in Bible times. We cannot rely on it for daily life; we must carefully discern its applcability for the new age. (article in a regional church paper, by a GKv pastor)

4 "God would never do that!"
Around the time that the GKv synod was discussing the issue of "women in office", I overheard a colleague at our Reformed school: "I cannot imagine that God would care if there's a man in the pulpit or a woman!" I resisted the temptation of challenging her, but I wondered. Is your imagination based on knowledge of God? How well do you know the will of God? Is this knowledge rooted in a rigorous study of the Bible? If this "idea" of the will of God is not derived from such a study, then where does it come from? From other people or from your personal preference or from other spirits that whisper into your ears at night?

I have a friend who did a fairly extensive study in a GKv religion in education program. He told me he was beginning to doubt how much of the Bible is the Word of God. "Do you know how cruel and horrific it is to stone somebody?", he asked me. I had no experience and I had not read about the experiences of others. Well, my friend had come to realize how terrible it was to die such a death. And, when he noticed how often the Old Testament prescribed it as a punishment for sin, he was apalled. "God would never do that!" 
I concluded that my friend could not conceive of a sin so terrible that would warrant such a punishment. Was it possible that he did not know God as an just and angry God, Who would get furious if one of his creatures would willingly set out to destroy something beautiful which He had just made? Is it not God's fury about such sins that brought Him to sacrifice Himself in his Son to the horrible punisment of crucifixion?
Upon further questioning, it turned out that he saw God as the image of anybody, based on his own feelings, experiences, and thoughts. In the end, the Bible had little to do with it.

5 "We know more than Paul."
During our stay in Holland, this slogan became increasingly popular. A theology professor at the GKv seminary was instrumental in its propagation. I paraphrase two examples.
A recent scientific study shows that drinking wine causes cancer. Paul suggests to Timothy that he ought to drink a little wine. If Paul had known what we know, he would not have given that advice. So, we'd better be careful in how we apply the recommendations othe apostles.
The Bible may call homosexual living (where a man lies with another man) "an abomination", but current research has helped us to understand the true nature of homosexuality. If Paul had lived today among us, he would have agreed that there are good and beautiful ways in which two people can live in a homesexual relationship! We must show the love of God and embrace such people too!

Of course there are areas in life on which we may know more today than Paul would have known about two thousand years ago. Yet, if that becomes our slogan, we treat the Bible as any historical document, written by people with their own shortcomings and biases. We no longer see it as the infallible Word of God. We no longer accept the fact that God, through His Spirit, made sure that the apostles wrote the things that He wanted to convey to the church of all times and places. 

Men, like Melle Oosterhuis, chairman of the recent GKv Synod get very sad or angry when people state that they no longer submit to the authority of Scripture. In their view, the church throughout the ages has always interpreted the Bible in the way they understood it in their time and culture. They claim that nothing changed, except that we are now conscious of our own biases.

Time will tell. Those who truly follow Christ will grow in godliness. Those who claim to follow Christ yet interpret His Word in ways compatible with the insights and agendas of the godless world they live in, they will continue to drift away from God's Word and godly living.

to be continued

God's Design for the Christian Family

Please read Ephesians 5:22-33.

Over the last two years I used this passage three times in a message to a Christian audience in The Netherlands. It seemed to me that this passage is not very familiar by many, not just because less Christians spend significant time in studying the Word but also because Pauls exposition on God's design for the Christian family is no longer compatible with the modern way of thinking about men and women. The third time I did this message, it was addressed to the Christian cell group for which my wife and I were appointed leaders. One young woman, a leader in the church, was clearly upset. There are so many other passages on men and women, why had I chosen this one? It seemed pretty obvious that Paul's teaching, in its natural reading, did not jive well with her own perception on how things ought to be- also in the church of Christ. During the rest of the meeting, we felt a growing animosity towards our leadership. Over time I came to realize that this was just another example of the intolerance of modern tolerance. (more about this in a later post)

What is God's design for the Christian family according to the passage in Paul's letter to the Ephesians?

We all, as Christ's disciples, are urged to follow the apostles as our models. When men like Paul, Timothy, and James realized what God, in Christ, had done for them (in His sacrificial love, demonstrated on the cross), they volunteered to be his slaves. When we begin to discern what Jesus has done for us, we too, will voluntarily surrender all of our ambitions, hopes, and plans into his hands!

God, in Jesus, loves his people (the followers of all times) so much that he sacrificed his status, his glory, and his life in order to build them up as his shining Church, reflecting his glory in a darkened world. (Clearly, the biblical view of 'true love' is not self-seeking but self-sacrificing!)
The Christian husband is to love his wife in the same way: not pushing his own will, his own desires or pleasures, but willing to give up even his own status, glory, and his life in order to build up his wife as a godly woman, liberated and empowered to show God's glory.

Just as the Christian husband is called to demonstrate the love of Christ to his wife, so she is called to demonstrate her voluntary submission to her husband, because behind him and in him she recognizes her loving Savior, Jesus Christ.
Throughout the centuries Christians have seen this as God's beautiful design. When the Church, the Christian husbands and their wives, are determined to live in accordance with His design, we will see harmony and love as the blessings of God.

Submission to what, to whom?

When the church becomes more informed and affected by the secular world than by God's Word, it will lose the sense of awe for and beauty in God's design. Focusing on the effects of human selfishness in abuse (for instance) of husbands inflicted on their wives, they grow to prefer the feministic egalitarian design as the best solution for the problem. And so, the form for Christian marriage must be altered to fit the changing times. Voluntary submission must be scrapped as this is considered a shameful remant of or male-dominated (and hence, woman-suppressing) past.

If, however, the church seeks to be immersed in God's Word as it is brought to us by His Spirit in the letter of Paul (not: the Bible as it comes to us through human authors, skewed in their perceptions by their primitive cultural context), then it would continue to uphold and work out God's beautiful design.
If male-to-female abuse is found in the church, then men must be urged to follow Christ in His self-sacrificing love towards His Bride. And if the form for Christian marriage does not sufficiently emphasize this mandate for the males or the church does not dare to discipline those who refuse to follow Christ in his love, then the church needs reformation, not the abolition of the form for Christian marriage.

The modern church prides itself in becoming more godly and more loving to women, yet it sets itself up for disaster. Having despised God's instruction, unless there will be a reformation and revival, there will be growing darkness until finally Jesus removes the Light.
How long will it take before these churches too will dismiss the Great Commission and abandon the belief that salvation can only be found by true faith in Jesus Christ?