Covenant and Justification

Especially since E.P. Sanders published his book “Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of religion” (Philadelphia, 1977), some theologians insist that (all) the first-century Jews held to a theology called ‘covenantal nomism’. 

Earlier many churches and theologians believed that first-Century Jews held to some form of legalism as if they could (by doing righteous deeds) contribute to their own salvation.  Sanders, however, argued that this constituted a misunderstanding of Paul’s letters and a caricature of Jewish thought as if it constituted a form of legalism (whereby justification does not come by grace but by human efforts). 

“Covenantal nomism”, according to Sanders, includes the following points:

·       God has graciously chosen a people to make a covenant with them, and He has given them his law.

·       God has promised to maintain this covenant, and He requires of them a response in obedience.

·       God rewards obedience, and He punishes willful transgression.

·       Through atonement God provides a means to forgive sins committed, thereby maintaining the covenant relationship in spite of sins committed.

·       All who are maintained in the covenant through obedience, atonement, and God’s mercy will be saved in the end.

In the final analysis the impression is given that the Christian view is not so different from the view of the Jews in the time that Paul wrote his letters.  Although we were first chosen by grace, we still need to show obedience in order to continue in the covenant. Nobody can perfectly keep the obligations of the covenant, but such shortcomings are graciously forgiven by the mercy of our covenant God.

This reasoning, then, gives the impression that we are first unconditionally accepted and justified by God, while at the last judgment our works (of obedience) will be taken into consideration for our final justification.

To many Christians, this seems to be quite in line with the thinking of most Christians!  In fact, it seems to be an attractive way of explaining what must happen if we stress our covenant heritage without creating the false impression that every one who (in baptism) receives God’s (unconditional) promises will be saved regardless of their later lifestyle. It appeared attractive to me when I wrestled with these issues in the nineties, and apparently it seemed attractive to a number of reformed leaders at the time, such as Steve Schlissel, Norm Shepherd, and John Barach.  Tom Wright, who used to be well known for his rigorous academics and staunch orthodoxy, holds to similar ideas.

When I talked this over with my wife, we agreed that we used to think along very similar lines. God has graciously saved us (essentially by allowing us to be born into a Christian community). As lambs of the Good Shepherd, we were justified by the love of God and the sacrifice of Christ.  And then, as we got older it was our obligation to live within the covenant. We were to live like good Christian folk, faithfully attending the church services, refrain from gambling, stealing, drunkenness, and shopping on Sundays.  Of course, we knew that we could never perfectly please God, and the good things we did we could only do by the grace of God.  Yet, God would remain faithful to his covenant promises, so if we would continue living by the basic rules of our church culture and say daily “sorry” for our sins, then we could rest assured that we could count on God’s forgiveness that He secured for us on Golgotha.

Perhaps this was not the official theology of our church, but it seems to have been some a popular folk-theology for the people in the pews.

We knew that “all people are wretched sinners in the face of a Holy God” and we learned about “total depravity”, but these were mantras that had not effectively changed our personal convictions that we (as faithful members of a true church) held at the time. Or, they were only true for those outside the covenant of grace.  So, if someone would confront us with a sin, we would not hesitate to defend ourselves and to deny our state of sinfulness, which we were supposed to embrace.

If nothing else, this should make the topic relevant for us today!  What, if anything, is wrong with this theological theory? If it is the right approach, and if this was held by (all) first-Century Jews, what then was Paul’s problem?  Are Jews so different in their beliefs from Christians, or are Catholics (in their theologizing) so different from the Reformed?

Here are a few important considerations:

1               First-Century Jews had a different concept of sin and grace than Paul.

Don Carson challenges Sanders’ claim that first-Century Jews all adhere to covenantal nomism.                 Looking at the writings of Flavius Josephus, a well-known first-Century Jewish author, he examined all the instances where Josephus used the word  “χαρις” (grace).  Josephus acknowledges that God pours out his grace… yet not on undeserving sinners but on those who try to follow the law.[1]  Westerholm points out that the Jewish thought claimed that “Israel’s willingness to obey (God) made them worthy recipients of what was nonetheless a divine gift, out of all proportion to their merits”[2]  So, when first-Century Jews, like Josephus, wrote about people being saved by grace, they meant something quite different from Paul’s teachings.  Paul insists that there are no worthy recipients of God’s grace, so God’s gift of salvation cannot include any role of humans doing “God-pleasing works”.[3]  Sanders agrees that “a concept of original or even universal sin is missing in most forms of Judaism.”[4]

So, first-Century Jews seem to have had a much less serious view of their own sinfulness and consequently a much weaker view of God’s grace. Consequently, they could not imagine the desperate need for a divine substitute, offered in the crucifixion of the Messiah.

2               Jewish history (in the biblical record) would suggest that Israel was not “a worthy recipient of God’s grace”.  Reading the record of the Old Testament, or the summary in Stephen’s speech, it is impossible to see Israel as “worthy recipient of God’s grace”.  Throughout history humans have tried hard to destroy what God had built, and at best there have been short periods of blessed harmony with God and at best there has been a “small, righteous remnant”.  Yet, if we were to quickly respond that this must be where we fit in, then –in our self-righteous pride- we still miss the point! Paul’s insisted that there is nobody who does good, and (keeping) the law can only condemn somebody, for nobody can perfectly keep it. 

3               Paul challenges contemporary Jews in their (partial) reliance on their own works of obedience. He will have nothing of combining human’s good attitudes and efforts with the grace of God. Even for Christians (who have God’s indwelling Spirit) there can be no credit whatsoever for their good deeds. Paul makes it very clear, what the Reformers later affirmed, that our only credit comes from Christ’s sacrifice and that we can only receive its benefits through living faith. Those who were truly predestined and justified will produce fruit of faith- not as condition for their final justification but as proof of true faith and justification.

As maturing Christians realize, even our best efforts are affected by efforts to please others and to get public support or praise. Most things we do are done to boost our image and status; our comfort and our confidence are at best secondary objectives.  We will not be able to have God squarely and always at the center of our lives!

4               The views of Tom Wright are more complicated as he also insists on “Jesus as the one who ends the exile status for the Jews.” Although this is an important aspect, Wright insists that this is the dominating perspective for Paul, whereby Christ redeemed the children of Abraham and where Paul’s (primary) concern was how the gentile believers could be incorporated into this covenant community of the redeemed.  He then redefines the term ‘justification’ as “God’s declaration that we are in that covenant.” 

As Piper[5] paraphrases Wright, “The gospel is the message of … the death and resurrection and lord- ship of Christ over the world. The Holy Spirit uses this news to awaken faith in the heart. This is God’s divine call through the gospel. By this (effectual!) call and faith, we are made partakers of Christ’s victory and become part of God’s family. Then … justification comes in and declares to us what has happened to us. It thus gives assurance—but does not save, or convert, or make us part of God’s family.”

This is how Wright describes the process as Paul sees it: Calling, faith, and justification come to the elect almost simultaneously, yet in that order. This invites all kinds of questions and concerns. Does Wright not confuse covenant with election? Are not all in baptism told that they belong to the covenant community? Yet, how does this come after true faith exists, which will not even be the case in all who are in the covenant.  When Peter on Pentecost declares that “The promise is for you (Jews) and to all (gentiles) who will still be called”, does he not pronounce that his audience is in the covenant- prior to their actual conversion and faith?

One problem is that men like Tom Wright are very academic and very clever, and most people would feel intimidated even attempting to contradict his genius. Most critics of Wright point out that he uses dikaioo (the Greek term for justification) in a very unnatural way.  Is it not God’s declaration that we are reconciled to Him the crucial aspect of our salvation? How then could it be a message of assurance only, after the fact of (effective) calling and the existence of true faith?

 Like other followers of Sanders, Wright distinguishes between this (first) justification and a later justification. In Piper’s[6] words, It seems that, even though Wright says dikaioo is ‘a declarative word, declaring that something is the case’, rather than a word for making something happen or changing the way something is,”21 nevertheless, he wants to clarify that God’s future act of justification is more than a declaration ‘that something is the case.’ It is an event that accomplishes final deliverance.”  In Piper’s[7] words, “In the future at the final court scene, God the Judge will find in our favor on the basis of the works we have done—the life we have lived—and in the present he anticipates that verdict and declares it to be already true on the basis of our faith in Jesus.”

Both Carson and Piper carefully examine Romans 2, 3 in their evaluation of Wright’s theories. This is then how John Piper[8] gives his view:

“I believe in the necessity of a transformed life of obedience to Jesus by the power of the Spirit through faith as a public evidence and confirmation of faith at the Last Day for all who will finally be saved. In other words, I believe it is actually true, not just hypothetically true, that God “will render to each one according to his works to those who by patience in well- doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life”(Rom.2:6–7). I take the phrase “according to”(kata) in a sense different from “based on.” I think the best way to bring together the various threads of Paul’s teaching on justification by faith apart from works (Rom. 3:28; 4:4–6; 11:6; Eph. 2:8) is to treat the necessity of obedience not as any part of the basis of our justification, but strictly as the evidence and confirmation of our faith in Christ whose blood and righteousness is the sole basis of our justification. How this is the case, while justification is by faith alone apart from any basis in that very obedience, has been one of the main themes of my preaching and writing for the last thirty years.”

I thank God for gifted godly men, who have studied these complicated issues in great depth and found the suggested solutions wanting. I have benefited most from the teachings and writings of Don Carson, John Piper, and Stephen Westerholm.  While some leaders in reformed churches have embraced this new view of covenant and justification, it is amazing that Baptist scholars (who, according to some reformed leaders are by their affiliation by definition Arminian) are among the leading theologians to preserve the Reformed doctrine of grace.

Resources used:

·       D.A. Carson, “The New Perspective on Paul”, a series of three lectures, free downloads on i-tunes.

·       John Piper, “The future of justification, a response to N.T. Wright” (Crossway Books, 2007). (available as pdf file on the Desiring God website)

·       Stephen Westerholm, “Justification by faith is the answer. What is the question?”, CTQ 70 (2006):197-217 (available as pdf file on the Internet)

·       Stephen Westerholm, “Justification Reconsidered: rethinking a Pauline theme” (Eerdmans, 2013)

For further study:

·       Douglas J. Moo, “The Epistle to the Romans”, NICNT commentary. Eerdmans, 1996

·       D.A. Carson, Peter T. O’Brien, and Mark A. Seifrid, editors: “Justification and Variegated Nomism”, Volume 1: The Complexities of Second Temple Judaism, Volume 2: The Paradoxes of Paul

---

[1] D.A. Carson, “The New Perspective on Paul”, a series of three lectures, free downloads on i-tunes.

[2] Stephen Westerholm, “Justification Reconsidered: rethinking a Pauline theme”, page 32.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid., page 33.

[5] John Piper, “The future of justification, a response to N.T. Wright”, chapter 6: Justification and the Gospel: Does justification determine our standing with God?

[6] John Piper, “The future of justification, a response to N.T. Wright”, page 100

[7] John Piper, “The future of justification, a response to N.T. Wright”, chapter 7: The place of works in our justification.

[8] John Piper, “The future of justification, a response to N.T. Wright”, page 110

Covenant and election

Before writing on 'the new perspective on Paul and his view of justification', it seemed good to me to look at two important perspectives from which we can view and describe the process of salvation.

Covenant

In the Word, God reveals himself to his covenant community. He sets them apart from ‘the world’, and He reveals to them his power and his love. He promises them his blessings, as He seeks to build them into his Kingdom, his Royal Priesthood.  Although these promises are unconditional for the covenant community as a whole, yet for every (mature) member of it, there is an obligation to obey God and to trust in him- in fact to effectively put God at the very center of their lives.  For those who (used to) belong to this covenant community, yet persistently refuse to walk with God, there will not be a blessed destiny; they will certainly not inherit the Kingdom of God.

Election

From eternity God has made his plans, and the fact that He is (and remains) the Sovereign Lord of all must imply that God is in full control of all events.  Although it is hard for the human mind to embrace simultaneously God’s Sovereignty (full control of all aspects of history) and the reality of human responsibility (obligation, implying true choices), yet the Bible teaches both and we will end up in trouble if we dismiss one of these realities in our efforts to secure the other.  Therefore, we must acknowledge that God has predestined some of humankind to receive and to embrace the Good News after a real sense of their personal sin and guilt before Holy God.  These people can only come to this realization through the regenerating work of God, the Spirit.  Having seen their total inadequacy for any saving (read: God-pleasing) good works, the regenerated person embraces Christ as Savior and consequently he/she is transformed by the (indwelling) Spirit in all their walk and talk.  In their transformed lives they demonstrate that they truly are disciples of Christ, the Son of God.

The form for (infant) baptism in the reformed churches is stated in terms of the covenant, as it lists first God’s promises and then the believer’s obligations.  God gives his amazing promises to the church, and so everyone in it (hearing his Word and experiencing his power and love) is called to walk with God in faithfulness and growing godliness.  Those who (in later life) refuse to do so will not forfeit the covenant blessing.

If we –in our desire to have assurance and comfort for ourselves and for our children- confuse covenant and election, we build a false theology, which leads to a false assurance.  If we confuse God’s grace, received by all who are baptized, with the irresistible grace (as described in the Canons of Dort), and if we assume that all members in the (reformed) church are saints, who therefore will persevere in true faith, producing fruit, then we build a church on the wrong foundation.

Errors of Hyper-Calvinism

Over and against these four important convictions, I want to briefly respond to four teachings that I have encountered in traditional reformed churches, usually in their zeal to combat Arminianism. By trying to avoid the dangers of Arminianism, which lacks in the appreciation of God’s Sovereignty (His full control over everything that happens), these views fall into the opposite error in failing to recognize that humans have responsibility (and therefore the possibility) to make their own choices. 

1 “Faith and sanctification are not the actions of regenerated people. Since they are gifts of God, they cannot be the work of humans.”

I have had to argue against this teaching in churches of various traditional reformed churches. I believe this to be wrong, for throughout Scripture God’s Sovereign rule does not remove or reduce human responsibility. When faith and sanctification are lacking, the fault lies with humans, yet where they do exist the credit goes to God.

It is true that humans, without the work of the Holy Spirit, refuse to acknowledge their state of spiritual death and refuse to seek and follow God. Yet, through the work of the Spirit many are changed so that they begin to see who they are in light of God’s holiness and consequently embrace the Gospel.

In our science book, in the chapter on magnetism, the problem was stated: If you have two similar bars of metal, and one is a magnet, while the other is just a bar of iron, how can you tell which one is the magnet?*

This gave me the following (limited) illustration. Picture God as powerful magnet, and the human as a simple bar of iron. By itself the iron would not attract the magnet. Yet, you observe that they in fact attract each other. How is it possible? The domain theory states that the magnet produces a magnetic field. Under the influence of this field the particles inside the iron begin to line up with the magnet, so that it begins to act like a weak magnet. Transformed in this way, the iron bar now is able to respond to the magnet’s attraction by attracting the magnet.

Left to our own human nature, we would neither seek God nor would we want His presence in our lives. Yet, when we come under the impact of the powerful work of His Word and Spirit we begin to change. We are quickened: a spiritual life begins to grow in us so that we begin to seek God and to yearn for His presence.

2 “All those who are baptized (in a genuine church), have received irresistible grace. God’s promises in baptism are unconditional.”

This was taught by our pastor when I was accused of heresy.  In fear of Arminianism, even a theology professor insisted that God’s promises in baptism are unconditional (for the infants of believers).  Yet, the sacraments are for the (true) believers; by faith we must appropriate God’s gifts; otherwise we will not (in the end) benefit from them. Rather, for those who despise God’s promises, the covenant becomes a curse. Irresistible grace is true when we consider God’s work in “the elect”, who were foreordained for salvation.

In Egypt, all of Israel received God’s promise of dwelling in a “and of milk and honey”, yet most of them refused to follow God in trust and obedience; many wanted to return to Egypt.

3 “All gracious gifts of God and work of the Holy Spirit are only promised and given to the elect.”

I have had to argue against this teaching when I met with people from, or influenced by, the Protestant reformed churches.  Yet, where the Bible teaches us about people “always resisting the Holy Spirit” and “the sin against the Holy Spirit”, it shows us that certain workings of God’s Spirit have been and are actually resisted, and therefore such workings are not restricted to the elect.

If God’s grace (I am not writing “saving grace”!) is only for the elect, then there are no promises for all who hear the Gospel, and the “Gospel” is only “Good News” for those who happen to be elect.

4  “How we live as Christians has no bearing on our salvation.”

Again, in our home church this actually was a prevalent view until I challenged it. Our pastor even published an article in which he rejected John McArthur’s explanation that true faith always results in a transformed heart, resulting in good works. In this article he agreed with Zane Hodge, who claimed that since “We are only saved by grace, through faith”, the lifestyle of the “Christian” (read: baptized church member) is of no real consequence for his salvation. Some church members loved to ‘prove their point by referring to the passage, “We may be unfaithful, but God will always remain faithful.”  

Yet, the churches have always insisted that a godless lifestyle without repentance and fruit of godliness proves that there was no true faith or saving grace.  God’s faithfulness not only implies salvation for the true believer, who produces fruit of faith, but also in bringing judgment on those without true faith, who fail to produce the fruit of faith!

When we were young, we lived under the impression that we were already believers; we just needed to prove this by pursuing a life of obedience to our parents, our Christian teachers, and the elders in the church.

If we were serious in these efforts, then God would smile upon us and lovingly forgive us the sins that still remained in us.

Only much later did my wife and I realize that this was not in accordance to Paul’s teaching. Rather, when we have a heartfelt desire to please God out of pure thankfulness for his amazing grace, this is evidence that He has graciously forgiven our sins and has given us His Spirit to dwell in us as a foretaste for eternal life, lived for His glory!  Earlier, we could not recognize how self-serving we still were or how inconceivably great His love for us is that, while we were yet sinners, He gave up his Son to take our punishment.

The Myth of the Non-Transformed Christian Life: A Review of Issues

The Myth of the Non-Transformed Christian Life

A Review of Issues

I like to start with a number of statements, formulated in response to misunderstandings or unbalanced teachings, which I have encountered during our years in Canada.

1 There exist so-called “Nominal Christians”. 

Such people refer to themselves as Christians, while that name or label does not match the state of their (unregenerate) hearts.  Although they claim to be followers of Jesus, they continue to foster idols, while God and Jesus are relegated to the margins of their lives or merely used to ease their conscience or to boost their status in their circle of family and friends. 

Most churches have recognized that not everyone who is ‘in the church’ (as regular attendants, as baptized or even as confessing members) is necessarily ‘of the church’ (by true faith grafted into the Body of Christ or the church of all times and places). There will be hypocrites (“actors”), who pretend to be disciples of Christ.

In Jesus’ Parable of the Sower (Matthew 13) we learn about people, who at first accept the Gospel, yet they never produce good fruit. In the end it is obvious that they were not truly saved. Yet, when they initially embraced the Gospel, they would have been seen as believers.

John writes in his first letter (2: 19) that certain enemies of Christ had come out of the church. Although at first they looked like Christians, they did not remain in the faith. As true Christians will persevere and produce fruit, their turning their backs to Christ betrays that they never were “of the church”.

Paul warns Timothy (2 Tim. 3: 5) about people in the church, who maintain an outward form of godliness while they lack the powerful presence of the Spirit.

Hebrews 10: 29 warns us that there will be judgment for those, after hearing the Good News, continue to live in sin.

2 In the church there can be a danger of false assurance and useless faith

James warns us that there is a kind of ‘faith’ that does not lead to salvation. 

If faith is merely an intellectual agreement with certain doctrines or a feeling of certainty that “despite of us being wretched sinners” our sins are forgiven by Christ- it is useless faith. When our thoughts and lives are not radically transformed by the realization of God’s amazing grace manifested in Christ’s suffering and death for our sakes, then there cannot be true faith.

Hebrews 4: 2 talks about people who heard the Good News, but who did not benefit from its promises and blessings as the Word was not combined with a response in faith.

The Lord Jesus already warned his audience that many would call upon his name in vain (Matthew 7: 21 - 23).

Hebrews 10 gives us a strong warning about those who have come to know the Gospel only to reject it. Those who know the truth, yet wilfully reject it, will be damned.

3 There are two distinct ways in which the Bible uses the term “sinner”.

It makes me nervous when I am in a church where people love the mantra, “We are all sinners”, or even “We are all totally depraved”.  To be sure, the Bible clearly shows us how in the fall of our ancestors human nature has been corrupted so that nobody seeks God to serve Him. Also, even the most good and pious person could not please God and satisfy His demands, for even such “good behaviour” has (strong) elements of self-interest.  In that sense all people are sinners, from the prostitute to the preacher.  

Yet, the Bible also shows us another reality. For the Kingdom of God is taking shape, even in the world today. There are now also people who no longer seek to pamper and protect their idols, since their hearts have been transformed by the love of God (in Christ’s sacrifice) and the power of His (indwelling) Spirit. Although such people will still commit sins, as they will not and cannot keep God at the centre of their lives all the time, yet they must consider themselves no longer as sinners (dominated by sin), but as saints (dominated by the Spirit).

A simple test is to use a concordance or website like biblegateway.com and to search for all occurrences of the term “sinner”. You will quickly realize that the term is most often used for the ungodly people, who do not care about God and His Word. Typically, they are self-seeking people, who worship created things or themselves.  Psalm 1, for instance, distinguishes righteous people from the sinners. Yet, there are also passages that warn us that all people sin and have sinned; therefore nobody can perfectly love God and follow His rules for life. Therefore, in that sense, we are all sinners.

I have met preachers, who love to emphasize Paul’s exclamation in Romans 7, “O, wretched sinner that I am”, yet they fail to keep this passage in its proper perspective between Romans 6 (“We are no longer slaves to sin.”) and Romans 8 (“If God’s Spirit lives in you, you are no longer controlled by your sinful nature.”)  

If we ignore or reject the reality of our remaining sinfulness, we have not (yet) recognized the holiness of God. If we give the impression that we are still sinners like before, then we either deny the gift of rebirth or we refuse to walk with the Spirit, or indeed we have not (yet) been born again!

4 Christians are not “just” forgiven sinners!

Sure, all people go against the will of God, and in that sense we are all sinners. Sure, those who know and follow Christ may know their sins to be forgiven by His sacrifice. Yet, there is more! Christians have also received Christ’s Spirit to live and work in them so that they are transformed and renewed in accordance with His will!

I have heard preachers argue that (primarily or only) our status has been changed in God’s record books. While we ought not to, we could continue to live as sinners, while through Christ’s sacrifice God views and accepts us as righteous.

Peter writes (I paraphrase 1 Peter 4: 4) that the readers’ old friends are surprised to see that those who were recently converted no longer care to join them in the things they used to enjoy together. They no longer seek their joy in getting drunk and feeling good by pursuing fun; they have now experienced the joy of doing the will of God, which provides true and lasting pleasure!

The Heidelberg Catechism teaches that all people are unable to do anything good (that is: that will honour and please God) unless they are regenerated, transformed by the Spirit of God. All true believers are (have been) so regenerated; therefore we cannot continue to argue (nor use it as an excuse) that we are all totally depraved and incapable of doing good and at the same time argue that all of us (in the church) are believers!

Faith and Works

The relationship of (true) faith and (good) works has been a theme for extensive discussion throughout church history.  Reformed churches may think that these issues have long been resolved with the writing of their confessions, but in my personal battles and in the impact of a popular re-interpretation of St. Paul, the same issues have surfaced again.  Recently they have entered reformed circles through men like Steve Schlissel and John Baruch.  Tom Wright is a strong proponent, too. Apparently, Wright has gained great popularity in the more conservative reformed churches in The Netherlands.  Yet, it seems that only a few elders in these churches are aware of his teachings on this point or why we should be concerned about it.

Therefore I want to return to my blogspot “Praying for Rain” to add a few more posts. The first must deal with “The Myth of the Non-transformed Christian Life”. This gives a review of concerns, which I have mostly mentioned in earlier posts.  Next, I will deal with the issue of “The New Perspective of Paul and Justification.” This will require several, perhaps four, posts.

Report from China (7) A Time to say Good Bye!

The last months for us in China were a time of many blessings. Even though we had experienced some pressure, on Pentecost morning we went to the swimming pool to baptize and formally bring six friends into the Household of Faith.  After some thought and prayer the steering group had agreed to proceed with the scheduled ceremony, even though the public pool was almost across the street from the place where our neighbor had been forced to leave the day before.

Two of those baptized were H and E. H is a grade one student and daughter of our deacon. Her family had recently come through terrible hardships, but her mother (M) had remained strong in Christ, and she had diligently taught her daughter concerning the Gospel. After the baptism of baby Anna, M asked us about baptism for H, so we had ‘a little talk’ with her. I was so happy to hear her calm and sincere answers to the questions, and we had no doubt that it was right to have her baptized.  Her close friend E, daughter of D and H, is about one year older. Although she used to be fairly mischievous and apparently disinterested, over the last couple of years we saw how she also matured and grew in her relationship with Christ. We were thankful that several Sisters had taken on responsibility to build a good Sunday school program, and we see these baptisms also as a fruit of this ministry.

It was a wonderful celebration, and after the worship service we enjoyed an amazing dinner with the whole fellowship.  As no new troubles were experienced, our friends began to relax about potential troubles. So, the steering group suggested we attend (and teach) more regularly during the remaining weeks. We gladly did so. During the weeks of our absence, I had continued to write the Sunday messages. I would send them to Brother Paul and our evangelist, and they would then teach the message in English and in Mandarin Chinese.

For several reasons Marioka and I had decided to leave China by way of container ship. Unfortunately, sailing schedules are more liable to change (than schedules for airlines), so two months before the planned departure date, we had to switch to another vessel, which would leave Shanghai two weeks earlier.  So, all activities had to be accelerated: packing up books and clothes in boxes to be sent to Holland. Cleaning out our apartment and classrooms, and organizing many things to make sure that everything would work out on time.

The last week in Guangzhou was a time without a break. It included farewell dinners with colleagues and with our fellowship. Perhaps the most memorable of these was the potluck celebration during the last Sunday night at the house (ground floor apartment) of our evangelist.

In the morning service we had installed two more deacons for the service of the fellowship. Over the years, Brothers D and T had shown diligence and commitment, and during the previous months (while we were withdrawing), they had immediately increased their involvement in service. So, it was a blessing to have their calling confirmed for the strengthening of the work. Although we had always been hesitant and cautious to have women elders or pastors, we reminded them that we had confidence in the gifts of our evangelist and in her understanding of the Scriptures, so if the steering group would –at some point- reach a consensus on this point, we would not be opposed to her teaching, even in the Sunday services. (The male deacons do not nearly have the same level of spiritual maturity and biblical insight.)

During the evening celebration, we were presented with a commemorative book with photos from our last five years with the Vineyard congregation. Brother D had also been busy and created a DVD with pictures and video clips of our years together, including brief “Good bye & Thank you” comments from all regular attendees.  Finally, the steering group decided to have two of them “see us off” in Shanghai, and they had arranged airline tickets and hotel bookings for this. So, we had one more farewell near the bus station before we would take the airport shuttle bus. A few more Sisters joined us to the airport (from where we would fly to Shanghai), and then we were on our first leg of our journey back to Canada. It was a privilege to have our evangelist and Sister H join us for the next few days in Shanghai, until –after another delay of a couple of days- we got picked up by a van to head to Shanghai harbor.  Early the next day we sailed to Busan, Korea, and from there across the Bering Sea to Prince Rupert, Canada.  The sailing time was twelve days, and we arrived at Canada’s west coast while they had perfect weather. After one day in town, we flew via Vancouver to Ontario.  

Praise the Lord.

Report from China (6) The Catholic Connection

Before our China years we had little close connection with any Roman Catholics. We did –at times- have R.C. neighbors and colleagues, but when it came to church or faith, there typically was no communication or sense of unity. Both, they and we, ‘knew’ that we belonged to the true church, and is seemed that nothing could shake each other’s denominational commitment.

While we were teaching in China, we did have some Christian colleagues, from a variety of church backgrounds. Some years there were two or three of them who would regularly join our group in Sunday worship. At one time there was a group of serious young women from Mennonite background, but they preferred to do weekly Bible study meetings with each other. For a lot of young colleagues (even if they had been faithful in attending worship ‘at home’) the temptations were too great, and so they spent the weekends with their friends traveling or visiting Hong Kong.

Then there was N. During the first few years, at our first location, she was quite regular, although often she was too busy. At that time she seemed to have an eating disorder, and she was always dressed in black. She was from R.C. background and she loved Jesus, but she was quite skeptical about the Old Testament. During the last couple of years she returned, even though it involved more travel since our meetings were now in a different location. Sister N became a very faithful attendant, and she had changed in obvious ways. She was clearly happier than before, and she was never dressed in black. She seemed quite agreeable with all the teaching, although she never participated in the Communion.

There was also Sister A, an older Irish lady, also from R.C. background. She had been in a small evangelical prayer group and worked fairly closely with Marioka, and prior to her hip operation she used to go to the city on Sundays for worship at the cathedral. Marioka had suggested to her to join us in worship, but Sister A required (and appreciated) a little stronger encouragement to do so. So, this last year, A regularly came to attend our meetings.  She was already fairly critical about certain things in the R.C. tradition, so she had little problems to adjust to our worship and the teaching. She often remarked how the teaching and fellowship helped her to live closer to Christ.

Last, but not least, there was our new (elementary) art teacher, Ms. T.  She was a young woman from R.C. tradition, who recently had come to know Christ as her Lord and Savior. Although the catholic traditions felt friendly familiar to her, she was fairly critical about some of the teaching, and she loved to worship with us.

All of these three ladies were present the day we were visited by the police. After this event it took some time for everybody to reconsider the alternatives and priorities. First I continued to prepare the messages, and while our Chinese friends would meet at their new address, we would meet with other foreigners in our home. So, here we were: having worship with three Catholic sisters!

In the teaching, I would not seek to stress the differences in teachings in various church directions. Yet, when it was appropriate for the topic, I did not hesitate to explain the differences between Reformed-Presbyterian, Baptist, Pentecostal and Roman Catholic teachings. So, we dealt with topics such as gifts of the Spirit, like speaking in tongues, the practice of infant baptism, the meaning of the Lord Supper, and the use of the crucifix. I always made a point to try to give a fair and balanced explanation of the different views before listing possible concerns about each side. Then I would explain our point of view. In my teaching, I typically followed the teaching of The Gospel Coalition (as expressed by Tim Keller, Don Carson, and John Piper), yet our church looked like a ‘Charismatic Reformed Baptist church with some Lutheran tendencies’.

Naturally, not all teachers from R.C. background were interested in weekly worship or in active evangelism. Regular readers of our updates know that for almost seven years we have worked with Mary’s students in a nearby Chinese high school.  In the first years Brother Andrew, who taught at the same school, assisted us; in the recent years some colleagues would come with us. The last year, our ‘Catholic Sisters’ A and T worked with us in this ministry.

A few years ago yet, we tried to keep this work ‘under the radar’. The school principal, Mr. Li, had warned me years before not to get involved with local church work, and he had labeled me ‘a religious fanatic’. Mary’s department head, however, loved the work that we were doing. He was convinced that it would benefit the students’ English skills, and he was excited that we did it ‘Pro Deo’!

Last Fall, however, there was a change. Finally, this school had found a way to offer a program through which they could grant Canadian high school diplomas. And they would do so in close cooperation with a Catholic School Board in Southern Ontario!  To boost their English program, they had to hire a number of Ontario teachers. So, suddenly Mr. Li thought it a wonderful idea that students would read the Bible in the English language!

Sister Mary, the coordinating teacher for our program, had great hopes to get the cooperation of the new Catholic teachers from Ontario. Together with them, we could perhaps expand the program to include all senior classes! Although she made several attempts, the new teachers always were too busy or too tired to get involved at all. Mary was disappointed and surprised how Christian teachers could have so little interest to bring the Good News to the Chinese young people who had never heard it.

Things are always changing, especially in China. Only a few months ago Mary told us that the whole school program was going to change, and –as a result- it might be impossible to continue the Bible reading program (that she had first started as an extra-curricular activity seven-and-a-half years ago, after she was just baptized. Yet, she was already creatively looking at new formats to continue with the work. May the Lord continue to keep her, to guide her, and to use her for the Kingdom.

As the Spirit had connected us with Catholics, there was an interesting extension, even during our journey ‘home’. Here we are on our way from China to Canada: on a German container ship, chartered by a Korean company, with a crew that is mostly of (Philippine) Catholic background. The Chief Engineer is Polish, also from Catholic background, and he liked our idea to host a worship service on Sunday afternoon. So, a few days ago we gathered in the officers’ mess. Outside a few officers on duty (on the bridge and engine room), almost everybody came to our meeting. We had been busy selecting songs (lyrics and music in mp-3 format), preparing the message (on The Prodigal Son), and working out the logistics. Near the end of the service I briefly explained the (real) meaning of the Lord’s Supper and the conditions for participation; most of them gladly participated. It was a wonderful time together, and this time of worship was certainly one of the highlights of the 12-day journey across the Pacific!