Tuesday, June 18, 2013

Wrapping up; zooming out

How is it possible that, in a denomination, which stresses true doctrine as the premier criterion for the genuine church, so few people can discern true biblical doctrine?  From the day we came under discipline (until we left, about a year later) we had regular home visits.  Since my wife agreed with me, she too, was withheld from communion.  Two elders would come for an evening, but they would not talk about doctrine.  They were probably instructed to avoid the topic, even though we were under discipline for heresy.  According to the church confessions, people must be placed under discipline when they show in doctrine and in life that they are unbelievers.  In a grim letter we were informed that we no longer shared in “the reformed faith”.  It was a very twisted experience.  At one home visit, an elder confided that he was happy that, in all the turmoil, our marriage was still strong; that my wife stood beside me.  To this I replied in true amazement, “What?  You are happy that I am not the only one who is on my way to hell, but that my wife has decided to join me in this journey?”  Also, the senior elder who kept using the term ‘heresy’ against me, wrote a very positive recommendation so that I could be accepted as student in an interdenominational seminary.  Then, about a year later, the church counsel wrote that my study at a baptistic seminary gave ample proof that I was unrepentant and hardening myself in sin. 
It was at this time that two small books were published on (infant) baptism and the covenant.  In our church, the publication was titled “The Covenant of Love”.  The other book was published in our Dutch mother churches.  Its title was “The Deep Water of Baptism”.  The latter book (not a call for baptism by immersion!) warned the readers that baptism is not just a wonderful promise of salvation (for those who follow Christ!); it also implies a serious threat for all who reject the love of God!  This side of the biblical truth had been conspicuously absent in our churches!
What I observed over and over was a form of hyper-Calvinism, which I called Arminiuphobia.  It is not restricted to one church (denomination).  In fact, I have been challenged by men from various reformed denominations about my apparent Arminian tendencies.  At one occasion I was examined in the URC, where they had earlier decided that my book did not contain heresy.  One elder insisted that, since faith is the gift of God, we may not say that it (the believing) is our work, even when we are regenerated by God’s Spirit.  At another occasion I was challenged on my writing that the Holy Spirit works in some, who will not go to Heaven.  In the Protestant Reformed Church’s view, the Holy Spirit only works effectively and irresistibly in those who are elect.  The Gospel is only “good news” for those people, and only God knows who they are.
It think it is a well established fact that communities, which make it their focus to fight one evil, often end up embracing another -opposite but just as serious- evil.  It is the pendulum principle. If it is our mission to stamp out every hint of Arminianism, we will end up with hyper-Calvinism and Sandemanianism.  Pointing fingers at those who fall from the biblical truth one way, we easily fail to see that we are doing the same, yet on the opposite side!
I have concluded that every believer, every preacher, and every church group must continue to be on their guard against losing the biblical balance.  Nobody can claim to have the perfect doctrine: it is an ongoing process of adjustment to the whole biblical truth, which cannot simply be contained in a few confessions.  In my experience, we can only maintain the proper balance if we learn to look from multiple perspectives: openly and honestly comparing views from different tages, different cultures, and different denominational backgrounds.  If we have a strong bias in favor of ‘our own’ leaders and an equally strong bias against those ‘outside the true faith’, then our pride will lead to (denominational) destruction.  Maintaining the form of religion, we will quickly lose the power of God’s presence. 
I have much respect for the work of John Calvin, and I am convinced that in most issues he promoted teaching according to the biblical balance.  Yet, he is not the J. C. in the centre of my teaching or my life!  In some churches and mission projects, I wonder about their focus or purpose.  Are they trying to win disciples for Jesus Christ or for John Calvin, or do they really think that this cannot make a difference?

Monday, June 17, 2013

Do we have to accept Christ?

I love to read biographies.  I noticed that several prominent evangelical leaders grew up in churches, where they never came to personally accept the truth.  Even though they had been taught the basic doctrines of the Christian faith, they failed to comprehend and appreciate what the Lord Jesus had done for them.  In their younger years, they had never internalized the truth; they were not yet regenerated and so they could not see Christ crucified for them.  I have met several people, who told me that before their conversion they had read the Bible, hoping to get blessed by it.  Yet, at that time they thought it was a collection of irrelevant and rather boring stories.  Years later, when they knew that God is there, they read it all again.  Even though they could not comprehend it all, the book was suddenly bursting with significance.  Finally they realized that it was about them!
We may grow up in a Christian family and from a young age go to church, but that does not make us into Christians!  Unless God’s Spirit opens our eyes and hearts, the book cannot inspire us.  Only through the work of the Spirit can we see and embrace the Truth that is Jesus Christ.  There is a tension here: While God requires people to repent and believe, they can only do so when regenerated by His Spirit.  And yet, we do make personal decisions and choices.  Alister McGrath, in ‘Intellectuals don’t need God’ writes, “Justifying faith rests on our decision to believe- at least, what seems to us, from our standpoint, to be our decision. Theology, with its more reflective standpoint, is able to discern the decision of God behind our decision; the movement of God towards us in advance of our movement toward him; God’s search for us beneath what we discern as our quest for him.” (p.60) 
When I wrote my book ‘Praying for Rain’, I was frequently told that “accepting Christ” is bad language.  In fact, our church jargon seemed to differ from the language of the apostolic church.  The word “covenant” was used all the time, as was “infant baptism”.  Yet, we rarely heard about “the kingdom of God”.  We never learned about our need to “be born again” or our need to “accept Christ”.  Even talking about the church as “the body of Christ” was frowned upon.  As one of our pastors scoffed, “We should not use such body language”.
Several pastors insisted that we all, as baptized members in the genuine church, were (being) regenerated, as we had already received Jesus Christ.  We should not urge members to personally accept Jesus as their Savior, for our salvation does not depend on what we do, but merely on what Christ has done for us.  “Accepting Christ” was said to be terminology from evangelical churches that don’t have the true doctrine.  Ironically our church’s confession (NGB, art.29) states that true Christians (those who are of the church), “have accepted Jesus Christ as their only Savior”*.  And yet, the leaders proclaimed that this was not reformed!  Their translation had adopted the passive term “have received…”
Although I had not yet studied theology, I discovered that the Greek term “lambano”, which is used in the biblical passages about faith, do not just apply to a passive concept, as if we have received something in the mail.  It has an active component and meaning, which implies that we open the door (of our heart) to Jesus Christ, when he comes to us “clothed in the Gospel”.
It seemed to me that at least some pastors were describing faith as merely an (intellectual) agreement to a set of teachings.  If you believe to be sinners, saved by the blood of Jesus Christ, then you are a believer and your sins are forgiven.  Faith does not require obedience.  Our pastor even wrote an article in the “Reformed Perspective”, condemning lordship salvation as in contradiction to the reformed (that is the true, biblical) doctrine!
Check the Internet about “Lordship salvation” and “Sandemanianism”.


*wanneer zij, aangenomen hebbende den enigen Zaligmaker Jezus Christus

Blood thicker than water?

When I was young, there was only black and white.  Our church (denomination) was the genuine church of Christ, while the denomination which we left suddenly had ceased to be a real church. My parents came from large families. One of my mother’s younger sisters decided to move to Eastern Canada to marry a young man, who was a member of the CRC.  This denomination refused to break contacts with “the now apostate church” in Holland.  My grandfather was deeply saddened and bitterly disappointed with his daughter’s plans.  He could not give his blessing, and he vowed never to visit his daughter in Canada.  For him the denomination seemed more central in his life than his daughter.  At the time I was still young, and I was not aware of the deep drama and the great bitterness involved.  I think he made a terrible mistake.  Yet, I cannot just blame my grandfather; obviously he was strongly influenced by his immediate community- as we all tend to be.
Fourteen years later I moved with my wife and two children to the Canadian Prairies.  We joined the proper church.  One of its senior members was actually a relative of one of my high school peers.  He probably had little formal training, yet he was a man of wisdom.  At one of our visits, he told me that Christian parents always want to believe that their children are saved: they will look for any hope.  Even if they have obviously rejected Christ, parents find assurance in their children’s baptism that their eternal destiny with God is sure.  I was deeply impressed by his keen observation and his honest evaluation.  Later, our pastor also acknowledged the man’s wisdom: he was allowed to write short articles in the church bulletin.
I understand the reasoning behind infant baptism. Although I have never baptized any young child, yet even in (Baptist) seminary I have always defended infant baptism.  On the other hand, I reject the idea that the doctrine and practice of infant baptism can be used as criteria for a genuine church of Christ.  Also, I would rather be in a good Baptist church than in a church where baptism is abused.  When I taught at a Christian high school in Canada, some students, colleagues, and preachers were upset when I challenged my students whether or not they were true Christians.  Of course they were Christians: they were baptized!  They just have to grow (or be trained) in showing the fruits.  The process of regeneration was typically seen as (an automatic) lifelong process of any baptized person in the church.*  One of my colleagues reminded me that “When we are faithless, God remains faithful” (2 Tim. 2:13).  I asked, “Faithful regarding what?”  She replied, “To the promises He gave in baptism!”  “What is this promise?” “That His Spirit will dwell in us”.  Some pastors even insisted that the baptism of our child gives us assurance that he will go to heaven**, even if he obviously lives as an unbeliever. 
I was declared a heretic, and my wife and I were kept from the communion table.  Yet, privately I noticed that the leaders took the warnings to heart.  Trying to keep face to the outside, they quickly set to work to renovate the inside.  When it became clear that other reformed churches in the region shared my concerns, my label shifted from “heretic” to “disturber of the peace”.  Several other churches refused to accept us as members.

*Meanwhile my “Reformed doctrine” teacher-colleague insisted that we (in the church) are all totally depraved.  The church confession states that “we are totally depraved unless we are regenerated by the Holy Spirit (HC, QA8).”  This then seems to imply that none of us are regenerated!


**The form for infant baptism stated, “When we are baptized into the Name of the Holy Spirit, God the Holy Spirit assures us by this sacrament that He will dwell in us and make us living members of Christ…”  In the Dutch version the wording was “He desires to dwell in us”.  Apparently, something got lost in translation!  

Monday, June 10, 2013

The Centre of the Universe: My Teenage Years

I lived as oldest child in a fairly large family in a small Dutch city.  Apparently my home town used to have the largest Christian Reformed church in the country.  However, about ten years before I was born, a small yet significant group broke away from this church in order to continue as “the only genuine church in town”.  This was my community.  As teenagers we were all expected to visit the weekly church doctrine classes, join a young people’s study club, and attend the two Sunday services.  We also had our own schools, so there was hardly any social interaction outside this safe and sheltered community.  My father was principal of the junior high school; all students belonged to our church or neighborhood sister churches.
Among our peers we did not talk about God or Jesus; he was not at the focus of our lives.  Most of us followed the expected code of behavior: we were good kids.  We had a strange relationship with outsiders, whether or not they went to (a different) church.  It was an awkward combination of distrust and fear.  Of course we could not totally avoid to meet other children, for instance in our street.  Most of them went to bad churches, yet they seemed to be very similar to us.  They were also decent and nice; even the godless children did not seem so different.  Except on Sundays.  If people had asked us what a Christian is, we would have replied, “On Sundays, Christians don’t do the weekday things, but they go twice to church.”  ‘Weekday things’ was a somewhat flexible concept, but for us this included riding our bicycles or doing any shopping.   I remember several preachers proclaiming that watching TV on Sundays was a serious sin.  We were Christians, for we respected God’s Law: we did not have any idols in our house, and we did not steal a lot or lie a lot.  But this was true for all our neighbors.  The only ‘idol’ I could think of was the TV, yet we were allowed to watch TV on Wednesday afternoons- at a neighbor’s house.
In our community this was the Christian lifestyle.  I thought I was a Christian because I tried hard to live according to the (church) community’s expectations.  I did my best to please my parents and the others in the church so they would praise me as a good boy.  I adopted the behavior code to nurture my personal pride through the praise of others.  I was at the centre of the universe.  Christ was not: I was not a Christian at that time.
My parents were strict and protective, because my father’s role in the community and because they lost their firstborn daughter at a precious young age.  Therefore, when my peers began to smoke and ride small motor bikes, my parents would not allow me to do such things.  A few years later my peers began drinking and going out with girls.  My best friend abandoned me to hang out with the cool guys.  I lived in a different reality from my peers, and I became more proud for not participating in ‘the evil things of the world’.  My parents noticed my social awkwardness and tried to arrange me to spend Sundays with some peers.  It did not work; I felt very embarrassed to have them in our home.

Once a year all our church communities took a holiday.  Buses from all over our (small) country would bring the church people together for something like an annual pride parade.  During the long day the parents would listen to speeches, while the young people would try to find a girl or boy who also belonged to the true church.  One year I was old enough to go without my parents.  When I got off the bus with my peers, they said, “Let’s f**k some girls today!”  I realize they were just bragging, but I was appalled.  I spent most of the day just walking by myself.  In senior high school I, and these two peers, got jobs as letter carriers at the local post office.  This was a great job: I got up at daybreak (about 5 a.m.) and had a five minute bike ride to the post office.  Then I had to sort the mail for my district, setting everything into the right order for delivery.  When that was done, I would load the big bicycle bags and set out to do my route.  Early afternoon I would be done.  The rest of the day was holiday!  Yet, sometimes the supervisor had some extra jobs to do, and he would assign it to the person with the least working hours.  So, he asked us about our times.  My peers were bragging to me how they cheated on their hours to avoid the extra work.  I was greatly disappointed, for I was ashamed that we, as ‘true Christians’, would do such things.  A few days later I met another young fellow at the post office.  He was a Christian, and over the weeks I got to know him better.  It was obvious that he did not lie about his hours, and talking about Jesus seemed to come natural to him.  He invited me to his home where I met his mother.  She was on fire about a missionary story she had just read.  Somehow I had a nagging feeling that I had just found some long lost family and that “the genuine church of God” might be more elusive than I had been taught.
In my late teens I finally got a grip on my social awkwardness.  For years I had been tossed up and down between pride and depression.  I was a perfectionist, so I set high standards for myself and others.  For weeks I could live in the clouds, looking down on others.  Then, as soon as I had messed things up again, I came crashing down to the point of considering suicide.  I was afraid of public attention; I always thought people were staring at me and talking about me.  To make things worse, in church services we had to sit in church on the balcony.  Large, stable families were encouraged to have the upstairs pews assigned to them to avoid noisy young people from creating a nuisance there during the service.  Since we were a family of ten, my father jumped to the opportunity.  Now I sat on public display of the presumed critical eye of half the congregation.
Yet, over time it dawned on me that my fear of criticism was the natural consequence of my own critical attitudes.  With God’s grace I started to accept others, and I could take part of social life.  On weekends we hung out together with a growing group of young people.  I became bold and organized sailing camps.  I started drinking beer, and for a while I even had a girl friend.  But Christ was not yet truly in the centre, even as I wanted him to be.

Today He is the centre of my life – most of the time.  Whenever I become proud and push him to the periphery of my life, I am faced with the crucified Christ.  Like Peter, this cuts me to the heart: I have betrayed my Savior - again!  And when I feel depressed, I also see the cross.  I am reminded of his amazing love: that He, my God, has died for me.  As Timothy Keller would say, “I am a worse sinner than I would ever dare to admit”, and yet “I am more deeply loved than I could ever fathom.”
A few months ago in Holland I finally met some of my teenage peers again.  Over the previous year I had found them on Facebook.  I told them my story.  They were surprised.  I was happy that I am no longer ashamed about my youth, and I am glad that some of my friends have also developed rich spiritual lives, with Christ in the centre. 

Saturday, June 8, 2013

The blind men and the elephhant

Once upon a time, there lived six blind men in a village. One day the villagers told them, "Hey, there is an elephant in the village today."
They had no idea what an elephant is. They decided, "Even though we would not be able to see it, let us go and feel it anyway." All of them went where the elephant was. Every one of them touched the elephant.
 "Hey, the elephant is a pillar," said the first man who touched his leg.
"Oh, no! It is like a rope," said the second man who touched the tail.
"Oh, no! It is like a thick branch of a tree," said the third man who touched the trunk of the elephant.
"It is like a big hand fan" said the fourth man who touched the ear of the elephant.
"It is like a huge wall," said the fifth man who touched the belly of the elephant.
"It is like a solid pipe," Said the sixth man who touched the tusk of the elephant.
They began to argue about the elephant, and every one of them insisted that he was right. It looked like they were getting agitated. A wise man was passing by and he saw this. He stopped and asked them, "What is the matter?" They said, "We cannot agree to what the elephant is like." Each one of them told what he thought the elephant was like. The wise man calmly explained to them, "All of you are right. The reason every one of you is telling it differently because each one of you touched the different part of the elephant. So, actually the elephant has all those features what you all said."
"Oh!" everyone said. There was no more fight. They felt happy that they were all right.
This is a popular story about the human quest for truth.  The application is that all religions have access to the truth.  Therefore it does not really matter what religion you belong to: essentially they are all about the same truth.
And yet, the story calls all those who search for truth “blind men”, for their observations are very limited.  The only enlightened one is he who believes that all religions are the same.  In other words, those who hold this view insist that only they have access to the whole truth, while all the others are groping in the dark.  Why is this story totally incompatible with the biblical story?
First, there is an Enemy, who seeks to deceive the people.  Nobody learns purely from personal observation: everyone learns mostly by accepting the teaching from those they trust. Beware whom you trust, for there are many deceiving spirits!
Second, the elephant story treats the truth (or “God”) as a passive object for human exploration.  Yet, the God of the Bible is a personal God who has revealed himself to humankind.  This implies that there is a third source of knowledge: humankind does not only acquire truth from personal observation and learning from others, but also through revelation. 


Looking from the biblical perspective, the elephant is not merely a passive object of observation, waiting to be felt and touched by the curious.  Rather, he is alive and powerful: perhaps the lion would be a more appropriate symbol.  “Who said anything about ‘safe’?”  He decides to come to town to reveal himself as King.  Sure, he wants to be found, but he wants to be treated with respect.  He talks to us, and he says, “You really want to know the truth, even if it hurts?  Listen to what I say, and look what I am doing and what I have done!”  Then you will know the truth.  Jesus has come, and he proclaims “I am the truth!”  And at Pentecost, the Spirit ripped off the blindfolds so that thousands could see and believe!

Friday, June 7, 2013

Eternity in the human heart

God has given all of us a deep realization that there has to be more ‘out there’.  There must be some elusive Force or Being much bigger than we are.  Humans have always searched for the big picture that must give wisdom, the truth that helps us understand who we are and why we exist.  Job 28 is a beautiful ancient poem that addresses this quest for wisdom. 

Naturally our centre of existence moves in an area that is dominated by self and society.  Humans need communities to satisfy their needs and to keep their selfishness in check.   And yet, there is this persistent story across the ages and the nations that there is a God.  In fact, over the centuries millions have come to realize that there is a much bigger centre outside their little world: not an abstract Force but a personal Being whose existence is closely connected with their own.  “We are his offspring!”  When God’s Word and Spirit work together in a most powerful way, the truth breaks through.  And when his truth breaks through, it gives a totally different outlook on life.
Suddenly it’s not about us anymore, it’s not even about our families, communities, or countries.  It’s all about Him!  “Let goods and kindred go, this mortal life also.  The body they may kill.  The truth abideth still!”
Even though He is no part of the universe, yet He is the centre of the universe.  He is the creator, and He created it for his purpose.  And even after the revolution, He did not abandon us or the universe we live in.  He sent his Son to set things straight.  And only when He is recognized and acknowledged by all as the legitimate centre of the universe will things be right again.  May His Kingdom come!

What happens when the truth breaks through in the human hearts? 
First, there will be a massive re-arrangement of the way they look at God, at themselves, at their communities, and at the universe.  This is even stronger for those, who have grown up in a community with an atheistic or pantheistic perspective.  This change requires a lot of thinking and a lot of learning. 
Consequently, there will be a craving for more understanding.  In Acts 2 we find that the new believers love to listen to good teaching, where Christ is at the centre.  They also love to meet with others, who share this new-found perspective.  In their fellowship they encourage each other to focus on God.  As they spend more time with their new Family, their contacts with the other communities will lose their intensity.  These former commitments are pushed from the centre of their lives.
And then, their lives are changed.  It is the love of God, which transforms them.  Empowered by his Spirit and instructed from his Word, they return to their communities.  And there it is obvious that they have changed.  Fruit of the Spirit are there for all to see .
All these changes create confrontation and tension, but God’s Spirit empowers his people to love, to forgive, and to sacrifice things and relationships.

His Kingdom comes where people honestly and earnestly place God and Jesus at the centre of the universe.  This must be a life-long process for Christians as well as Christian communities.  We all have the tendency and the urge to maintain and protect our status and our pride and to prove that we are right!  Naturally we want to promote our own interests and those of our communities.  However, when God is our focus, we are empowered to abandon other things we treasured or push them from the centre.

Thursday, June 6, 2013

The Centre of the Universe

Our natural perspective, from which we observe our environment, is a self-centered perspective.  Objects nearby appear relatively large, while those far away appear small and insignificant.  The earth itself appears to each of us as a circular area that stretches out all around us, while the heavens form a giant overhead dome. 
While we are still young, we learn that we are not alone.  We belong to a family, a community, and a country.  During our first ten years or so, our horizons expand, and while we are still at the apparent centre, we learn to appreciate and respect the different levels of community in which we live.  If we are to receive the positive attention that we crave for, we need to downplay our personal interests and adopt (the) perspectives and practices of our community.
I think it is interesting to learn that most (isolated) people groups viewed their own tribe as “the people” and their territory as the (obvious) centre of the earth.  When others came to them, they were seen as coming from the fringes of the earth.  To consider one’s own community as “the people”, living at “the centre” usually resulted in the notion that one’s own culture or way of doing things was superior to that of others (ethnocentricity).  Visiting outsiders could not even speak “the” language and did not know what or how to eat (concerning what was locally available).  All of this seemed to prove their inferiority.   Jonathan Swift mocks some of these attitudes in his stories in “Gulliver’s Travels”.

When you first visit China, you think squat toilets are primitive and dirty.  You experience them as uncomfortable, and you think they are popular because they are cheaper.  Yet, after you live there for a while, you begin to accept the possibility that squat toilets might just be more hygienic while they strengthen people’s back muscles if used from childhood.

This perspective has proven fatal for some communities.  During human migrations, explorations, and colonization, many isolated people groups lost their lands, their cultures, and their lives when ‘inferior outsiders’ proved to be superior in power, determination, and/or deceitfulness.  The effective explorers and colonizers were confirmed in their convictions that their civilization was (obviously) superior to that of the savages in the far corners of the earth.  According to Jared Diamond (in “Guns, Germs, and Steel”) this was an important cause for the rapid collapse of the Inca Empire.  European nations used science to provide the 'evidence' to provide a rational and ethical basis to exploit these peoples and their lands.


Slowly people who became familiar with other peoples and other places started to see culture from multiple perspectives.  Gradually they sacrificed the notion that their own culture was in all ways superior to others.  As western cultures began to reject ethnocentricity, however, it was hard to find a new set of criteria for “right” and “wrong”.  If ‘good’ and ‘evil’ are just the local consensus of any culture group, is there still a centre from which we can evaluate anything?  If the universe has lost its (perceived) centre, is there still a moral centre from which we can judge between right and wrong? 

Tuesday, June 4, 2013

Why this Blog?

In March, 1998, I published a book by the title "Praying for Rain".
It presented a critical analysis of the church (denomination!) that I then belonged to.  Although the publication was publicly condemned in those circles, privately I found that many did take its warnings to heart.  Locally, however, the fury was so great that there could be no reconciliation.
Recently someone approached me, requesting another box of 48 books.  I was assured that many people had benefited from my writing, and that it might help others who were now in a state of critical evaluation.  Since I had re-adopted my actual name (Aize), it had been difficult to track me down, even in cyberspace.

At this time, however, it serves little purpose to re-publish or promote the original "Praying for Rain".  It was primarily written for the situation of that time as observed in the Canadian Reformed churches.  We left that denomination about a year after publication, after a time of great hardship and amazing blessings.  Hopefully these churches have changed for the better, regardless of the role my book may have played.  Some of my friends assure me that they have.
Also, since publication, I was able to study theology at an interdenominational seminary and I could do my internship with Grace Toronto Church (PCA).  Afterwards I could get a few years of ministry experience in another inner city church, and more recently we have over five years of experience in planting and pastoring a church in Asia.
So, perhaps I can still offer some assistance, now from a broader perspective, so that it may be applicable in a wider setting.  May His Kingdom be built!

Since we are involved in dual teaching jobs, I may have limited opportunity to reply to your comments.