Chow 4 Now

We are heading out for some family holidays. We will miss everyone at Church, but it will be nice to have some family time.

In the last year of his life, Bonita's dad wanted to take the whole family to
Disney Land...but his cancer hit him very hard and very fast and this family vacation never happened.

Before he went to be with the Lord, dad phoned us up and told us that he was giving us some money so that we could take the kids to Disney Land...we head out tomorrow.

We are at Bonita's moms right now...but we all [grandma included] are going to visit Mickey and the gang...it will be very fun.

Talk to you all when we get back [D.V].

God bless you and keep you.

That Just Won't Do

I can remember listening to R.C Sproule [Bible teacher] a few years back.

He was telling of a time when he was in seminary. One of his professors asked the class to defend the Christian faith against a Mormon. The Mormon doesn't believe that God is Spirit but instead has a physical body. The class sat quietly...then the teacher points at Sproule and volunteers him.

Sproule says he began at John 4:24 that says God is Spirit and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth. At this the teacher replies "no, no, no, that won't do."
Then Sproule and the rest of the class began to go through a detailed Scriptural argument showing that God is eternally Spirit. At each point in the argument the teacher just shook his head and said "no, no, no, that just won't do".

Finally...exasperated...the class gave in.

They then turned to the teacher and asked him how he would defend the Christian position.

The teacher started off at John 4:24 and then proceeded to give the exact argument the class gave moments earlier.

The class began to shout "thats what we said"!

And to this the old teacher just laughed and said..."yes, and you let me beat your strong Scriptural argument by just saying, "no, no, no, that just won't do."

The Transcendental Argument for God's existence is Nuclear in its strength!

This argument says that the Triune God of Scripture [and His revelation to man] is the "precondition for all intelligibility".

Because God is the Creator and Govenor of all things then all things only make sense when viewed by His revelation.

Just because the unbeliever doesn't throw in his hat doesn't mean that the argument is lacking in its powerful.

It just shows the unbelievers rebellion.

Sin and unbelief are not rational!

When the Holy Spirit enlightens a man then our preaching and evangelizing brings unbelievers into the kingdom of Christ.

A few points to remember:

Never assume neutrality.

Never allow the unbeliever to subtly draw you into his unbelieving circle of thought.

When you do step into his circle, do so consciously to show that it is inconsistent with itself, and arbitrary.

The unbeliever will want you to answer to his standards [he even has the never to demand that God stand before his [the unbeliever's] bar of justice...but he can't even give a concrete reason for why he has standards.

Never be ashamed of God's word...it is the foundation for all truth.

The unbeliever really knows this...but he is holding down God's clearly revealed truth, in both the world and Word.

Cling to Christ [The Word of God] He is the truth, the Way, the Life.

God the Father and Jesus Christ are the source of all wisdom and knowledge.

I'm Trying To Find Myself

Have you ever heard someone say this "I need to go spend some time alone so I can find myself"?

What do they do they mean by this? Don't they know where they are now?

These people think they have to separate themselves from all the events and relationships of life to really find out "who" they are.

But this is impossible...the events of your life, the people in your life, and the things you do [or have done] make you who you are.

Some people act as if there were some mystical realm that the "real" them existed in, and they just need to discover that place

...they will look, and look...in vain.

Have you ever heard someone say..."I know they did some pretty horrible things...but deep down inside they are really a nice person.”?

Again we see the dividing of who we are from what we do and how we interact with others...this is a mistake.


If a person were allowed to see himself 200 years in the future what would he see?

Where would he “find himself”?

If he were to not have trusted in Jesus Christ [the fullness of the God-head bodily] for the forgiveness of his sins then he would be lost. He would be in the place of eternal damnation, the outer darkness…cut off from all other beneficial relationships…

…he would be alone [festering in all his sins and lusts].

A person who has trusted in Christ has now been brought into a new relationship with the God who created him.

This God has within His nature unity and community.

Community is essential to the Triune God’s nature.

For all eternity God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit lived in perfect communion.

A loving, sacrificial [putting the needs of the other above yourself] relationship.

This person no longer “merely” receives his identity individually…he is now a member of the Body of Christ, the Church, the communion of the saints.

200 years in the future he would see himself in perfect fellowship with an innumerable multitude from every tribe, tongue and nation…all living in perfect unity and community.

If a person wants to ready himself for heaven then he needs to “find himself” in the context of community and not individualism.

Individualism…trying to “find yourself” apart from other people and events in life…consistently lived out… is preparing you for one place and one place only.

…the place of outer darkness…where community and relationships will be no more.

There will be no party in hell...because a party presupposes community, relationship, and fellowship.

Article 29

I have been asked why I keep looking at the past, and why I am meddling in affairs that I oh so wanted to be freed from. You ask a question you get an answer.

1. I am still talking about the past because there are people, in the present, who still disagree about how they view the past. And both parties have made their beliefs public. There are people who have said that they believed that Jamie, Leo, John and myself abandoned the Church.

I disagree!

And I will publically defend this position.

John received another call to plant a church...and he took the call. Has no other pastor ever received a call from another church...and accepted it?

People feel they know John's secret motives for doing this...funny I thought only God knew the secrets of mens hearts.

As for Jamie, Leo, and myself, we didn't step down from office until Edmonton had step in as oversight...no one was abandoned.

Some people may not like "how" we did it because it didn't fit in with their agenda but that is not the same thing as us leaving the Church without any spiritual guidance.



2. About my meddling...since when did "truth" and "Christ's Church" become someones personal property...it almost sounds like I am trespassing through someones backyard!
If someone is going to publically declare their beliefs, and some of these beliefs involve me...then I will take fully liberty to declare [publically] my own beliefs.


Some people were led to believe that in Synod 2007 that only the Covenant Reformed Churches leaders would not be allowed membership in the URCNA...this is not the case.

Look at the Church Order.
Article 29
If any assembly complains of having been wronged by the decision of another assembly, it shall have the right to appeal to the broader assemblies. An individual's appeal must proceed first to the Consistory, and only then, if necessary, to a broader assembly. All decisions of a broader assembly are to be received with respect and submission, and shall be considered settled and binding, unless it is proved that they are in conflict with the Word of God or the Church Order. Consistories who are convinced that they cannot comply with a decision of a broader assembly because it does not agree with the Word of God cannot be compelled to do so, provided that they state to the classis the points at which the decision of the assembly disagrees with the Word of God. If a Consistory refuses to comply with the final decision of the synod and a subsequent synod rules by majority vote that submission in the matter is essential for the unity of the churches, the congregation is no longer eligible for membership in the federation.

Do note that it is the "congregation" that is no longer eligible for membership in the federation...not just the consistory.


To repeat...this is from the Fifth Acts of Synod [the last Synod held].

Overture: The consistory of The Orthodox Reformed Church of Edmonton requests Classis Western Canada 2003 (Salem) to clarify the status and function of the decision of Classis 2000 (Lynden) that “The Confessions exclude non-professing members from participating in the Lord’s Supper.”

Grounds:

1. The unity of our churches in the faith requires agreement as to the proper recipients of the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper.

Motion: to adopt the Overture of The Orthodox Reformed Church of Edmonton
Motion: call for the question- PASSED
Motion: to adopt PASSED
Motion: that the following statement be received as a response of clarification.

• This decision [The Confessions exclude non-professing members from participating in the Lord’s Supper] is not an ‘extra-confessional’ statement that somehow has special status along side of our Confessions. It is rather an affirmation of the Confessions themselves on a specific point of their teaching. Therefore, agreement with this teaching of our Confessions as recognized and affirmed by classis has a direct bearing on Confessional Subscription. Any candidates or office-bearers who cannot affirm what classis has affirmed regarding the Confessions on this point cannot properly subscribe to the Three Forms of Unity.

[Do note that I removed the last three grounds from Edmonton as I wanted the first to stand out]

The first grounds to their overture against paedo-communion [an overture that was "passed"] was that it was against the unity of the Churches. The very thing that Article 29 spoke of.

In 2007, the Synod, if it followed the trend of previous broader assemblies [which it gave no indication of doing otherwise] would have not allowed the Covenant Reformed Church to sustain its membership in the URCNA.

We made our decision for those families who didn't agree with paedo-communion...that they wouldn't be forced out of a denomination that they wanted to stay in.

Steve Wilkins Speaks

After we [the previous consistory of the Covenant Reformed Church] had decided to leave the Church and start a new work, some people came to us and told us that they heard Steve Wilkins [a strong proponent of paedo-communion] teach that a Church should never “split” or “divide” over the issue of paedo-communion.

I knew that the situation that Mr. Wilkins was in [in the PCA] was much different then our own... so... I wanted to hear what he had to say about our situation, and our decision about leaving.

So is Mr. Wilkins for or against what we did?

There is much reading below that I sent to Mr. Wilkins, so for the sake of time I am giving you the first part of my letter [minus our letter to the congregation, and some judgments from the Fifth Acts of Synod, then I have Mr. Wilkins reply to my letter, last I have the second part of my letter to Mr. Wilkins.
This way you can read my question to Mr. Wilkins, and his answer to my question. I sent him the letter to the congregation and the readings from the Acts of Synod so he could make a better judgment. If you want to read this further readings you will have to go past Mr. Wilkins response. I hope this enlightens you...enjoy. In Christ, dale

p.s- Mr. Wilkins gave me his permission to print this on my blog.

----- Original Message -----
From: Dale Callahan
To: swilkins@auburnavenue.org
Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2006 11:13 AM
Subject: What would your judgment be?

Dear Mr. Wilkins,
I am seeking your advice. I have corresponded with you via email in the past. We were going to have you come and speak at a Hospitality Conference but the conference never happened.
I was an elder in the Covenant Reformed Church of Grande Prairie. The other office bearers were Rev. John Barach, Jamie Soles [elder], George Plante [elder], and Leo Wattel [deacon].
Back in late Jan Pastor Barach accepted a call to Oregon. This left us without a pastor and also left us without any future possibility of a pastor. All of the consistory held to paedo-communion and this had effectively disqualified us from office. The only reason why we were still allowed to be in office is that the procedure of the Church order [article 29] allowed us to disagree until two synod judgments ruled against us. This second synod was coming up in June 2007. This meant that if synod 2007 followed the same rulings that the earlier classis and synods made then we would no longer be able to maintain membership in the federation, after 2007. We have left our church, but not until we could leave the congregation under the spiritual oversight of another church within the federation. On April 10 the church voted to have Edmonton Church take oversight over them. At this same time we [consistory] gave our resignation from office and our release from membership. We are seeking membership within the CREC [under Christ Covenant Church, Langley, B.C].
I first listened to your tape series on paedo communion 7 years ago and was convinced of this wonderful truth. We have people in the church we left who are saying that they heard you preach that a church should never "split" over this issue. Stepping down from office and starting a new work was not an easy decision, nor was it our first choice. If our federation allowed office holders to hold to paedo communion as long as they didn't practice it, and if younger children were allowed to come to the table with a profession of faith, then we would have never left.
I just wanted to send you our letter to the congregation to see what you have to say [with what limited knowledge you have on our situation].
I will also send you the ruling of previous classis and synod rulings. And finally could I ask you what is the youngest age that children can come to the Lord's Table at your church...in our federation it is between 16-18 years old.
I would really appreciate your feedback.



From : Steve Wilkins
Sent : April 26, 2006 10:20:24 AM
To : "Dale Callahan"
Subject : Re: What would your judgment be?

| | | Inbox


Dear Mr. Callahan,

I'm very sorry to be so slow in responding to your note. No excuses, just busy.

I think your letter is quite good. I do not think churches should split over paedocommunion at all --- but your situation is distinctly different than the ones I had in mind when I said this. In your situation, Synod has stated that office bearers cannot hold office if they *agree* with paedocommunion. In other words, you're not being allowed the freedom I have to believe in paedocommunion but not practice it. I am in a position to continue to labor for reform --- but you are not. The only way you could retain office in the URC is to repudiate your conviction. Thus, it seems to me that your rationale is correct and the best alternative to preserving the peace of the Church in Grande Prairie.

I don't know the size of Grande Prairie but I would guess that the objection of the others stems (at least in part) from the fear that the town will not be able to sustain two reformed churches. That is reasonable, but I don't see an alternative given the recalcitrance of the URC on this issue. Thus, it seems to me the primary blame for this must be laid at the feet of the URC.

Regarding your question about the youngest child we have admitted to the table -- I believe the youngest was 3 years old. We are required by our Book of Church Order to receive a profession of faith from covenant children before admitting them. But there is no age limit and there is no "minimum standards" by which to judge the profession of faith. The only question is, "Is the profession 'credible'?" We judged that the professions of faith we have heard from very young children quite credible.

I'm sorry that I cannot be of more help --- if I have misunderstood something, please let me know.

God bless,
Steve W.


First, some of our federations past rulings

Overture #1: Edmonton
1. Background: Classis 2000 (Lynden) ruled that "The Confessions exclude non-professing members from participating in the Lord’s Supper."
Overture: The consistory of The Orthodox Reformed Church of Edmonton requests Classis Western Canada 2003 (Salem) to clarify the status and function of the decision of Classis 2000 (Lynden) that "The Confessions exclude non-professing members from participating in the Lord’s Supper."
Grounds:
1. The unity of our churches in the faith requires agreement as to the proper recipients of the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper.

2. The meaning of subscription to our Confessions may be jeopardized if differing interpretations of those Confessions are allowable on such important matters.

3. Adhering to our Church Order regarding the settled and binding nature of the decisions of broader assemblies (Article 29) is also at issue here.

4. Christian integrity and fairness requires consistency in the application of the Classis 2000 decision as it relates to currently serving and retired office-bearers as well as to candidates to the ministry.

Motion: to adopt the Overture of The Orthodox Reformed Church of Edmonton

Motion: call for the question- PASSED

Motion: to adopt PASSED

Motion: that the following statement be received as a response of clarification.

This decision [The Confessions exclude non-professing members from participating in the Lord’s Supper] is not an ‘extra-confessional’ statement that somehow has special status along side of our Confessions. It is rather an affirmation of the Confessions themselves on a specific point of their teaching. Therefore, agreement with this teaching of our Confessions as recognized and affirmed by classis has a direct bearing on Confessional Subscription. Any candidates or office-bearers who cannot affirm what classis has affirmed regarding the Confessions on this point cannot properly subscribe to the Three Forms of Unity.

Motion: to table that copies of this statement be made available for further review DEFEATED

Motion: to adopt this statement PASSED

NOTE: the Right of Protest was exercised by the following delegates:
Rev. John Barach, Mr. Dick Barendregt, Rev. Tim Kolkman, Mr. Henry Klooster

and last, our letter to the congregation [two months before we stepped down from office].

When we stepped down from office we did so with the majority of the peoples blessings.


To the congregation of Covenant Reformed Church of Grande Prairie, beloved in the Lord;

The office bearers of our church have spent a great deal of time in the past few years trying to see our way ahead as a church. As we are sure you know, there are many factors which present us as a congregation with significant obstacles to staying in the URCNA. At the same time, there are a number of you who have expressed to the office bearers that you have no desire to have us as a congregation leave the URCNA. Here, again, are the significant obstacles;

(a) All of us in consistory hold to paedocommunion, or covenant communion (i.e., we all believe that God desires all covenant members, including our children, to be at His Table, and that baptism, not profession of faith, is the key which grants such access.)

(b) Classis Western Canada Spring 2003 ruled that the confessions of our church require a profession of faith prior to anyone being admitted to the Table and that one may not legitimately hold office if one does not hold that interpretation of the confessions,

(c) Synod 2004 upheld that decision against our appeal and also adopted a statement to the same effect. We were also forbidden to interview for profession of faith any persons ten years old or younger, making us the only congregation in the URCNA unable to do so.

(d) We have let Classis 2005 know that we are not binding ourselves to abide by the decisions of synod, since these decisions violate our consciences before God. Our case is therefore to go to Synod 2007 for a ruling with regards to our church, if it is allowed to stay in the URCNA, or if it is no longer eligible for membership in the URCNA, in which case we would have to withdraw as a church.

(e) With Pastor Barach having recently accepted a call to a different church, a new obstacle arises; how could we call a new minister to replace him, given the current dynamics in the church? What man would come, if he knew his whole consistory were officially disqualified from office in the URCNA?

We don't believe it would be wise to try to lead the whole congregation out of the federation (as Lethbridge's overture to this last classis recommended) or to wait until Synod 2007, at which time it is likely the synod would tell the whole congregation to leave the federation. At the most recent classis, the main argument which defeated the motion advising us to leave was that it would not be pastorally sensitive to do so, given that there are significant differences of opinion within our church regarding covenant communion. We as a consistory agree: It would not be pastorally sensitive to try to pull the church out of the federation now, nor would it be pastorally sensitive to wait until 2007 and then to have to withdraw because of the synod's ruling.


After much discussion and prayer and thought, we as members of the consistory have decided the following;

1) That we will comply with the decisions of Classis Spring 2003 and Synod 2004 by stepping down from office so as not to cause more controversy in the church or in the federation,

2) To contact Edmonton to ask them to provide oversight to this congregation until such time as other elders can be installed here.

3) That our resignation from office will become effective on a date to be determined in consultation with Edmonton.

4) That at that time we will go, desirous of your blessing, to plant another work in Grande Prairie that will, with God’s help, accomplish what we believe is necessary.

We plan to do these things for the following reasons;

-We believe we are acting out of love for the body in doing this. We have a divided body. This is obvious every week when the Lord’s Supper is passed around. Some partake, some don’t, some can’t because we won’t let them. One may refuse to partake out of principial reasons, out of protest, or with many and varied hesitations, but let this be clearly understood; this ritual is the primary indicator of unity in the church (1Cor.10:16-17), and it is clear that we do not have unity. So how do we effectively minister to those who do not wish to go where we wish to go? Do we force them? We do not believe it is pastorally wise or effective to do so.

If we were to change our practice here, so that we would not only be doing weekly communion but covenant communion, we believe that it would be the equivalent of driving some of the sheep out of the fold. We want our children at the table, but we believe we would lose some of our adults by allowing them. We want them at the table too! Why does it seem that we are being forced to choose; either do right by the children or do right by the adults, but not both?

In order to address this tangle of problems, we believe that it would be wise for us to withdraw and start again elsewhere. We have no interest in hijacking the congregation and forcing you to walk a path which you do not believe safe. We thus desire to leave the church fully intact, with oversight from elders who are not officially disqualified by the URCNA. We ask for no money from the church, no building, no anything but your blessing and your continued friendship. We will not pressure anyone, nor even ask anyone, to come with us. We will step out so that you can stay in.

-As office bearers and as men who desire to honor Christ in all our actions, we believe that our consciences must be held captive by the Word of God. We are convinced from the Scriptures that our Lord’s displeasure is directed at those who would keep His little children from feeding on Him, and that we have been doing exactly this ever since we have been in office. We wish to please Him in this matter rather than displease Him, but we cannot do so and remain office bearers in the URCNA. Thus, in order to better honor and please Him, we will step down and begin again elsewhere.

-To this point in the URCNA, all of the wrangling and concern has been over a theory of covenant communion. We have never seen it practiced in this federation. By God’s grace and with His help, we intend to build something which actually practices it, for all the world to see. Most of us were much more solidly grounded in our convictions about covenant communion when we visited churches where it was the received practice.

We are NOT withdrawing for these reasons:

We are not regarding Covenant Reformed Church as a false church by our actions. We believe that there are many godly men and women both here and elsewhere who, for some reason unbeknownst to us, do not see in Scripture the things that we believe we see clearly. This is a mystery to us, and is not to be met by censuring those who do not agree, but by maintaining the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, and by not being in such a hurry to achieve doctrinal unity. We believe we must exercise grace and peace to our brothers who do not agree with us. We also believe that there is a lot of future ahead for the church in this world, and that what is not clear now may one day be clearer. In the meantime we judge one another with charity, believing and hoping the best for one another.

We are not being cowardly. We are taking steps to ensure that this congregation as a whole is cared for by those it can follow. One might say that we are running away from trouble, by not waiting for Synod 2007, but as far as we can tell, synod will show the whole congregation the exit door, and we are not willing to gamble our church’s future by hoping for a different result. We are also thinking about the future of reformed churches in this town, and how useful it would be for the sake of the kingdom of God if those churches actually got along with one another.

The Lord bless you and keep you
The Lord make His face to shine upon you
And be gracious to you
The Lord lift up His countenance upon you
And give you peace.

Jamie Soles _________________________

Dale Callahan _______________________

Leo Wattel __________________________

The Rulings

When we left the URCNA we did so because it ruled that those who "held" to the teachings of paedo communion [covenant communion] were not eligible to properly hold office.

Some have been led to believe that a person can "hold to" or "believe" this doctrine and still be allowed to be an elder or deacon in the URCNA...BUT THIS IS NOT SO!


When we stated that we believed that in Synod 2007 the Covenant Reformed Church would NOT be allowed to sustain its membership in the URCNA we did so with the following evidence. Were we the elders of the Covenant Reformed Church infallible in our knowledge? Of course not, this is for God alone. But our predictions were based upon the past history and rulings of the federation.

Some people are making very bold statements about what would have happened in 2007...that the Covenant Reformed Church would indeed be allowed to sustain its membership within the URCNA.

Below is from the Acts of the Fifth Synod of the United Reformed Churches in North America [June 15-18, 2004].

And also an email from individuals from the consistory of the Orthodox Reformed Church of Edmonton, in response to a question from myself.

I have added "bold" to certain areas to add emphasis.

Look for yourself and decide...can a man hold to paedo communion and properly hold office in the URCNA? I think NOT!!


Overture #1: Edmonton

Background: Classis 2000 (Lynden) ruled that “The Confessions exclude non-professing members from participating in the Lord’s Supper.”

Overture: The consistory of The Orthodox Reformed Church of Edmonton requests Classis Western Canada 2003 (Salem) to clarify the status and function of the decision of Classis 2000 (Lynden) that “The Confessions exclude non-professing members from participating in the Lord’s Supper.”

Grounds:

1. The unity of our churches in the faith requires agreement as to the proper recipients of the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper.
2. The meaning of subscription to our Confessions may be jeopardized if differing interpretations of those Confessions are allowable on such important matters.
3. Adhering to our Church Order regarding the settled and binding nature of the decisions of broader assemblies (Article 29) is also at issue here.
4. Christian integrity and fairness requires consistency in the application of the Classis 2000 decision as it relates to currently serving and retired office-bearers as well as to candidates to the ministry.

Motion: to adopt the Overture of The Orthodox Reformed Church of Edmonton
Motion: call for the question- PASSED
Motion: to adopt PASSED
Motion: that the following statement be received as a response of clarification.

• This decision [The Confessions exclude non-professing members from participating in the Lord’s Supper] is not an ‘extra-confessional’ statement that somehow has special status along side of our Confessions. It is rather an affirmation of the Confessions themselves on a specific point of their teaching. Therefore, agreement with this teaching of our Confessions as recognized and affirmed by classis has a direct bearing on Confessional Subscription. Any candidates or office-bearers who cannot affirm what classis has affirmed regarding the Confessions on this point cannot properly subscribe to the Three Forms of Unity.

Motion: to table that copies of this statement be made available for further review DEFEATED
Motion: to adopt this statement PASSED

NOTE: the Right of Protest was exercised by the following delegates:
Rev. John Barach, Mr. Dick Barendregt, Rev. Tim Kolkman, Mr. Henry Klooster

Also an email I wrote to Wayne Tinga and Rev. Pols of the ORC, and the response.

Original Message -----
From: Dale Callahan
To: tinga@ece.ualberta.ca ; bpols@interbaun.com
Cc: jamie@solmusic.ca
Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 7:22 PM
Subject: Re: Reading Schedule-Grande Prairie


Dear Wayne and Rev Pols,

Were the people told by you[ Edmonton Consistory] that they could hold to paedo-communion or lean towards it AS LONG As they didn't preach or teach about it?

Did you tell our members with this information?

We have heard that there is movement going on behind the scenes [within our congregation] about people wanting to have members here brought in as elders [instead of having Edmonton], the reason for this is that they are saying that you guys said that men could be elders as long as they didn't teach this doctrine [paedo-communion]. Thats funny...I was led to believe that "holding" to this belief [paedocommunion] was enough to disqualify a man from office.

Please educate us on this matter. What was the ruling of Synod 2004, can a man "believe" and "hold" to paedo communion and still sign the form of subscription...AND PRACTICE BEING AN ELDER IN THE URCNA.

I would appreciate a written response [before the Apr 10th meeting] for future use. We will put your response in this weeks bulletin. We need bulletin info in by Thursday evening,

Thanks, in Christ, dale



From : Bill Pols
Sent : April 5, 2006 10:56:44 PM
To : "Dale Callahan"
CC : "Wayne Tinga"
Subject : Re: Reading Schedule-Grande Prairie

| | | Church Thi... | Inbox


Dear Dale,

We have given no indication to anyone in Grande Prairie that men can hold to paedocommunion and yet serve in office as long as they do not teach it. If any thing was said by one of us at our last visit which gave this impression, it was a mistake or it was misunderstood. This would be contrary to our own convictions and practice here in Edmonton and at odds with decisions of classes and synod on this issue.

brotherly regards,

Rev. Pols
-----

The Ingrown Church

I was given this article a few years ago...it is good ammunition to fight against becoming...as Pink Flyod sang about, "Comfortably Numb".

The Marks of an Ingrown Church.
from C. John Millar’s Outgrowing the Ingrown Church


1. Tunnel Vision. The potential ministries of the church are limited to those that can be accomplished by the visible, human resources at hand. They are also limited by recollections of past negative experiences and perceptions of present obstacles.

2. Shared Sense of Group Superiority. A positive feature of the church is elevated and then compared with churches which lack this quality. It can be the history of the congregation, a superior knowledge of the Scriptures, separation from the world [no drinking, no smoking, no movies].

3. Extreme Sensitivity to Negative Human Opinion. The church tries all it can to accommodate everyone and keep everyone happy. Jesus did not avoid conflict on fundamental issues.


4. Niceness in Tone. An ingrown church wants a nice pastor to preach nice sermons about a nice Jesus delivered in a nice tone of voice. The church wants everybody to be comfortable and undisturbed. Christ brings about crisis in the lives of people.


5. Christian Soap Opera in Style. The church is characterized by endless, repeated conversations and gossip. Members use their tongues a lot, not to witness or pray or praise or encourage, but to review one another’s flaws, doings and sins. The members of church often have “roast pastor” for lunch.


6. Confused Leadership Roles. Church members do not want officers who are trying to be pacesetters for God’s kingdom. This is especially true of the small church, where fear of change often runs high. The reason for this should be clear. In the typical, self-centered church there is a hidden determination to eradicate enthusiasm that disturbs the comfortable routine. Zeal for Christ’s kingdom is hard for old wineskins to handle. In this system elders lack great convictions about God and His gospel and have little active role in the daily lives of the church members.


7. A Misdirected Purpose. The ingrown church is concerned with survival, not with growth through the conversion of the lost. The unity in the church is essentially that of a comfortable, private club determined to protect its traditional values and privileges.

First Service of Christ Covenant Church

Christ Covenant Church had her first service this last Lord's Day. We had 40 people at our first service. The atmosphere was very friendly. We had an excellent time...worshipping our God. George preached from John 20...it was a very encouraging word. It was also the first time that all covenant members [all those who were baptized] were given the Lord's Table [bread and wine].

I was delighted to watch my children eat and drink the blessings of the Lord! We have held to the beliefs of covenant communion [baptism is the persons "ticket" to the Table] for seven years and this is the first time we have been able to practice it.

We are renting the chapel at the Christian school...it is a nice little chapel...and for now it suits our needs fine.

3 Card Monty

I can remember, years ago, seeing a documentary on “Card Sharks”. These were street smart “card sharks” who ripped people off...big time. They had a little cardboard box and on it they had three cards. For the sake of the story I will say 2 kings and a queen. The object of the game is to pick the “queen”. So the dealer shows the person the queen the turns it over and shuffles the three cards. Then comes the time where the person has to guess where the queen is. These guys will build a persons confidence and then comes the big con. The player bets a good chunk of coin on picking the “queen” and all of a sudden realizes that they got it wrong. The documentary showed that these “sharks” have a special way of throwing the cards in such a way that it looks one way but in reality it is another.

This is what the unbeliever does when he questions the believer about his faith. He shuffles the conversation in such a way that the onlooker actually believes that “this guy” is open to know the truth...he is really seeking for truth, but like 3 Card Monty, unless you know how to watch his “sneaky” shuffle...your gonna get burned.

Here is one “trick” move of the unbeliever. He wants you to show him “evidence” to prove your faith. But what he is trying to do, at the same time, is bring you over into his “unbelieving” outlook on the who he [the unbeliever] is.

He is saying the only reason why he doesn’t believe is because there isn’t “any” or “enough” evidence pointing to the existence of God or that Jesus Christ was Divine...poor guy.

But who is the believer going to trust, the unbelieving skeptic’s “self definition” or the bibles definition of the unbeliever?

The Bible says that all men know “the” God to such a clear extent that they are without excuse.
The Bible shows us case after case where men saw miracles and these didn’t change their hearts. They saw Jesus heal the sick, open the eyes of men born blind, and even raise the dead, and these same men crucified the Lord of glory.

Even when Jesus arose from the grave these men paid the guards, who heard the angels declaration that Christ had arisen, and saw the empty grave, to keep their mouths shut.

This is called suppression of the evidence.

The Bible teaches that “fallen” man’s heart is...well...fallen.

The unbeliever...denying the Bible...at the same time denies the “fall”. If he denies the fall then there is nothing wrong with man’s reasoning power, nothing wrong with man’s volition, man is normal.

But God doesn’t say that man is normal, he is fallen, his heart hates God and God’s truths. He doesn’t understand the things of God because he thinks their foolish. He refuses to submit to God...as a matter of fact, he can’t [without God’s intervention]. God says the unbeliever is not seeking after God [truth]...but is running full blast away from truth.

If you answer the unbeliever according to his view of reality then you too will become a fool.

The unbeliever doesn’t believe in God because he is a rebel...and he simply refuses to submit his knee to Christ.

I’ll let you in on a secret...when the unbeliever says that he would trust Jesus if only you could give him more information...he’s lying to you [and to himself].

The only thing that will change his rebellion is God giving him a new heart. And God renews men’s hearts through His Word...so keep sharing the truth...and praying for those who are heading for destruction.

Different Knowledge

I hear men scoff...men who claim to have been Christians and now are not...but this shouldn't shock us.

The Bible tells us that God's covenant is two-fold, it has its blessings for faith and the good works that flow from faith...and it has its curses for unbelief and the disobedience that flows from unbelief.

A man can be in covenant with God and never truly be elect [secret things] or regenerate [also secret things]. But they are really and truly in covenant with Christ. The promises are for them but if the promises are not trusted and acted upon then they will produce no blessings.

This means that there may be men in covenant with God...really and for truly Christians...who know Christ in a certain type of knowledge but not in another kind.

Before I met my wife I might have read a book about her, about all of her qualities...but this isn't the same as the knowledge of knowing her...having a personal relationship with her.

The apostate thinks that he has tasted "fully" of the cup of life...when in reality he has only licked from the rim. He has had but a tid bit and has mistaken it for the whole.

I met my wife 12 years ago and I know her...not in "book" knowledge...or in a merely intellectual sense...but I know her in a relational sense.

I met Jesus Christ in the same way 15 years ago. I used to be a violent criminal...a man who loved evil, love violence, loved doing harm to others, lived for myself...and then I met the Savior...I met my Lord...and my life changed.

My atheist friends can try to come up with "mental" reasons for this change...but it is because I met God.

I would laugh if someone tried playing "intellectual parlor games" with me trying to prove to me that I never met my wife...showing me all of their logical reasons why this is impossible. I would laugh...because I know my wife, I met her...I have a ongoing relationship with her.

Time of Death and Resurrection

Death involves suffering, sadness, separation...

Resurrection is the practical declaration of new life.

Jesus died for the sins of His people...so that they could and would have forgiveness of sins and eternal life. This is why we call this coming Friday "good".

But this salvation was not without a cost. Jesus suffered greatly...was hated, mocked and taunted...accused [falsely]...and was eventually murdered.

The days between Jesus death and resurrection must have been a time of great depression for the disciples of Christ...but it was only Friday...and Sunday was coming!

When Jesus arose from the grave the sadness and depression came to an abrupt end...death was swallowed up by life...and the assurance of everlasting life was declared by the Son of God.

We are beginning a new church this coming Lord's day [Christ Covenant Church]...the last few weeks have been a time of hardship and trial.

As we go to begin a new work we will greatly miss those who we have left behind...this is a type of "death". But with the new work will also be new life [resurrection]...the greatest of this life will be that "all" covenant members will be admited to the Lord's Table via their baptism...and not a profession of faith.

A father wants what is best for his children...I have watch my children be excluded from partaking of Christ's body and blood [life] for 6 years...and I am very excited that this coming Lord's Day [Resurrection Day, Easter Sunday], we will all be eating together as a family. Thank you Lord!

Tax Time

How do you think the average unbeliever in our nation would react if the Federal or Provincial government announced that they were seriously considering passing a law that would make it mandatory for everyone to financially support Christian education? Are you kidding! You and I both know that the response would be something akin to revolution in the streets. People would fight ferociously against the very idea of this law. Why should they have to pay for an education system that propagates a belief system that they do not hold to? They would view a law like this as a violation against their rights as Canadian citizens.
One woman who spoke against the government funding of religious education said this, “Is it fair to expect the taxpayer to subsidize a belief system in which they may or may not believe?” To this we must answer, no it is not fair to force people to support an education system that teaches a view of reality that differs from their own. But we must also teach that what is good for the goose is good for the gander! If the unbeliever’s hard earned tax dollars should not have to support my religious Christian education system then my hard earned tax dollars should not be required to support his religious humanistic education system. We as Christians have been deceived for too long. We have been told for so long that the public school system is neutral, that many have actually come to believe it.

Adolph Hitler, in speaking about propaganda said that if you say something loud enough and long enough you can have the masses believing that heaven is hell and hell is heaven. May we not fall for the constant stream of propaganda that is being fed to us about the public school system and its ‘supposed’ neutrality. Both Christian and Public education have clear teachings about the universe we live in. Neither of these teachings is neutral and both oppose one another. Christianity teaches that God is the Creator of all things and therefore is the highest authority in the universe. It teaches that all things must be understood in the light of God’s existence, as revealed through the Holy Scriptures.
The Humanistic teachings in the public school deny the existence of God by propagating the teaching of evolution. It teaches that man is the highest being in the universe and is therefore the final authority in all matters of life.
Christians need to wake up and smell the coffee. We can not view the Public education system as neutral just because it says it is. It is a system that is hostile towards the teachings of the Bible, from start [creation] to finish [second return of Christ and judgment day]. Humanist’s may deny being religious but in reality hold just as tenaciously or ‘religiously’ to their outlook on reality [atheistic] as Christian’s do theirs [theistic]. For this reason Christians should view Humanism as they would any other false religious system. Unfortunately it is easy to see that this is not the case with many Christians today. They would be horrified if someone were to suggest that they were to teach the false doctrines of the Jehovah’s Witnesses at one of their Bible camps for the summer because they could not in clear conscience teach doctrines that were against the Bible. They would be equally horrified if someone were to suggest that their children should go to these same camps to learn their anti-biblical teachings and way of life. But amazingly enough these same Christians will teach in a Public School system that requires its teachers to teach according to the guidelines of the approved curriculum which is foundationally humanistic and anti-biblical. They also send their children to learn in these God rejecting institutions, not for a couple weeks in the summer, but for 12 years of their lives. Why this inconsistency? Because they view the one rightly for what it is, a false belief system and the other they have been deceived into thinking is neutral in its outlook of reality. But the humanism of the Public school system is just as false as the doctrine of the Jehovah’s Witnesses or any other organization that teaches contrary to the Word of God.
The church of Jesus Christ needs to be faithful to the Word of her Lord. She needs to flee from evil and cling to that which is good. She needs to remove her support from any institution that denies her Lord. This removal of support should entail removing her children from under its teaching influence. Also by removing her men and women as being propagators of its false doctrines. And finally removing it’s financial support from any such institution.
Remember that when you opened up your Tax bill this year you were reminded of the reality that you as a Christian are forced to support the ‘religious’ belief system of another. A large percentage of your property taxes go to either the support of the Roman Catholic school system or the Public [Humanistic] School system. Neither of these choices should be acceptable for any Christian because both choices go against the clear teachings of the Bible as interpreted for centuries by the Protestant church. In reality we have received the same choice that Henry Ford gave in regards to the color for his Model T. He said that you could have any color you wanted as long as it was black. Likewise, today we are given any choice we want as long as it denies our religious convictions as Protestant Christians.
The following quote is from one of the men who led the Protestant Reformation. His insights are very wise and discerning. His words are also very timely as he seems to know our day better than millions of Christians who are living in it.

“I am much afraid that the schools and universities will prove to be the great gates to hell unless they diligently labour to explain the Holy Scriptures and engrave them upon the hearts of youth. I advise no one to send their child where the Scriptures do not reign paramount. Every institution that does not unceasingly occupy its students with the Word of God must become corrupt.” Martin Luther