Clarion · 2013. 9. 24. · 534 CLARION, NOVEMBER 29, 1996 A question In the College issue of Clarion it was mentioned that there is again a record number of students at the College

ClarionTHE CANADIAN REFORMED MAGAZINE

VOLUME 45, NO. 24 NOVEMBER 29, 1996

Stop Sending Students to theTheological College?

534 CLARION, NOVEMBER 29, 1996

A questionIn the College issue of Clarion it was mentioned that

there is again a record number of students at the College.Last year was a record of eighteen (18) students and thisyear there is a new record of nineteen (19). It is a joy to seethat there are so many young people who love God and seekto serve Him and His church gathering and building workthrough the ministry of the Word, and who therefore wantto study theology. To study theology is to learn more aboutGod: how He has revealed Himself as to who He is and whatHe has done and will do for His people in their salvation andfor those who oppose and reject Him in their judgment.

However, will we have a place for them?

Darkness?This question has come up before and is being asked

again. What do we do with all these students? In four years,D.V., all of them will have finished their studies and will seeka call. Soon we are going to have a number of students eli-gible for a call that is much larger than the number of va-cant churches.

If one takes the Yearbook and compares the number ofchurches with and without ministers, this concern seems tobe founded in reality. In the Classis Ontario-North region wehave twelve churches of which two are vacant: the churchesat Fergus and Orangeville, with a membership of 438 and387, respectively. In Classis Ontario-South there are alsotwelve congregations, of which one is a house congregation,the church at Laurel, placed under the care of its neigh-bouring church at Blue Bell and not able to call its ownminister. For our purpose, we count here eleven churches.Vacant are here the churches at Ancaster and Rockwaywith 355 and 277 members, respectively. There are tenchurches in Classis Alberta-Manitoba. At this moment onlyone of them is vacant: the church at Coaldale, counting 456members. Among the twelve churches in the Classis Pacificregion we have no vacancies.

I consider the churches at Lincoln and Calgary as nolonger vacant because they called the candidates Van Vlietand Eikelboom, respectively, and both accepted their call.

We should include the Australian sister churches.They have nine churches of which only one is vacant, thechurch at Bedfordale, in Western Australia, with a mem-bership of 304.

I leave Rev. de Boer still with the church at Carman, eventhough he accepted a call to the church at Bedfordale. Itwill not make any difference. The extra vacancy in Canadawill mean no vacancy in Australia. Adding these numbersbrings us to a total of six vacant churches able to call a min-ister. Here is the easy over-view:

Does this not mean that the future seems quite dark forthe large number of students at the College?

Not really!In the first place, not all the data have been calculated in

yet. Not all the students study for the ministry and of thosewho do, not all aim at the ministry in one of our churches.Two students, one female and one male, are enrolled in theDiploma for Theological Studies program. One student is amember of the Free Reformed Churches of North Americaand hopes to become a minister of God’s Word in one of theircongregations. Two students plan to go back to their churcheson Timor in Indonesia. This diminishes the number of futureministers for our Canadian and Australian churches to four-teen. Of these fourteen young men, some are thinking of con-tinuing their studies in Kampen, the Netherlands, beforethey enter the ministry. Such a continuation can add at leasttwo or three years to their time of studying.

Then there is the important task of the churches in mis-sion work. We have sending churches and missionaries. InAustralia, there is the sending church of Albany, working inPapua-New Guinea. In Canada we have the church atToronto, so far working in Irian Jaya (but probably going toa different place in the future), the churches at Surrey andHamilton, doing mission work in Brazil, and the church atSmithers, working among our Canadian natives.

I take here, perhaps ideal, but in fact needed situation ofsending out a team of missionaries, not one by himself. Forwhen we look at the picture that the New Testament teachesus, we see that our Lord did not sent out one missionary byhimself. In Luke 10:1 the seventy disciples are sent out twoby two. With the two of them, Peter and John entered thetemple (Acts 3). Paul was sent out together with Barnabas (Acts13) and later with Silas (Acts 16). Often the apostle Paul hadmore than one companion. This is clear from Acts 18:5 andthe beginning of his two letters to the Thessalonians.

Albany has no missionary minister. Toronto will need anew missionary, or two new ones. We do not forget that Rev.Versteeg will become available for a call. Hamilton has only

EDITORIALBy J. Geertsema

Should we Stop Sending Students to the Theological College?

Classis Churches Ministers Vacancies

ON-North: 12 10 2ON-South: 11 9 2AB/MB.: 10 9 1Pacific: 12 12 0

Totals 45 40 5Australia 9 8 1

Final total 54 48 6

one missionary at this moment. WhenRev. Boersema retires, Surrey will haveonly one missionary in the field. TheChurch at Smithers does not have a mis-sionary minister at this time. This meansan immediate need of at least three mis-sionary ministers.

Further, there is the on-going growthof the local churches. Some time ago al-ready, one of the churches made the de-cision to call a second minister, havinga membership of more than seven hun-dred. In our modern age, with our manymodern social problems, we should nothave congregations with much morethan five hundred members. A large con-gregation suffers because of its number.And so does its minister. I do not knowhow many vacant places a further split-ting up of the larger churches will createin the near future. It is hard to say. Butper January 1, 1996 (see again the 1996Yearbook), we have sixteen (16) church-es that have a membership above fourhundred, four in both Ontario-North andOntario-South, five in Alberta-Manitoba,and three in Classis Pacific. If we take asmark the number of five hundred, thereare at the moment seven churches: onein Ontario-North, three in Ontario-South, two in Alberta-Manitoba, and onein British Columbia. At least three ofthem are close to the six hundred markor above it. Here is definitely also a fu-ture need.

Here I have not even touched theneed for home-missionaries, one in theeast and one in the west. In the churchesthe awareness of a task and a need hereis growing, and possibilities have beendiscussed. Financial needs of schools,especially in Ontario, are probably partof the cause why further progress onthis point is not coming about at this mo-ment. However, we should keep theawareness of this task and need alive.In order to lay a financial basis for call-ing home-missionaries a suggestionmight be that part of the money spent forradio broadcasting be directed towardsthis goal.

Really, not at all! Up to now, we have looked at the

need for future ministers from the angleof our human reality and possibilities. Inthe second place we should remindourselves that we are people of the liv-ing God, part of His army on earth – asJoshua 5 teaches us: the Commander ofthe army of the LORD gave instructionsto Joshua. We are church of the LordJesus Christ, His soldiers in and for Hiskingdom. It is His task to gather, defend,and preserve a church for Himself andfor His Father. And in the execution of

this task He wants to make use of peo-ple, sending them out as His messen-gers and labourers into God’s harvest.

Christ told His disciples, “The harvestis plentiful, but the labourers are few.”And He involved the disciples in theharvest in two ways. First He told them topray to God, “the Lord of the harvest,and ask Him to send out labourers intoHis harvest.” Christ said this in His com-passion with all the lost people of Israel,“harassed and helpless, like sheep with-out a shepherd” (Mat. 9:36-38). ButChrist did not stop with teaching Hisdisciples to pray for workers in the har-vest. In the second place, the Lord madethem into workers themselves by sendingthem into the harvest (Mat.10).

We live almost two thousand yearslater. Times have changed. But the con-ditions are basically the same. Increas-ing numbers of people around us and allover the world are lost, harassed andhelpless, like sheep without a shepherd.Sure, they owe this lost condition totheir own unbelief and sin. However,just as in the days that Christ Jesus, ourLord, was on earth, this does not changethe horrible condition of being lost in sinand guilt. As twenty centuries ago, to-day’s harassed and helpless lost sheepneed the compassion and help of Christ.They need the gospel of God’s redeem-ing salvation through His Son. And this

compassionate help of Christ has tocome to the world through the church ofChrist. “You are the light of the world,”Christ said to His disciples. “So let yourlight shine that people may see yourgood works and glorify your Father inheaven.” Proclaiming the gospel is partof those good works. There still is a har-vest to be gathered, a plentiful harvest.Labourers are still needed to be sent outinto that plentiful harvest. And we, too,as churches, are called to be involvedin the two ways of praying for and ofsending out labourers into the harvest.

With all this, who can still maintainthat there are (or soon will be) too manystudents at the College? We can onlypray: Lord, continue to send out labour-ers into Thy still plentiful harvest, and,Lord, use us as churches too.

What do you say? Do we not havethe money? Really? But, you know, forGod money never has been a prob-lem. And it never will be. The earth andits fullness is the Lord’s. Therefore, forus money should also not be the prob-lem. The big question is: do we see acalling? Do we see a task which Godgives us? Do we take that task upon usin faith that He who calls will also pro-vide the means?

Are there too many students at theCollege? Not really! No, really, not at all!

CLARION, NOVEMBER 29, 1996 535

Published biweekly by Premier Printing Ltd.,Winnipeg, MB

EDITORIAL COMMITTEE:Editor: J. GeertsemaCoeditors: J. De Jong, R.A. Schouten, C. Van Dam, G.Ph. van Popta

ADDRESS FOR EDITORIAL MATTERS:CLARION5621 - 51 StreetTaber, AB T1G 1K6Fax: (403) 223-0149E-Mail: [email protected] FOR ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS:(subscriptions, advertisements, etc.):CLARION, Premier Printing Ltd.One Beghin AvenueWinnipeg, MB, Canada R2J 3X5Phone: (204) 663-9000 Fax: (204) 663-9202SUBSCRIPTION RATES

FOR 1996Canada*U.S.A. U.S. FundsInternational

* Including 7% GST – No. R104293055Advertisements: $11.25 per column inchUnless a written subscription cancellation isreceived we assume you wish to continue to subscribe. You will be invoiced prior to thesubscription renewal date.Publications Mail Registration No. 1025 ISSN 0383-0438

IN THIS ISSUEEditorial – Should we Stop Sending

Students to the Theological College? — J. Geertsema …………534

Meditation – Be wise with wisdom! — H.J.J. Feenstra ……………………536

Response to Dr. H. Boersma — J. De Jong ………………………537

Still A Federative Matter — W.J.J. VanOene …………………538

Ray of Sunshine — Mrs. R. Ravensbergen …………541

The Hi-Liter — C. Van Spronsen ……542Reader’s Forum – The Validity of

Denver’s Acceptance Within our Federation Contested — J. Veurink…………………………543

Nurture & Instruction – Are you an educated person? — T.M.P. Vanderven ………………544

Software Review – The Molten Sea on Computer — C. Van Dam ……545

Church News …………………………545Poem – Come, Holy Spirit……………546Letter to the Editor ……………………547News from the Women’s Savings

Action — Mrs. E. Mulder, Mrs. J. Van Dam, Mrs. C. Zietsma…547

Inheritance Preserved — Ralph Winkel ……………………549

News Report – American Reformed Fellowship — A.L. Vanderhout ……550

Dialogos – Canadian Reformed Senior Housing Society Inc., Carman, MB…………………………551

RegularMail

$33.00*$38.00$53.00

AirMail

$59.00*$52.00$84.00

Originally published asWees wijs met de wijsheid,Woord en Wereld # 11Uitgeverij Woord en Wereld,Ermelo 1989Translated by T.M.P. VanderVen

We are almost at the end of the be-ginning. Proverbs 1-9 is the beginningof education in wisdom, and chapter 9is the conclusion of that beginning, theconclusion of the preparatory training.This can now be followed by the realdigging, pencil in hand, ready to con-quer each proverb. Once more MadamWisdom approaches us, this time withan invitation for dinner. The proverbsof the next chapters are, as it were, thedishes she has prepared for us.

We consider her invitation and herdinner, and we discover the contrastwith Miss Foolishness who has also sentan invitation. What a difference be-tween these two ladies, differences instyle, class, and quality.

Miss Foolishness tries to attractpassers-by by making a lot of noise.She tries to lure them with the attrac-tiveness of what is forbidden: stolen wa-ter, bread eaten in secret. This imagerydescribes a harsh reality; it is indeedtrue, the natural heart goes out to thatwhich is strange, mysterious, and for-bidden. But anyone who accept this in-vitation, orders his or her own finalmeal. Miss Foolishness has to make thethings she has to offer a little nicer thanthey really are, after all, the meal she of-fers should look like a meal. Loudly, sheadvertises her wares. She offers waterand bread, but of a particular qualityand with a peculiar aroma.

Compare this with Madam Wisdom.She offers a menu without mysteriousadditions, a simple but healthy meal.Her invitation is straightforward, with-out any nonsense.

Come, eat of my breadand drink of the wine I have mixed.

In the Middle Eastern countries wine isstill mixed with water, a common prac-tice. Yet, this scene is rather remark-able. The menu shows the daily staplesof bread and wine, while she has ap-parently prepared a full course dinner.She has slaughtered her beasts, and pre-pared her table as for a feast. Notice herhouse which seems more like a palacewith halls and pillars. What she offers israther different from what others mightexpect. She does not join in snobbishdiscussion of dinners and restaurants,where the one speaker might make evengreater boasts than another. Yet MadamWisdom does not feel embarrassed tooffer her simple menu of bread andwine. Her dinner is ready to be enjoyedby those who accept her invitation to asimple everyday meal.

Indeed, a telling scene. Wisdom isof concern to the elite, it concerns life ofeveryday. That everyday life needs to benurtured, and in this she shows the way.This results in changing those everydaythings into things of the highest quality.Ordinary, daily life becomes an art anda skill. When wisdom exerts her influ-ence, such a life gains substance andimportance. That is what Proverbs 9speaks of: the substance and impor-tance of wisdom.

Notice the manner in which shesends her invitations. She has sent hermaidens to the important, the highestplaces in town to call the people. That

sounds like a royal invitation. Indeed,wisdom is uplifting. We find here thecharacter of the kingdom of the Son ofGod’s love. Listen, all you people, herecome the proverbs, starting with thenext chapter. Sit down and enjoy yourmeal; eat and drink.

Notice also, that these verses de-scribe a meal. Eating together meansbelonging together, living together.Neglecting the widows of the Greeksduring the daily meals was not a merelyorganizational blunder in the early Chris-tian church of Jerusalem. This neglectdamaged the communion of saintswhich the Holy Spirit had brought about.Wisdom wants to see people around thetable; wisdom seeks the communion.Wisdom does not hand out food pack-ages, but sets the table. Wisdom does notnurture individualism; she nurtures acommunity, the people of God, the con-gregation of Jesus Christ – the congrega-tion of the new life.

Proverbs 9 tells us that those whowant to hold on to the old life do notbelong here. One must choose, eitherthe one or the other – wisdom orfoolishness.

There are two invitations.There are two roads.There are two destinations – life or

death.“ . . . For he who finds me finds lifeand obtains favour from the LORD;BUT HE WHO MISSES MEINJURES HIMSELF;ALL WHO HATE ME LOVEDEATH.”

From Scripture Proverbs 9Acts 6:1-7

Proverbs 8:35-36


What’s inside?At present, the Theological College’s lecture halls are full. What a blessing that so many young men want to train to

be heralds of the kingdom of God! But will there be room for them? In the lead editorial, Prof. Geertsema asks and an-swers this question.

This issue continues the discussion on the point of local churches that belong to different federations giving expression tothe unity they have. Dr. J. De Jong and the Rev. VanOene respond to Dr. H. Boersma’s article published in # 23.

In our new column, “Nurture and Instruction,” Mr. Vanderven describes “a truly educated person.”Together with a few news items, a Ray of Sunshine, and a letter, once again you have a few things to read and ponder.

GvP

MEDITATIONBy H.J.J. Feenstra

BE WISE WITH WISDOM!The end of the beginning


There are several points whichcould be raised in the article of Dr.Boersma (Clarion, 45:23), since he cov-ers a lot of ground in a rather cursoryway. He gives the impression of trying,as the saying goes, to “kill two birds withone stone.” While I have my misgivingsabout his approach, and think that hefails to achieve his goal, I will restrict mycomments to those parts in which hetouches on my earlier articles. For a fur-ther elaboration on these points see myeditorial entitled “A New Federation”, inthe previous issue of this volume.

1. If I understand him well, Rev.Boersma argues that the federation maynot stand in the way of any given localexpression of unity between twochurches of differing backgrounds.When two churches recognize eachother as united in the Lord they musthave the freedom to express that unityimmediately. In his view the churchesneed not wait for the approbation of theother churches in the federation.

Now I admit it is possible for a ma-jor assembly to put a hindrance in theway of local efforts towards achievingunity with another local church. Butthis necessarily involves a hierarchicalact in which the major assembly sim-ply overrules the efforts and gains madeby the local church. However, if in thedecisions of major assemblies any sem-blance of hierarchy is absent, and if theconcern is simply the approval of therest of the churches in the federation,then we do not have an unwanted ele-ment in the process, but an essentialprerequisite for the process, i.e. one thatensures that it follows the proper tracks.This is not hierarchy but a safeguardwhich ensures that the unity which thelocal churches claim to have found isone based on Scripture, the Reformedconfession and the adopted order.

Why must the federation be includ-ed, and why must churches seek to es-tablish the contacts together? This is partof the covenanted fellowship involvedin being members of a federation. As ina marriage or other covenanted bond offriendship between equals, so in a fed-eration: you do not engage in new rela-tionships and covenants without the

consent and support of the other party.Your primary allegiance is to the mem-ber churches, and no new contact cantake precedence over the obligationsowing to the federation of churches.

This stands to reason since in acovenanted bond, the actions of onewill always have an affect on the otherparty, whether for better or worse.Other churches will always be affectedby the actions of a local church, and thegreater the proximity, the greater theeffect. A church only does well to beconscious of these concerns. Ultimate-ly, as the union of 1892 shows, federa-tive unity is a matter of all the churchesin common, and cannot be determined(even with regard to its proceduraltrack) by one church on its own.

2. Dr. Boersma suggests that theUnion of 1892 was one “from the topdown” and this is why the Free Re-formed did not join in. This statement isambiguous and presents a caricature ofthe true state of affairs leading to theunion of 1892. It was in fact Kuyper andthe Dolerenden who pushed a union“from the top down” – if one wants touse such misleading phrasing. Kuyperpushed for a union which did not inte-grally involve the local churches. TheSeceders rejected this approach, and itwas only with the more integrated pro-posals of the Seceders in Leeuwarden(1891) that the talks began to gain newmomentum.1

It seems to me that Rev. Boersma de-fends a position exactly opposite to thatof Kuyper, yet equally one-sided. Hisapproach is from the “bottom”, as hesays, – which he also terms a “good Re-formed principle.” In such an approach,the federation only enters in at a sec-ondary stage. What makes this a “goodReformed principle”? – (see below).

3. As an additional argument Rev.Boersma refers to the views of Dr. F.L.Rutgers with respect to the admission ofguests from other churches at the Lord’stable. I have a number of misgivingsabout Dr. Boersma approach here. First,I fail to see the connection between theadmission of guests to the Lord’s table,and the recognition of attestations as astep towards achieving full federative

unity. The admission of guests at theLord’s table concerns the admission ofpeople who are visiting the location,and who belong to a faithful churchwith which the churches have no cor-respondence. It is a one-time decisiononly in a one-time situation. Admittingpeople in the context of a mutual rela-tionship which is meant to serve as astepping stone to federative unity is adifferent matter. It is then out of place touse Rutgers’ arguments regarding guestsas a ground for these kind of prelimi-nary cross-federative arrangements.

Second, Rev. Boersma makes sever-al references to the admission of peoplefrom other Reformed denominations.Rutgers himself, however, did not workwith a term like this; nor can it be foundin the Church Order of Dort. Of course,Rutgers did confront the situation ofpeople from other faithful churchescoming as guests to the Reformedchurches. He did so with his own viewof the church; we do so with ours. Iwould think that not Rutgers or his viewis normative here, but Scripture andconfession. On that basis we must bemore hesitant in speaking about other“Reformed denominations,” since thatapproach betrays a view of the churchwhich neither accords with the confes-sion (of Dort) nor its church order.

4. I am aware that Prof. te Velde –and the Dutch churches, for that mat-ter – takes a somewhat different ap-proach to the issue of local recognitionof attestations and pulpit exchangesthan I have. However, I do not find thisapproach helpful, for he fails to intro-duce a safeguard which would keep theprocess on track. Some of the sugges-tions of Prof. te Velde would be viableif a target date for federative unity wasestablished. Any other approach will in-variably lead to endless formalizedwrangling, and will in the meantimeresult in a weakening of any sense ofecclesiastical identity among theyounger generation.

5. Dr. Boersma makes a number ofreferences to the article by Dr. S. Greij-danus in the collection of readings enti-tled Bound Yet Free, and even refers tothis reading as a “must read.” While I

Response to Dr. H. BoersmaBy J. De Jong

Still A Federative MatterBy W.J.J. VanOene

cannot but commend the reading ofthis article in that volume, I would sug-gest that readers keep the setting andthe date of the particular reading inmind, and also balance it with the sub-mission of Prof. J. Kamphuis. Dr. Greij-danus wrote in a situation in which theclaw of hierarchy sought to destroy thespiritual unity of the church. He hadevery reason to stress the spiritual unityof the churches above all, and to seethe federational and organizational as-pects as secondary in relation to thatunity. He wrote in opposition to a syn-od involved in unlawfully giving allkinds of authority to itself. However,Prof Kamphuis’ article emphasizes theother side of the matter, namely, thatthe federation is a natural corollary tothe spiritual unity of the churches and

automatically flows forth from it. In-deed, the moral obligation to help andsupport each other is founded on Scrip-ture! One should read both of these con-tributions to the volume before formingany judgments re possible local expres-sions of unity.

6. Rev. Boersma intimates that work-ing at the grassroots level is a good Re-formed “principle” of church polity. Tobe sure, Reformed church polity defendsthe principle of the autonomy of the lo-cal church, and that local churches havedistinct freedoms in themselves to regu-late matters concerning their own gov-ernment and welfare. But a second prin-ciple alongside this one is the rule thatlocal churches are mutually obligatedto help each other and to provide eachother the assistance and the safeguards

that are necessary to maintain the purityof doctrine and the preservation of free-dom in the Lord’s service. Both princi-ples must be maintained equally in op-position to hierarchy on the one hand,and independentism on the other. Rev.Boersma’s position appears one-sided inthat it is sensitive to hierarchy (which tomy knowledge of the events in the ex-isting situation has not at all been pre-sent) but says little about resisting thedangers of independentism. In order toconvince myself and others of his posi-tion he must give more attention to thisside of the matter.

1I may refer here to what I said about theUnion of 1892 in C. Van Dam, (ed.) TheChallenge of Church Union, (Premier Print-ing, Winnipeg, 1993) 9ff.


It will be known to our regular read-ers that I seldom give quotations to sup-port the stand I have taken in certainmatters. I refrain from doing so for vari-ous reasons, but the main reason is thatone can “prove” almost anything withthe help of quotations. The danger is al-ways there that one lets the personwhose words one quotes become sort ofa ventriloquist who says exactly whatseems to support one’s propagated ideas.This is something I noticed anew whenreading what Dr. J. Boersma wrote in In-formation, appearing bi-weekly in theFraser Valley (this article was also pub-lished in Clarion, 45:23 – Editor).

In an article entitled “Federative orLocal? A Wrong Dilemma” he set outto refute what Dr. J. De Jong wrote inClarion of September 6, 1996, and whatI wrote in the same issue. Both thesearticles dealt with the question of pul-pit exchange and admission to theLord’s Supper, to put it simply.

These articles have drawn attentionalso from without our own circles. I wastold by a brother that even the Ref-Netcame into action. The more attention ispaid to these questions the better it is.

It will not be expected of me that Igo into what Dr. Boersma wrote againstDr. De Jong’s article, but I cannot butpoint out that here we have another ex-ample of ventriloquy.

Dr. S. Greijdanus was introducedas “the well-known New Testament the-

ologian and leader of the Liberation(1944).” Credentials, therefore, that areimpeccable.

Having sat “at the feet of” Dr. Greij-danus, one of the first rules I learnedfrom him was: One should never takewords out of context and should al-ways endeavour to understand what theauthor meant when writing down whathe did write.

Dr. Boersma quoted from Dr. Greij-danus’ brochure on the principles ofReformed church polity, whichbrochure has appeared in English trans-lation in Bound Yet Free, edited by Dr.J. De Jong. It is a good thing that anEnglish text is available: our readers cannow judge for themselves.

Dr. Boersma quoted particularlyfrom page 36. I fully agree with him thatthis “entire essay is a ‘must read’ andsheds important light on the present dis-cussion.” But if my colleague thinks thatDr. Greijdanus supports his views inthis respect, I must disappoint him.

When Dr. Greijdanus wrote thatspiritual unity “exists despite a lack oforganized connections in district,province, country, or world,” did hethen speak of the same thing that Dr.Boersma has in mind?

He did not.He spoke of the unity of the church-

es that form a federation together.In his brochure Dr. Greijdanus re-

futed the ideas of H.G.Kleijn, opponent

of the church polity of the Doleantieand a fervent defender of a collegalisticsystem of church organization. Overagainst him, Dr. Greijdanus defendedthat the unity of the church “does notconsist of an organization, nor does itrequire external, visible relations andorganized coherence,” and that “theunity of the church does not requirenecessary official relations and a mutu-al organization of local churches into aminor, major, and even greater visiblewhole in region, dominion, and world.”

It was over against Kleijn that Dr.Greijdanus stressed that not the organi-zation but the spiritual unity, the unityof faith is the main issue.

I fully agree with this. The unity oforganization comes in the secondplace; it is the fruit of the unity of faith.If we did not have unity of faith, wewould not have formed a federation ofchurches. Simple as that.

It is, however, improper and incor-rect when what Dr. Greijdanus wrote isquoted to defend a pulpit exchange,such as Dr. Boersma pursues, and topresent Dr. Greijdanus’ words as ad-vocating such an exchange indeed.Dr. Greijdanus was writing about thebasis of the church federation, notabout acknowledging others and fol-lowing this acknowledgment up withactions that cause discord in the con-gregation and alienate those towards

whom ministers and consistories havetheir first obligation.

From the “top down”?In his article Dr. Boersma claims

that the “union of 1892 was imple-mented from the ‘top down.’” which ev-idently means that it was a matter ofgeneral synods and that the churchesjust had to follow suit.

I contest the correctness of thisstatement.

Certainly, negotiations were con-ducted at the synodical level, but thecongregations were consulted. Therewas, to my knowledge, only one churchthat rejected the terms of union, all theothers apparently concurred with thesynodical stand. There was ample timeto study the proposals and to make one-self be heard about their acceptabilityor non-acceptability.

Dr. F.L. RutgersDr. Boersma also gave us a quota-

tion from Dr. F.L. Rutgers, “the well-known authority on church polity,” butin this quotation Dr. Rutgers did notspeak at all about what Dr. Boersmawants: mutual recognition and mutualadmission of each other’s members tothe Lord’s table.

When discussing the questionwhether guests “should be admitted tothe Lord’s table,” Dr. Rutgers said,among other things: “It has never beenmade a rule in our churches for suchcases that such requests would simplybe denied, and that thus no one wouldbe admitted except those who are with-in the circle of those who are known bythe consistory as members of the localchurch.” (Dr. Boersma’s translation)

I am well aware of it that a consis-tory would have the right to admitsomeone not belonging to one of thechurches or of the sister-churches to acelebration of the Lord’s Supper.

Before admitting one, however, theconsistory must make sure that this per-son has “made public profession of theReformed faith,” (Art. 61 C.O.) and ifhe or she is visiting here, let’s say fromanother country, it is mandatory that avisit be arranged, or that the man orwoman comes before the consistory tobe examined and before the consistoryto “profess the Reformed faith.” Suchcases did occur and will occur in the fu-ture as well. That one does not belongto one of the churches or of their sister-churches does not automatically meanthat no permission may be given topartake of the sacrament.

But do these words of that “well-known authority on church polity” con-stitute a support for what Dr. Boersma

propagates: mutual admission withoutexamination in each and every case asa more or less permanent arrangement?

Saying “Yes” to that question con-stitutes ventriloquy.

Approach?Stating that the dilemma I posed:

“Federative or Local Matter?” is a falsedilemma. Dr. Boersma clouds the issueby speaking of pursuing both federativeunity and local unity at the same time.But that is different from what I reject-ed as impermissible: effecting a, for allpractical purposes, local merger (pulpitexchange and admission to the Lord’stable).

Pursuing unity both federatively andlocally? Of course! The more the bet-ter! Nowhere did I say a bad wordabout that. My objections are againstgoing it alone locally with no apparentregard for the federation.

When, therefore, Dr. Boersma pos-es the question: “Do you favour the fed-erative or do you favour the local ap-proach?” I must say that this is bringingin a false element. I was not speaking ofan approach but of specific actions thatno longer belong to an approach butconstitute a “having arrived.”

“He that distinguishes well, teacheswell,” an old saying instructs us.

Standing alone?Dr. Boersma claims that my “inter-

pretation” of Art. 4 C.O. is new. In sup-port of this claim he then quotes Dr. H.Bouwman, who “stated that the ‘con-sistory decides about admission to thepulpit,’ adding that ‘a minister may notpreach (Dutch: optreden) in a differentchurch, for example, a Nederlands Re-formed (Hervormd) Church or Lutheranchurch, without discussion with or per-mission of the consistory of the Re-formed church.’”

What did Dr. Bouwman speak of?Did he speak of a “pulpit exchange”such as Dr. Boersma advocates, or of anadmitting a minister from a differentfederation to a (Canadian)Reformedpulpit, and do his words prove that Ipropagated something new?

From the above quotation everyonecan learn that this was not the case atall. What these words mean is that Dr.Boersma may not conduct a service inthe Alliance Church here in Abbotsfordwithout discussion with and permis-sion from the Abbotsford Canadian Re-formed Consistory. The same applies toDr. Boersma wanting to conduct a ser-vice in the Abbotsford Free ReformedChurch. He therefore better keep thewords of Dr. Bouwman in mind, espe-

cially since he appears to agree with Dr.Bouwman’s words.

The above-quoted words do notclaim the right of a consistory of a Cana-dian Reformed Church to admit a non-Canadian Reformed minister at all.

The deputies’ adviceAgain we are treated to an appeal to

what our deputies for ecclesiastical uni-ty wrote in a so-called “Discussion Pa-per” that was published in Clarion a fewyears ago. They, Dr. Boersma writes,“explicitly state that after local churcheshave acknowledged of one another thatthey are true churches of the Lord, theymay ‘consider drawing up an accordwhich provides for pulpit exchange andadmission of their members to one an-other’s Holy Supper and recognizing oneanother’s attestation (discipline).’”

In the first place: what those deputiespublished was a “discussion paper,”which should not have been published inthe form in which it was brought to our at-tention. Now it is being quoted from (andit is not the first time that this happens)asif it were an authoritative document.

Further: I have never seen a discus-sion of this “discussion paper” but nowDr. Boersma tells us that the samedeputies were asked for advice by acommittee from Classis Pacific and thatthey basically reiterated what was prop-agated in that “discussion paper,”namely, that “it is possible to have min-isters from other church federationswith which we as yet have no ecclesi-astical fellowship to preach on our pul-pits and vice versa.”

It is a riddle to me how deputiescan make such a statement and whatthey would base this on.

They refer to F.L. Bos, De Orde derKerk, p.71. Apparently they used thesame printing I have. But nowhere canI find any indication that ministers fromother federations can be invited. WhatI did find on pages 72/73 is referenceto the same cases of which Dr. H.Bouwman spoke: that conducting aservice outside the “communion of thechurch at times when the congregationgathers, is also bound by the permissionof the consistory within whose territorythis conducting takes place.”

When the Rev. J.B. Netelenbos, min-ister of the Reformed Church at Middel-burg, conducted an official worship ser-vice in the Netherlands ReformedChurch in The Hague on June 10, 1917,he defended his conduct as follows:“There are believers also in the Nether-lands Reformed Church, and whenthese believers come together, assembletogether, then there is an ‘assembly ofbelievers,’ and therefore a ‘Christian


Church.’” According to him, there weresoundly Reformed ministers within theNetherlands Reformed institute whomthe Reformed Churches could trust toconduct worship services in their midst.

The result was that the Middelburgconsistory took the decision “to forbidall its ministers to preach in other thanReformed Churches in a place and at atime when a service is being held in aReformed Church.”

When Dr. Boersma more or less tri-umphantly declares “Thus, on no less(fewer) than two occasions the federaldeputies have stated that local churchesdo have the authority to allow non-Cana-dian Reformed ministers on the pulpit,”I would suggest that the deputies lookfor better grounds for their advice thanthey appear now to have been able toadduce, for those grounds were void.

And when Dr. Boersma quotes Clas-sis Pacific of April 16,1996, and givesthe impression that this classis agreedwith him, I find this a tendentious pre-sentation. Fortunately some of the col-leagues and the large majority of clas-sis, although stating indeed, that “it isnot specifically against the Church Or-der to have pulpit exchange , admissionto each other’s Lord’s Supper or recog-nition of each other’s discipline, thefederative commitment would requireconsideration and comment at a federa-tive level,”yet achieved that in its Rec-ommendations this classis requestedthe church at Vernon “to refrain frompulpit exchange and admission to eachother’s Lord’s Supper until the churchesas a whole, at Synod 1998, have had op-portunity to consider local unity initia-tives with the ORC, and have adopted astrategy for federative unity.”

After all, I do appear not to standall that much alone when insisting on itthat pulpit exchange, etc., is a federa-tive matter and not a local one, do I?And of the “falseness” of this dilemmanot much is left.

Not applicable?Dr. Boersma wrote: “When we ex-

amine article 4 itself, we find that itdoes not at all deal with situations likethe ones under discussion. It speaks onlyabout the question who can be calledto the office of minister of the Word.This is precisely what one would expect.The Church Order does not deal withevery possible situation we could thinkof. It is simply a document for internaluse, and does not deal with situationswhere you have two true churches livingside by side without first expressing theirunity in Christ. The Church Order givesregulations for proper church life and

by its very nature does not deal with sit-uations such as this one.”

I consider this a very dangerous wayof reasoning. In this manner one canthrow various provisions of the ChurchOrder aside, claiming: This particularsituation is not dealt with in it, and (con-sequently) we can follow our own ideasin this specific case. Basically, this is thebeginning of the dissolution of the fed-eration when everyone feels free to dowhat is good in his own eyes.

Of course, the Church Order doesnot deal with “every possible situationwe can think of” but it does speak aboutwho may be admitted to the pulpit andthis is a provision indeed that “givesregulations for proper church life.” Weall are bound by these “regulations,”whether we like it or not and whether itfits in our plans or not.

In my article to which Dr. Boersmarefers I did show what the churches haveagreed upon regarding admission to thepulpit. Does one now really think thatour forefathers who drew up the ChurchOrder thought that it would ever be nec-essary to make provisions for admittingministers from outside the federation tothe pulpit by local arrangement?

I certainly do not doubt that minis-ters of the Free Reformed Churches andof the Orthodox Reformed Churches orwhatever other name they may haveadopted, were duly examined and ad-mitted by their respective assemblies.But as churches we have agreed to ad-mit only those who were examined andadmitted by our own assemblies or theassemblies of our federatively recog-nized sister churches. It is putting up asmokescreen when it is asked whether“such an examination (of ministers notbelonging to our federation) shouldmean nothing at all to a local churchwhen contemplating pulpit exchange.”That is not the point at all.

Muddy the waters?Our brother Gh. van Popta warned

me already that my example of my friend,a Netherlands Reformed (Hervormd)minister, would be misunderstood.

On purpose I chose that example, forif it ever becomes clear that one cannoteliminate the federation, it is in that case.And that was my point. It is quite possi-ble that of certain congregations withinthe Netherlands Reformed (Hervormd)Church one can say that there the Gospelis preached in all its purity, that the dis-cipline is being maintained, and morenice things, yet they are a subdivision ofthe country-wide organization. I am hap-py that this point was understood. Anduntil it can be said of the whole country-wide organization that they have re-

turned to the true service of the Lord, noexchange can be possible.

Did Dr. Boersma never hear of thetertium comparationis, the third of thecomparison?

It is not decisive when one particu-lar local church is recognized as a truechurch of the Lord. We do not have to dowith congregationalist independentchurches that are living on their own;we have to do with federations. It is well-known here in the Fraser Valley thatthere are also Free Reformed Churchesthat do not even want to talk about pos-sible unity. And thus, singling out oneparticular local church for such cooper-ation as is being propagated by Dr.Boersma means separating that churchfrom its sister-churches to whom theyowe their allegiance in the first place.

Is it “absolutizing one denomination(this term is not mine! vO) and ignoringthe work which our Lord does else-where,” when we remind ourselvesand one another that our first responsi-bility is towards those with whom weare united and to whom we are boundby mutual promises?

Ignoring those promises and agree-ments muddies the waters.

Another authorityDr. Boersma also introduces the

thoughts of Prof. Dr. M. te Velde, “Pro-fessor of Church Polity at the Theologi-cal University in Kampen (of our Dutchsister churches).”

I beg to disagree with Dr. te Velde,and the reasons why will have becomeclear to our readers from what has beenwritten thus far.

I would rather side with our ownprofessor of Church Polity, Dr. J.DeJong, whose approach I consider farmore to be in the line of ReformedChurch Polity than that of Dr. te Velde.

There have been more things writtenin the Netherlands that give me causefor great concern (for example regardingliturgy and liturgical forms) and I wouldrather not have those controversies intro-duced here. I think that we have enoughquestions to deal with here, and that wecan solve our own “problems” withoutinternational advice.

What is required first of all is thatwe loyally keep the commitments wehave made and that we not, for the sakeof others, alienate our own brothers andsisters. We must start locally, indeed,but to reach the finish we have to gothe whole course. What that course ishas, I hope and trust, been sufficientlyindicated in what I presented the previ-ous time and, in reply to criticism, alsoin this issue.



Dear Brothers and Sisters,Several weeks ago we, as members of the church of Jesus

Christ, remembered Reformation Day. That is something thathappened almost 500 years ago. Yet it was something so im-portant for the church, that we still thank the Lord for it.

Martin Luther was one of the reformers of the church. TheLord used Luther to open the eyes of many people to thefalse doctrines that had slowly penetrated the church. Thechurch leaders, such as the pope, and the bishops, hadtaught the people that there was not much hope for their fu-ture. Everyone was sinful and wicked; but you could only besaved if you made up for every sin that you had committed.Who could ever do that? It might make it a bit better for youif you did a lot of good works, and/or pay a lot of money tothe church. But it all depended on yourself, and most peopleknew that they were not very good! So many church memberswere worried about what would happen to them when theydied. Most of them were sure they would have to go to “pur-gatory.” If only they could have read in the Bible about salva-tion out of grace through the work of Jesus Christ. But therewere no Bibles that everyone could read! The only Bibles thatwere there, were written in Latin, and that was a language thatonly the bishops and some priests and monks knew.

Martin Luther was such a monk. He was also very un-happy, and tried to do everything the church taught him to doin order to earn his salvation. Martin Luther knew the Latinlanguage. When he was reading the Bible the Lord enlight-ened Luther by the Holy Spirit, so that slowly he started to un-derstand what was written in the Bible by the apostle Paul.His eyes and heart were opened to the real meaning of theBible. He finally started to understand the reason why JesusChrist was born in Bethlehem. He knew that the peoplethemselves cannot earn their salvation. The Lord God sentHis own Son to the earth to pay for the sins of all thebelievers. And that out of grace alone. God’s children do nothave to do good works, and they do not have to be rich tobe saved. All they have to do is to believe what the Lord tellsthem in His holy Word. Luther knew that he was a sinner, andthat he could not do anything himself. But the Holy Spirithelped him to understand that what the church was teachingwas completely wrong. The church was telling lies to the peo-ple. Members of the church did not have to be depressedand unhappy, but they could be very happy, and thankful tothe Lord. For the Lord was always near them, and had savedthem from all their sins.

Once Luther fully understood that out of grace andthrough faith in Jesus Christ, every believer is saved fromtheir sins, he started to write that all down. He showed to thepeople in the language that they could understand that theyshould not listen to the church leaders any longer. He wrotedown all the things that the church had been doing wrong, andhe also translated the Bible into the language of the people.

That was the beginning of the reformation of the church.It was God’s work, for the Lord is the Keeper of the church.He did not want the church members to live in darkness,confused by the lies of the church. He wanted to let theLight of the birth of Christ shine in the church again. TheLord, through His Holy Spirit enlightened the mind of Mar-tin Luther so that he could start the work of the Reforma-tion. Later on more reformers, one of whom was JohnCalvin, followed. The church that split off from the Roman

Catholic Church was the Reformed Church. That is why thechurch today is still called the Reformed Church.

From then on the church was again able to celebrateChristmas. During all the years that the church had beenteaching lies to its members, the real meaning of the birth ofChrist had been lost. Christmas is only important for thosewho believe that Jesus Christ came down to earth to pay forthe sins of God’s people. All God’s anger for the sins of us, Hispeople, He poured out on His Son. He was the only Personwho could carry God’s wrath on His shoulders, and go throughthe anguish of hell for us, His people. He paid for all the sinsthat we committed. He delivered us from all our sins, so thatwe now are able to come to our Father at the day of judgment.All we have to do is ask the Lord for forgiveness of all oursins, every day again. Because the Lord loves His Son, Heloves us, and He will forgive! Because of the work that our Sav-iour did for us, the Lord sees us again as His children. TheLord is the Keeper of the Church, the King of the Church.Even during the years that the true Light did not shine clearlyin the church, He was still there and in control. The Lordbrought the Light back into the church again, and He will standon guard for us as long as the world exists.

Let us then pray for His guidance, so that the true mean-ing of Christmas may shine brightly from the church into theworld. Then the wonderful Light of Christ’s return will pene-trate all the corners of the earth, and there will be no moredarkness.

Sing to the LORD with exultation.O sing a new song, all creation.Sing to the LORD and bless His Name;Day after day with joy proclaimThe wondrous deeds of His salvation.

Sing to the LORD with exultation,For He is King of all creation.Behold, He comes! Your joy express!He comes with truth and righteousnessTo judge the earth and rule its nations.

Psalm 96:1,8

Birthdays in January:2: Liz Koning

Dicken’s Field, Extended Care Centre, Room 21014225-94th Street, Edmonton, AB T8E 6C6

7: Christine Breukelman2225-19 Street, Coaldale, AB T1M 1G4

17: Henry Driegen72 Ross Road, RR 1, Abbotsford, BC V2S 1M3

17: Grace Homan“ANCHOR HOME,” 361 30 Road, RR 2Beamsville, ON L0R 1B0

17: Janine SmidRR 1, Arkona, ON N0M 1B0

27: Hank Orsel705 Surrey Lane, Apt. 1201, Burlington, ON L7T 3Z4

I wish you all a very happy birthday. Until next month.Mrs. R. Ravensbergen

7462 Hwy. 20, RR 1, Smithville, ON L0R 2A0

RAY OF SUNSHINEBy Mrs. R. Ravensbergen For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son, that whoever

believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life. John 3:16


In Burlington West a final vote to institute a church in theFlamborough area went down to defeat. The consistory willhave to look for alternate ways to deal with the large size ofthe congregation, some 730 members.

* * *The Carman congregation is also thinking “expansion.”

“Looking at the number of people that flock into the build-ing every Sunday it becomes more clear all the time thatsomething must be done sooner or later.”

* * *The Fellowship church of Burlington-South has decided

to use individual cups with both wine and juice at theHoly Supper, while still coming together at the table infront. The basis for change is to assist everyone to “cele-brating Christ’s supper unhindered.” There are concernsabout hygiene. “There is, at the very least, a perceptionthat a common cup carries bacteria, and even if some doc-tors would disagree with this, the perception remains andinterferes with the celebration.” Additional reasons aregiven: “Besides, there are concerned members who mayhave a weakness for alcohol, and other who for health rea-sons cannot partake of a communal cup. The ground forchange, therefore, would be that we do not want membersto be prevented from fully participating, as community ofbelievers, in the sacrament.”

* * *The Australian magazine Una Sancta has undergone a

facelift and received a totally new look with full lettersizepages and an attractive front cover. The new format is areal improvement, indeed!

* * *In several bulletins we can read urgent appeals for

“Anchor Home” where handicapped brothers and sisters re-ceive the care they need. Financially they are in the red andare in desperate need for more members to help carry thecost of running this home. Any help or donation is mostwelcome!

* * *The church at Launceston, Tasmania, decided “to write

to the sister churches in Australia asking them if they are in-terested in joining the ICRC on an individual basis, and tolook at the possibility of sending a delegate-observer to thenext meeting of the ICRC. (At the last synod in Kelmscottwhere it was decided to withdraw our membership fromthe ICRC as a bond of churches, it was expressly agreedupon that it would be in the freedom of the individualchurches to become a member of the ICRC).”

* * *The church at Carman, MB decided to follow a slightly

different procedure than usual for the calling of a minister.From the adopted procedure we quote: “At the congrega-tional meeting the consistory will share all the relevant in-formation they have received about the minister as well asentertain comments and questions from the congregation. Ifno serious concerns are brought to the attention of the con-sistory within one week the consistory will proceed withthe call.” The traditional “vote” is left out of this procedure.

* * *In Burlington West they are organizing a “Fathers

Night Out, an evening just for fathers” but they are asked tolet Sarah know soon. Should that then not have been an“Abraham”?

* * *Burlington South has hired Richard Bultje to help them

in the practical fact-finding work in the Hamilton area witha view to Urban Mission. “His task will be to assess the via-bility of establishing an urban mission project in the city ofHamilton. As part of his framework he will be focusing onexisting program, the availability of a proper venue, andthe timing and duration of the project.”

* * *In Kelmscott, W.A. they are looking into the possibili-

ties of conducting mission work among the “South-EastAsian Chinese-speaking people” (I assume in Australia-CV)utilizing a Chinese brother, who is presently being spon-sored by them for studies at the Theological College inHamilton, upon completion of his studies.

THE HI-LITERBy C. Van Spronsen

News from Here and There


The article in the Clarion Volume45 #19 (Sept. 19/96) by the ReverendK. Jonker about the validity of Denver’splace in our Federation has only result-ed in the increased conviction, by my-self and other readers with whom I havetalked, how invalid the acceptance ofDenver within our Federation is. Be-cause this conviction is based on ourconfession, we not only have the right,but also the duty to appeal this matter aslong as this is possible in accordancewith Church order.

Reverend Jonker mentions in his ar-ticle that our Synods 1992 and 1995have qualified our relation with the OPCas being an “interim situation” or being“on two tracks.” The one track is thenthe confessional track which startedwhen Synod Coaldale 1977 decided torecognize the OPC as a true Church ofour Lord Jesus Christ as confessed in Ar-ticle 29 of the Belgic Confession.

The other track is that of how ourmajor assemblies have dealt with thisdecision in its contacts with the OPC,which can be called the ecclesiasticalor maybe even the synodical track.

Reverend Jonker reasons that be-cause we are on two tracks in ourrelationship with the OPC, and theconfession has nothing to say abouthow we have to proceed ecclesiasti-cally with a church which we recog-nize as a true Church of our Lord JesusChrist, we can not simply refer to theconfession as reason not to acceptDenver in the federation.

I do not understand how anyonecan make the statement that the con-fession has nothing to say about howwe are to put recognition of the trueChurch in to effect when we havebound ourselves to what we confess inBelgic Confession Article 28 and Lord’sDay 21, Heidelberg Catechism. I re-member a sermon from a minister onLord’s Day 21 about “the Holy CatholicChurch, the communion of saints,” inwhich he said “let no man put asunderwhat God has joined together.”

Our confessions speak so clearlyabout our duty towards Christ’s Church

that confusion is impossible. Article 28has as heading “Everyone’s duty to jointhe Church” and goes on to say thatthis should be done even if doing so re-sults in one’s death.

It therefore makes no differencewhether or not the people in Denveralready belonged to the OPC. If theOPC is, as we have stated the Churchof our Lord Jesus Christ, then we do notsay I think they should or shouldn’t gothere, but I believe what we confess inArticle 28 BC that God calls His peopleto join that church in obedience to Hisrevealed will.

When in that regard the excuse isused that we are on two tracks in ourrelation with the OPC, I think it needsno explanation that our ecclesiasticaltrack is to be guided by our confession-al track and not the other way around.

The question about being a truechurch is not determined by a relation-ship which we as a federation have witha church; rather, our relationshipshould be a result of, and in accordancewith, what the confession says about aChurch. Therefore I sincerely hope thatwe as a federation never again will rec-ognize a church as a True Church ofthe Lord Jesus Christ on the basis of ourconfessions, when we are not willingto adhere to what the confession saysabout our duties toward that church.

When the track of our ecclesiasticalcontact no longer runs parallel with thetrack of our confessions, then I as achurch member would rather be dis-senting with the Decisions of the majorassemblies than to be accused of dis-senting with what we as churches con-fess to be God’s will in His church gath-ering work.

I do not understand how the Rev-erend Jonker can say that the denying ofDenver’s place within the federationbrings us further apart from the OPC. Thereality is that accepting Denver into thefederation, the way Classis AB/MB did,has led to very strained relations be-tween Classis AB/MB and the POD (Pres-bytery of the Dakotas), whereas beforethis event the relations were very good.

The claim that the Reverend Jonkermakes regarding the demand of Art. 31CO for all churches to go along withthe decisions of our synods in this mat-ter is a misuse of Art. 31. Art. 31 COhas as heading “Appeals,” and goes onto speak about the right of appeal. Whenthis right to appeal against the decisionsof our major assemblies is taken away,or is increasingly limited (as seems tobe the trend in our federation as com-pared to older commentaries on theChurch Order), then we better examineourselves, if by putting emphasis on syn-odical decisions and limiting or post-poning the demands of our confession,we are not becoming increasingly syn-odical and less and less confessional.

In response to the question of Rev-erend Jonker: “Is there not a differencebetween what we confess as truth andhow we ecclesiastically practice thistruth?,” I would say that yes such a dif-ference has now come about in ourchurches. Why therefore do we not goback and realign our ecclesiastical prac-tices with our confession so that ourtwo tracks do not head in different di-rections? This is the only way to preventdivision and/or eventual derailment.

By appealing the decisions of majorassemblies, which I believe are in con-flict with our confession, I am not in con-flict with Art. 31 CO, and the words andvery nature of an appeal have nothing todo with, nor do they even suggest intim-idation or aggressiveness. Intimidatingand aggressive behaviour would be de-scribed as using Art. 31 CO to tellchurches and church members to toe theline. The unity of the church can onlybe promoted if we maintain and upholdthe basis of this unity which we all know.

I. VeurinkCoaldale, AB

READER’S FORUM

The Validity of Denver’s Acceptance Within our Federation Contested

The views expressed in Reader’sForum are not necessarily those of theeditorial committee or the publisher. Submissions should not exceed 900

words. Those published may be editedfor style or length.


When asked the question: are youwell educated?, we will most likely an-swer: yes, I have had a good educa-tion, but I certainly realize that there isyet so much too learn.

We called this answer evasive andyet correct. Perhaps we can formulatethis somewhat better by considering thenature of the educational process. Be-ing an educated person is not the sameas being a finished product. Educationis quite different from car manufactur-ing. Educated persons are not manu-factured (although many an education-al “mission” statement, as well as ourschool buildings which look oftenrather like 19th century factories, seemto suggest exactly that!); being educatedmeans participating in a life-longprocess. In fact, borrowing from JohnDewey, the famous American prag-matic educator, we can say that educa-tion is living and living is educational.Why is that so?

I describe an educated person asone who is willing and able to use hisor her talents to the honour of Godand to the well-being of his or herneighbour. Now, you will recognizethis statement as the summary of theLaw of God. We hear the Law everySunday morning in church, often pref-aced by the announcement that theLaw of God is the rule for our wholelife, and often followed by its summa-ry as referred to by Christ Himself. AsChristians we spend much time learn-ing about that Law, and we are com-mitted to live accordingly.

I use this insight as the frameworkfor my understanding of the process ofeducation: a truly educated personsspends his or her life in service to Godand the neighbour. In this descriptionwe note at least the following elements:

– abilities. An educated person mustbe able to act appropriately and re-sponsibly, therefore much time needs tobe spend developing the abilities of theperson: basic ones, such as speech,reading and writing, understanding the

world around you in its various formsand shapes, etc.; more complex abili-ties, such as understanding relation-ships, developing a sense of value, de-veloping an understanding of oneselfand others. In short, the abilities weneed to develop range from basic com-petence in life skills and school skills, toawareness and understanding of whoand what we are ourselves. Learningabout our God and His Word and workare an important part of this. It takesquite some time before all these abili-ties have been sufficiently developed,not so much because human beingsare slow learners, but because there ismuch to learn – the breadth and lengthof God’s creation and the depth of hisrevelation are awesome. In the mean-time, the very learning process itself is“life”; our young children live and learnnow, today; not tomorrow!

– independence. Initially, the younglearner depends very much on the care-giver, but soon enough a little baby letsus know that it is, indeed, an indepen-dent human being, with an own will,character, and personality. The maintask of the educator could be describedas forming that independent will, char-acter, and personality; that is, to helpthe child not only acquire all sorts ofnecessary abilities, but also the willing-ness to use those abilities in the rightway, to make his or her own decisionsand to be held responsible for thosedecisions. Eventually, we are no longertold by someone else what to do andwhat to think; we have learned to thinkfor ourselves and we are expected to actindependently, but then, of course, al-ways within the boundaries of what wehave learned to be true and pure . . . themoment of profession of faith is such amoment of biblical independence.Therefore, we often formulate the goalof education as independence.

Independence is a major goal ofthe educational efforts of parentsand teachers alike; it is also a mostdifficult goal to achieve. Give the

young people space, time, and op-portunity to move towards theirown independence!– commitment. An educated per-

son is not only able, but also willing toact appropriately. Such a person showsa clear commitment to an overall pur-pose for his or her actions. That purposeis not self-centred, but other-centred.An educated person is committed toserve others. This is acknowledged bysecular and Christian educators alike;no one would defend the thesis thateducation has value when it serves one-self only. Even the ancient Greeks knewof education for the common good. Somuch the more should this be empha-sized by the children of God! The Lorddemands: give me your heart; be com-mitted to my service.

– reflection. It will be quite clear that“being an educated person” is not the fin-ished product of some manufacturingprocess – a new car does not change forthe better over time; it has just one direc-tion to go: to the inevitable scrap heap.Education, on the other hand, is a life-long process of change (not automatical-ly for the better either!) which involves usin examination and re-examination ofour actions and commitments. The liveswe live must be in harmony with thenorms and values which we adhere to.Recognizing the importance of and theneed for such reflection is in itself a ma-jor characteristic of an educated person.Reflection is one of the major forces thatcauses us to continue learning. It drivesus back to church every week to be fur-ther educated in the fear of the Lord; iturges us to seek better ways in which wemay serve. It completes the learning cy-cle, pointing to new goals and renewedeffort. Please understand this element inthe right manner – the Form for the Lord’sSupper speaks much about such reflec-tion, not to get us down (and perhaps out)but to encourage us in the race we arerunning. God’s comforting words standbig over His children: do not be anxious.

NURTURE & INSTRUCTIONBy T.M.P. Vanderven

Are you an educated person?


I’d think that there are few amongus who’d dare to claim to be fully ed-ucated. O, yes, we have acquiredmany a skill and much informationand perhaps even some knowledge.And that is of great value. Yet, at thesame time, we acknowledge that thereis so much more to learn. Living a lifein Christ – not in a monastery in spiri-tual bliss unaware of the world aroundus, but in the middle of every day lifewith all its joys and sorrows, tax forms

and quarreling siblings – puts us inthe school of Christ, all the days ofour lives. And even more: we are look-ing forward with longing to continu-ing our studies in eternity.

Maranatha!

Please address questions directly to:Mr. T.M.P. VandervenCovenant College856 Upper James St., Box 20179Hamilton, ON, L9C 7M5.e-mail: [email protected]

The Old Testament gives a detaileddescription of the molten sea made inthe days of Solomon to stand in front ofthe temple (2 Kings 7:23-26). This largebronze structure, about 16 feet in di-ameter and about eight feet high wasdesigned to hold an enormous amountof water (about 45,000 litres or 12,000US gallons). It was made according tospecific measurements and was thusquite an engineering feat. However,critics of Scripture have ridiculed thebiblical account by suggesting that ac-cording to the measurements given themathematics do not jive because the ra-tio of the circumference to the diame-ter of this large container for waterseems to be off. This ratio is called piand is usually represented by the Greekletter p. At first glance it seems that thevalue of pi (p) is 3 rather than some-thing like 3.14. Is Scripture mistakenhere? How are we to deal with this? Thesolution to this problem and muchmore besides has now been madeavailable as freeware in a computerprogram by Mr. A. Zuidhof.

The program is called “KingSolomon’s Molten Sea and Pi (p)” andit is very user friendly. The openingmenu gives an overview of what is of-fered. The material is divided into tenmanageable parts. After an introduction,the main biblical data is given with theuse of a literal translation of the He-brew text along with several others (KJV,NKJV, RSV, NRSV). Also the ancientGreek translation (Septuagint) is given inEnglish dress. Comments on the bibli-

cal text follow in another section fol-lowed by chapters dealing with de-tailed calculations and discussion ofthe biblical data and the math. There iseven a section on the history of themolten sea and its measurements asrecorded in Scripture and outside Scrip-ture. A valuable bibliography and fourappendices follow.

The marvel of the program is thatwith very little effort the user always hasall the important information close athand and can easily refer to relevantparts found outside the section he isbusy with. It is always very easy to getback to where you were. Instructionsand menus are fully given at every stepand one is carefully guided through thedifferent parts of the discussion under-way. It is also important to note that atall times it is easy to refer to the relevantScripture which speaks of the matter be-ing discussed and other references arealso easy to follow up (such as sourcematerial found in the bibliography). Ifone suddenly wants to search for some-thing, that can be done at any time.The search function works well andthe instructions are clear.

The whole work is done in a mostcareful and responsible manner. Theaverage student of the Bible who takesthe time to read the discussions will getmuch out of this. However, also the pro-fessional mathematician will be in-trigued by the wealth of ancient NearEastern technical and mathematicaldetail that is available in this programand be enriched. With scientific preci-

sion Zuidhof shows that also in special-ized matters like math God’s Word iscompletely reliable and can be trusted.

Mr. Zuidhof is eminently qualifiedfor the work he has done. Before hisretirement in Hamilton our brother wasan Electronics Technical Officer at theNational Research Council of Canadain Ottawa where he participated inHigh Accuracy Measurement Research.In 1982 he published his research onthe molten sea in article form in a wide-ly read scholarly journal called BiblicalArchaeologist (Summer, 1982). Hisstudy has been referred to in commen-taries, both scholarly (M. J. Mulder, 1Koningen [Commentaar op het OudeTestament 1987], 266) and popular (D.J. Wiseman, 1 & 2 Kings [Tyndale OldTestament Commentaries 1993], 115).It is most laudable that after spendingmany years on this project he has madehis research available on the InterNet asfreeware in the hope that it will bewidely used. We echo that wish. Theprogram can be downloaded from theHamilton-Wentworth FreeNet (HWFN)as follows. Enter exactly (including thesingle capital letter) as follows:http://www.freenet.hamilton.on.ca/~ah444/Profile.html and if a connection ismade, Albert Zuidhof’s Homepage willappear. The file MOLTEN-S.ZIP canthen be downloaded from the Down-load Section. (If you do not havePKUNZIP, make sure to read the “un-zip” instructions.)

SOFTWARE REVIEW

The Molten Sea on ComputerBy C. Van Dam

CHURCH NEWSCALLED to Fergus, ON

Rev. J. De Gelderof Smithville, ON

* * * CALLED to Orangeville, ON

Rev. D.G.J. Agemaof Attercliffe, ON


Creator Spirit, by whose aid The world ‘s foundations first were laid, Come visit every pious mind, Come pour thy joys on human kind; From sin and sorrow set us free, And make thy temples worthy thee.

O source of uncreated light,The Father’s promised Paraclete! Thrice Holy! Fount, thrice holy fire, Our hearts with heavenly love inspire; Come, and thy sacred unction bring,To sanctify us while we sing.

Plenteous of grace, descend from on high Rich in thy seven-fold energy! Thou strength of his almighty hand, Whose power does heaven and earth command! Proceeding Spirit, our defence, Who dost the gifts of tongues dispense, And crown’st thy gift with eloquence!

Refine and purge our earthly parts; But, O, inflame and fire our hearts! Our frailties help, our vice control, Submit the senses to the soul; And when rebellious they are grown, Then lay thy hand and hold ‘em down.

Chase from our minds the infernal foe,And peace, the fruit of love, bestow; And, lest our feet should step astray, Protect and guide us on the way.

Make us eternal truths receive, And practise all that we believe; Give us thyself, that we may see The Father and the Son by thee. Immortal honor, endless fame, Attend the Almighty Father’s name; The Saviour Son be glorified,

Who for lost men’s redemption died;And equal adoration be, Eternal Paraclete, to thee.

From the Latin of Gregory the Great.Translation of John Dryden

VENI CREATOR SPIRITUS (Come, Holy Spirit)

Sometimes attributed to the Emperor Charlemagne. The better opinion, however, inclines to Pope Gregory I,called the Great, as the author, and fixes its origin somewhere in the sixth century.


Dear Editor,It was with deep appreciation that I

read the article: Is it Reformed to speakabout a “personal relationship withJesus Christ?”1 July 26, 1996 by Rev. R.Schouten.

Rev. Schouten seems to have a clearunderstanding of Scripture as to the na-ture of our relationship to Jesus Christ,and he points out our responsibility incarrying out our walk with the Lord.

There are, however, some questions,and the first one is in regards to his re-marks, as to how that the AmericanEvangelical Christianity is dominated by

individualism and by an Arminian con-cept of salvation.

The term “individualism” seems tobe quite a concern in the Reformed cir-cles, and personally I do not believethat this term is a dominating factor inthe Evangelical world.

Jeremiah, Ezekiel and some of theminor Prophets spoke of God’s futuredealings with individuals, as well asthroughout the New Testament writingswe find that although churches are be-ing addressed, salvation is an individ-ual matter.

My second question is with regardsto those who are not of the Reformed

persuasion: “do they have a part inGod’s plan of salvation?” Although theyclaim to have a personal relationshipwith Jesus Christ.

And thirdly: Since the Clarion al-though a Reformed Magazine, is alsoread by non-Reformed Christians, andtherefore would it not be more appro-priate to use less doctrinal terms andphrases from the forms of unity, andmore Scripture verse relating to thesubject?

Yours in ChristJoe Dewind

Sherwood Park, AB

LETTER TO THE EDITORPlease mail , e-mail or fax letters for publication to the editorial address.

They should be 300 words or less. Those published may be edited for style or length.

News from the Women’s Savings Action

Contributions receivedFirst of all, what everyone wants to

know – how much did we collect thisyear. During this past fiscal year we col-lected a total of $27,087.48. Thisamount is down considerably from lastyear. In fact, this amount was the lowesttotal which has come in since 1992.Nothing was received from 6 congre-gations. Well, we will do better nextyear, right?! We do not want to disap-point our College community! As oftenhappens, contributions were receivedjust after June 30. We were very happyto receive once again a donation fromour sisters in Australia. From the con-gregations of Western Australia a totalof $2,653.75 was received. Manythanks to the Theological Library FundCommittee in Western Australia! We re-ally appreciate that an amount fromAustralia is becoming a regular item onour list of contributions!

Annual Donation for the CollegeEven though the total collected was

down, we are very grateful that wecould still maintain the same level of

support for the library. On the Collegeevening a pledge for $25,000 was pre-sented to the principal. During this pastyear the $25,000 was used to continueto buy books and periodicals in themany different subject areas; we had noother expenses besides this amount forbooks and periodicals. The cost of boththese items continues to rise. Alongwith the unfavourable exchange rate thecost of paper has gone up. It thereforeremains a challenge for the library tomake the dollars go as far as possible.

Computers and the LibraryIn this day and age when so much

information can be accessed via com-puters, it is sometimes thought that it isnot necessary to keep adding to the li-brary collection to the same degree orthat it is not so urgent to expand theCollege library facilities. However, thereare no indications that books will everbe replaced by computers. The printedpage has advantages that a computerdoes not have. Certainly in an academicsetting books will never become obso-lete and electronic means will never re-

place books. Furthermore, although ac-cessing certain information via the com-puter is free at the present time, thatwill probably not remain the case.

ExpansionAs the College facilities become

increasingly crowded, expansion isvery much on everyone’s mind. At theannual Library Committee meeting welearned that the Board of Governorshas appointed a committee which hasmet a number of times. The librarianprepared a report outlining the needs ofthe library and an architect has beenengaged to further develop the plans.The $30,000 GIC plus the interest ac-cumulated during the last two yearswas put into the Theological CollegeExpansion Fund when the GIC maturedin August 1995.

Tax receiptsDuring this past year many tax re-

ceipts could again be given out; we arevery thankful that we do receive somany donations of $10.00 and more.We have set a minimum limit of $10.00


because of the costs involved in theprinting and mailing of receipts.

Sincere appreciationAt the bottom of this newsletter Mrs.

Mulder’s name will appear for the lasttime. Just as a number of you, Mrs. Mul-der, who was already involved in theearly years in coordinating the collec-tion in Cloverdale, has seen the workof the Women’s Savings Action growand prosper under the blessing of theLord. We are very grateful for the con-tribution which she was able to make.Thank you very much! Mrs. Liz Hof-sink from Smithville was found willingto take over from Mrs. Mulder and welook forward to the same fine coopera-tion which we could enjoy with Mrs.Mulder. Not only Mrs. Mulder but alsosome of the representatives and co-workers have passed the reins on tosome one else. Our heartfelt apprecia-tion for the time and energy which youhave volunteered for this worthwhilecause! And a hearty welcome to thenew representatives and co-workers!

Every year again we are amazedhow all those piles of change do addup! The change along with the chequesmake it possible to make good ourpromise to provide funds for the library.Before the treasurer hands over theyearly pledge a lot of work has to bedone. We are grateful for the willing-ness of the representatives and all thosewho assist them to collect and count thefunds every year again. Also heartfeltthanks to all of you for your donations.And if perchance you did not make adonation . . . remember we do valueevery contribution, whether large orsmall. Every year at the Library Com-mittee Meeting we are confirmed inour conviction that this labour of loveis never taken for granted! Great thank-fulness is always expressed by the prin-cipal for the work of the Women’s Sav-ings Action! Soli Deo Gloria!

chair Mrs. E. Mulder 2372 Cavendish Drive

Burlington, ON L7P 3B8

(905) 332-3285

secretary Mrs. J. Van Dam 642 Ramsgate Road

Burlington, ON L7N 2Y1

(905) 634-0593

treasurer Mrs. C. Zietsma54 Como PlaceHamilton, ON

L9B 1Y4(905) 389-8314

Theological College Women’s Savings ActionContributions July 1, 1995 to June 30, 1996

ABBOTSFORD $2,202.94ALDERGROVE 30.00ANCASTER 848.28 ATTERCLIFFE 1,012.00BARRHEAD 610.00BRAMPTON 136.50BURLINGTON EAST 1,407.50BURLINGTON SOUTH 595.56BURLINGTON WEST 1,350.00CALGARYCARMAN 498.50CHATHAM 583.00CHATSWORTH 150.00CHILLIWACKCLOVERDALE 410.00COALDALE 485.00EDMONTON, IMM. 784.87EDMONTON, PROV. 1,906.78ELORA 104.70FERGUS 460.19GRAND RAPIDS 97.68GRAND VALLEY 47.76GUELPH 323.60HAMILTON 1,147.80HOUSTON 426.50LANGLEY 1,950.00LINCOLN 377.65LONDON 110.00LYNDEN, WASH. 463.82NEERLANDIAORANGEVILLE 146.50OTTAWA 162.00PORT KELLSROCKWAY 51.50SMITHERS 913.84SMITHVILLE 1,057.50SURREY 1,323.00TABER 830.00TORONTO 196.15VERNON 471.50WATFORDWINNIPEG 761.11YARROW

AUSTRALIA 2,653.75

Total collected: $27,087.48

Please note: Our fiscal year runs from July 1 to June 30. Any contributions whichcame in after June 30 will appear on the financial statement next year.


A few days ago I saw Rev. Van-Oene’s book Inheritance Preserved inmy book case. It reminded me of anexperience during my Snowbird trip toArizona of a few years ago.

When you own a motorhome, aholiday trailer, or a cottage, you are al-ways repairing something. Not a tripgoes by without having to fix one thingor another.

My motorhome needed some newairbags as the old ones had been ru-ined by a rock getting in between andmaking holes in them. Without airbagsto raise the body of the motorhome,the ride is poor and your wheels couldtouch the wheel wells – and that is a no-no. When you are parked in a “camp-ground” that has three swimming poolsand all kinds of other amenities to keep1200 “spaces” happy, you can be sureto get all sorts of sidewalk supervisors ifyou start repairing something.

One strolled over and said: “Thoseare expensive parts. They must havecost you quite a bit.”

I replied: “When you own a recre-ational vehicle, you’re always buyingparts or getting things repaired. That’sthe way it goes. My cost for theseairbags was US $150.00 plus freightcharges. But, you know, they really didnot cost me anything at all.”

“That’s impossible!,” he replied. “Howdid you get those parts for nothing?”

I said: “It’s so simple. You see, Ihave three sons who will inherit my es-tate. So now each of them will receive$50.00 less.”

He walked away. About an hourlater he wandered by again and said:“You’ve taught me something.”

I had taken pictures of the damagedairbags and explained to the factory thefaulty installation that had caused the

problem. When we came home, therewas a cheque for US $150.00 waiting inthe mail with a letter agreeing that myclaim was legitimate. The inheritance tomy three sons has been preserved. I amsure they will be relieved with thishappy ending.

All kidding aside, I know that theChristian Heritage they will receive is ofmuch more value than the earthly one.My late grandfather used to end hisprayers with: “Dear Lord, let all my de-scendants stay members of the church.”

I now pray for the same.

Inheritance PreservedBy Ralph Winkel

Correction:In Vol. 45, No. 21, p. 464, referencewas made to Martin Luther’s Ninety-Nine Theses. This should have beenNinety-Five.


As in previous years, the organiz-ing committee is preparing for anotherseason in Palmetto, Florida. Lettershave gone out to thirty (30) ministers so-liciting their help in speaking an edify-ing word on the Sundays from Novem-ber to April. Last season we had pulpitsupply from January 7 to March and a

very good attendance. Really the ef-forts should be increased to plant achurch. For that, we need steadypreaching and home mission activities.

Following is our financial reportand budget for 1996/97. Chequesshould be made payable to “J.W. Oost-dyk and A. Vandergaag.”

Again this winter, we will be meetingin the Welcome Centre of the“Palmview” Baptist Church at U.S. 41and 49th Street in Palmetto at 11:15 a.m.and 2:30 p.m.

For the CommitteeA.L. ‘Tony’ Vanderhout

NEWS REPORT

American Reformed Fellowship

The Treasurer’s Report

October 1, 1995 – September 30, 1996

Receipts$3,846.05 Collections3,176.75 Voluntary Regular Contributions

90.40 Interest

$7,113.20 TOTAL

Expenses$ 750.00 Rent church building3,600.00 Rent parsonage

960.00 Guest ministers remuneration71.07 Advertising76.60 Bulletins55.00 Music papers80.00 Video tapes46.00 Bank charges

1,007.00 VCR and mobile cabinet85.00 Miscellaneous

$6,730.67 TOTAL

Balance$4,528.47 Balance, October 1, 1995

382.53 Surplus September 30, 1996

$4,911.00 Balance, October, 1996

Budget

October 1, 1996 – September 30, 1997

Receipts$4,000 Collections3,500 Voluntary Regular Contributions

200 Miscellaneous

$7,700

Expenses$ 750 Church rent3,600 Rent parsonage2,600 Guest ministers remunerations

200 Advertising200 Bulletins350 Miscellaneous

$7,700 TOTAL

Notes:#1. As the number attending the worship services in-

creases, we expect increased collections and volun-tary regular contributions. The voluntary regular con-tributions are based on $80 per season for one and$160 for a couple residing in Florida in excess of five(5) weeks per season.

#2. With more ministers coming to Florida, we are bud-geting a considerably higher amount than last year forremuneration at the rate of $80 per Sunday.

#3. With increased activities other expenses will in-crease also.

The Treasurer:Mr. A. Vandergaag

3301 Cortez Ave. W.WINDMILL VILLAGE L16, BRADENTON, FLORIDA 34207 USA

orP.O. Box 2233, Smithers, BC V0J 2N0 CANADA


To those readers of Clarion whoare familiar with the Greek language,the meaning of the above word is quiteclear – dialogos means dialogue or con-versation. Others may have guessed itbecause they realize that many of ourEnglish words find their roots in other,older languages. To the members ofthe Carman congregation, however, itrefers to a specific dialogue about a spe-cific topic. You see, DIALOGOS is thename of the newsletter of the CanadianReformed Senior Housing Society Inc.Carman. Via this newsletter, the pro-motion committee of the society haskept members up-to-date on business ofthe society and recruited new mem-bers to help support a new initiative inthe province of Manitoba.

Before I tell you about this new ven-ture, let me tell you a bit of history aboutthe Canadian Reformed congregationat Carman. A little more than 46 yearsago, by no choice of their own, the Kuikfamily, consisting of 9 members, were

the first liberated people to move intothe Homewood (10 km. from Carman)area. They had planned to emigrateinto the Lethbridge, Alberta area, but theLord had other plans and the summerof 1950 saw them sweating in the sugarbeet fields of southern Manitoba. Bythe early summer of 1951, the numberof people meeting together twice onSundays to listen to the reading of ser-mons had grown to 36. This led to theinstitution of the Canadian ReformedChurch at Homewood on August 12,1951. The late Rev. J.T. van Popta ledthe worship services that day, ordainedoffice bearers and administered thesacrament of baptism. The congregationgrew and met for worship in severalplaces before they purchased their ownbuilding and built a parsonage in thenearby town of Carman. In the mean-time, Homewood had actually becomea prominent place on the Canadian Re-formed map as the first General Synodof 1954 as well as the second of 1958

were hosted by the members of thechurch there. By the fall of 1958, thank-ful to be in their own church building,the congregation welcomed Rev. Mul-der as their shepherd and teacher afterRev. Scholten moved to Orangeville.Rev. VanSpronsen came and went be-fore Rev. Geertsema became their min-ister. In September of 1973, DufferinChristian School opened its doors to 35eager pupils. Indeed, the Lord hadblessed the work of His people in Car-man. To His name alone be the glory.

Between 1973 and 1996 manymore changes have taken place. FirstRev. van R

Documents

Clarion · 2013. 9. 24. · 534 CLARION, NOVEMBER 29, 1996 A question In the College issue of Clarion it was mentioned that there is again a record number of students at the College