Editorial
Extracted from Ordained Servant vol. 4, no. 1 (January 1995)
It is my conviction that the need of the hour, in North America, is a united Reformed church of an ecumenical character. I say this, first of all, because we are so fragmented. There are still some who love the Reformed Confessions in denominations which no longer uphold those confessions corporately. And there are those who love the Reformed Confessions in various smaller denominations, separated from one another by their own history and traditions. We are, in other words, a scattered and divided remnant. And it seems rather obvious to me that we ought to seek, as never before, to come into some kind of organic unity.
It is for this reason that we include in this issue of Ordained Servant a review of some of the history of a unique denomination Reformed Churches of New Zealand. It is the only denomination that we know of that holds to both the Three Forms of Unity and The Westminster Confession of Faith. The reason for this unique experiment is interesting in itself. Dutch immigrants began to come to New Zealand after the war. They found the mainline Presbyterian Church to be hopelessly modernistic. But they did not want to just import something entirely foreign. To the contrary, they made it very clear in the new country they had chosen that if the Presbyterian Church would return to a faithful upholding of the Westminster Standards they in turn would become part of the Presbyterian Church. When there was no response to this challenge the Reformed Churches were organized and—from day one—serious attention was given to the Westminster Confession. It was, after careful study, adopted as a standard of equal authority with the Three Forms of Unity. And to this day the Reformed Churches of New Zealand have upheld all four standards. Was this easy? No. Was it always problem free? Again, no. How, then, did the New Zealand church work through these problems? The answer is: by a re-study and re-evaluation of the traditions from both streams of Reformed and Presbyterian history, and then honestly trying to choose what was most biblical. It was, and is, an exciting experiment. And it is our hope that something like this may yet take place in our North American context. Our thanks to the Rev. Jack Sawyer—who served in two congregations of the Reformed Churches of New Zealand over the past decade— for the fine summary of this history. This material was written for a projected commemorative volume to be published in New Zealand, and is used by permission.
* * * *
In the previous issue of Ordained Servant Jack J. Peterson ably defended his view of the proper fencing the Lord’s Table and we think he did it as well as anyone could. Nevertheless it has aroused a question in the mind of the editor that will not go away. Here it is: if the spoken word is not sufficient—by itself—as the means of fencing the Lord’s table for the members of the congregation, then how can it possibly be sufficient as the sole means for those who are not members of the congregation? There have been plenty of times when I would have wished that the word alone would bring the desired effect with delinquent members of a particular congregation that I served. But it did not. But then, when the Session backed up the spoken word with the other key of oversight and discipline, the desired effect was realized. Is this not the case? Is this not confirmed in your experience, as it has been in mine? Is it really possible, then, that when it comes to total strangers we can rely entirely on that key which, admittedly, is not sufficient by itself, in at least some cases, when dealing with our own church members? Admittedly, at first sight, the slogan “the power of the Word” is very impressive. Surely we all believe in the power of the Word. But my point is that since our Lord gave us keys (plural, not singular) I am driven to the conclusion that reliance upon the spoken Word as the sole means of fencing the Lord’s Table is inadequate. Am I missing something?* * * *
I would like to remind you office bearers of the OPC that contributions are needed from you for this publication. Have you written something that would benefit the whole church? If so we—(the editor and the sub-committee with direct oversight of this journal)—would appreciate your assistance. Your contribution does not need to be long. Indeed, the subcommittee is of the opinion that more brief articles are needed, and that we need a greater variety of subjects. As the fashion of this world changes—and who can deny that it does, at least in the technological sense?—we need freshly nuanced application of the unchanging principles of the word of God. When you do send us material it would save us work if you would send it on disk, either in Macintosh or IBM format. We can’t promise to use everything sent to us, but we do promise to give it prompt attention, and will return any material that you send if you will include a request for this when you send it. Please send it to the editor: G. I. Williamson, 119 Normal College Ave., Sheldon, IA 51201-1318. Thank you.