Issues of Interest

HISTORY OF THE FREE REFORMED CHURCHES

2010-11-20T20:43:00.000-05:00

Because this subject fits so well in this Blog dealing with the Free Reformed Churches I have asked and received permission from my son to publish the following:

William VanDoodewaard, "A transplanted church: the Netherlandic roots and development of the Free Reformed Churches of North America" in Canadian Journal of Netherlandic Studies XXVI (Fall 2005) 2:15-34.

(note: footnotes/references are found in the original published version)

A Transplanted Church:
The Netherlandic Roots and Development of
The Free Reformed Churches of North America

by William VanDoodewaard
Associate Professor of Church History
Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary
Grand Rapids, MI

Introduction

The history of Dutch Reformed denominations in North America dates back almost 400 years to the time when The Netherlands was a major sea-power with colonial ambition. In 1609 the explorer Henry Hudson was sent out by the Dutch to examine possibilities for a colony in the New World. Dutch colonization began soon afterwards with the formation of New Netherland under the banner of the Dutch West India Company. With the colony came the establishment of the first Dutch Reformed church in 1628 in the wilderness village of New Amsterdam. This small beginning of a viable Dutch community set in motion centuries of Dutch migration to North America, forming a transatlantic development of the various streams and factions of Dutch Calvinism.

The Canadian experience of Dutch influx would follow at a later time. Aside from a small number of immigrants to the Lunenberg, Nova Scotia area in the 1740’s and 1750’s, the main tide of Dutch immigration and denominational development came two hundred years later -- following World War II in the late 1940’s and 1950’s. These later arrivals reflected the intervening development of the church in the Netherlands, many now having a varied history of secession from the state church and ensuing union with or separation from other secession groups. Most of these immigrants settled into already established Christian Reformed Church congregations, some joined congregations of the Reformed Church in America, some existing Canadian Protestant denominations, while the remainder established new denominations corresponding to other Dutch Reformed denominations in the Netherlands.

One of the new presences in the late 1940’s and early 1950’s was a quickly developing association of independent Dutch Reformed congregations sharing similar theological convictions and seceder roots. In their formation they drew upon both the earlier American Dutch Reformed churches, and the great Dutch Reformed influx to Canada of the 1940’s and 1950’s. Representing an early seceder strain of Dutch Reformed theology and tradition, primarily found in the Christelijke Gereformeerde Kerken (CGK), they were not at home in either the Christian Reformed Church or the Reformed Church. In time these congregations would become the Free Reformed Churches of North America.

Netherlandic Roots

In order to accurately grasp the North American history of the Free Reformed churches as a transatlantic development it is necessary to outline their European origins. The roots are found in the Netherlands, where the denomination began in 1834 as a result of a seceding movement out of the state church - the Netherlands Reformed Church. This was the first movement of exodus from the state church of the Netherlands during the post-Reformation period, though it represented a long line of dissent within the state church.

During the late 17th century, it was increasingly common for small groups of the pious, called ‘conventicles’, to meet for spiritual encouragement and prayer. These meetings were usually held during the week by those who felt the Dutch state church was becoming increasingly nominal and the preaching lifeless and abstract. Central to these groups was a focus on themes of human inability and sin, the centrality of the person and work of Christ in salvation, and the “vital, personal realization of such doctrines through heartfelt experience.” This movement of godly piety, often termed the Dutch Second Reformation, focused not only on heart religion, but also on the crucial importance of orthodox doctrine faithful to Scripture and the heritage of the Reformation.

In some congregations the conventicle movement soon encompassed the entire church, in others it remained “a church within a church.” Coexistence was maintained within the Dutch state church, despite increasing divergence. The general belief was that church members should strive to promote a return to orthodoxy within the established church. The immediate impetus for secession came as the two diverging streams of the state church – liberal vs. pietistic – came to a head in a local situation.

In December of 1833, Hendrik DeCock, a fiery and popular evangelical preacher in Ulrum, Groningen was barred from preaching for challenging the regnant enlightenment ideology of the church. Soon after, the congregation was barred from use of the church building, This led to a coalition of sympathetic ministers and church members signing the Act of Separation or Return on October 14, 1834, outlining the reasons for secession – freedom of conscience in worship and the need to return to the Reformed confessionalism, liturgy, and worship expressed by the Synod of Dordt.

Despite persecution the secession movement spread quickly across the Netherlands. Seceder delegates meeting in early synods soon realized the relative isolation of various churches and regions, due in part to the absence of any national synod in the Netherlands for over 200 years, meant different emphases in doctrine and practice had developed. These differences would lead to divisions forming different seceder denominations from the 1834 secession, the mainstream of which, known as the Separated Churches, became the Christelijke Gereformeerde Kerken (CGK). However, these differences would also remain within both the CGK and the Free Reformed Churches in North America, at times creating renewed tensions and conflict.
Two main streams of difference during this 19th century period were found between the Drenthe faction and the Gelderland faction. The Drenthe faction was steeped in the tradition of the Dutch Second Reformation, known for stern sobriety with ascetic tendencies, emphasized the function of the law as preparation for the gospel, distinguished between the presentation of the gospel and the offer of grace, and stressed the necessity of the development of conviction of sin prior to conversion. Hand in hand with this came a strong emphasis on the sovereignty of God in election. The preaching of the Drenthe men, of which Hendrik de Cock was a key representative, stressed an elaborate classification of hearers, with separate applications for the various categories.

The Gelderland faction in contrast was more oriented to Calvin’s theology and the heritage of the Reformation rather than primarily the pietism of the Dutch Second Reformation. Prominent representatives included H.P Scholte (prior to his move to America), and A. Brummelkamp, a “moderate Calvinist of cheerful and sunny disposition.” Preachers of this school emphasized the free offer of the gospel, and numbered the Erskines and Marrow men among their favorite authors. The Gelderland faction preachers offered Christ to sinners as sinners, without qualifications. No elaborate classification of hearers was followed, rather it was seen that there were only two categories: believers and unbelievers.

These differences in theology between the Drenthe faction and the Gelderland faction were reflective of differing views of church and covenant. De Cock and the Drenthe faction viewed as legitimate two kinds of church membership: communicant members, and adult baptized but non-communicant members. Baptized but non-communicant members should have their children baptized. The Drenthe faction, in line with their view of the church as a mixed body of believers and unbelievers, strongly stressed the requirements for worthy partaking of the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, warning against the dangers of “easy believism.”
In contrast, the Gelderland faction, as represented by H. P. Scholte and Antonie Brummelkamp, argued that while the church visible and invisible are not the same, they ought to be. The church was to be the body of true believers only, and all confessing members should partake of the Lord’s Supper. There is to be only one kind of membership in the church – those who confess Christ, they argued, and only the children of confessing members may be baptized. Adult baptized members must be urged to make confession of faith. Confessing members who abstain from the Lord’s Supper should be brought under the discipline of the church. The Gelderland faction argued that this was the biblically ordained model of the New Testament church. The CGK would continue to be characterized by a roughly equal representation of both factions, while the Gereformeerde Gemeenten (GG) would follow more definitively in the line of the Drenthe faction.

The final major event of church history in the Netherlands influential to the development of the Free Reformed Churches in North America was the 1886 secession movement out of the Dutch state church led by Abraham Kuyper. This exodus, known as the Doleantie, was once again a confessional movement, and a rejection of state hierarchy. However, its key leaders, especially Kuyper, viewed the earlier secession of 1834 as sinful, arguing that it was premature and unjustified, as the state church even now was not false, but rather “sick.” A union movement in 1892 sought to draw the earlier CGK seceders into a unified secession church with the Doleantie, and succeeded in initially attracting the majority of the CGK into what became the Gereformeerde Kerken (GK). However, a minority continued separately citing concern with Kuyper’s theological direction in areas of covenant, common grace, and culture. The chief fear was that the teaching of Kuyper on covenant and election would lead to the view that the visible church was the elect, and as a result preaching would become focused primarily on sanctification leading to a nominal church. During the following two decades a large number of CGK congregations which had joined the union into the GK returned to the CGK ensuring its continued history and influence as one of the main Reformed seceder denominations in the Netherlands.

The Early American Immigrants - The 1900’s to 1940’s

The North American beginnings of the Free Reformed denomination date back to the 1920’s when a congregation of the Netherlands Reformed Congregations deposed its minister in Clifton, New Jersey. Part of the congregation did not accept the deposal and began an independent congregation on November 7, 1921 around this minister which they called the “Free Reformed Church.” The congregation was made up of Dutch immigrants, many of whom had arrived in New Jersey (a historic area of Dutch settlement dating back to the New Netherlands of the early 1600’s) around the turn of the century and had belonged to the GG in the Netherlands. As a result, on arrival in America they formed their own Netherlands Reformed Congregations, rather than joining the RCA or CRC, neither of which were compatible with their ‘Drenthe faction’ theology.

Further to the west, in Michigan, Dutch settlement had begun in the Grand Rapids area under the leadership of Albertus VanRaalte in 1846-47. Here as well around the turn of the century several Netherlands Reformed Congregations were founded by Dutch immigrants. In 1923, the Ottawa Avenue Church of the Netherlands Reformed Congregations was founded, made up of members from the others who favored the use of English in the church services. They called a teaching elder from New Jersey, James Wielhouwer, to pastor them. Very quickly controversy ensued, and Wielhouwer along with twelve families left to establish another congregation which would take the name Free Reformed. Wielhouwer was ordained as pastor of this congregation by another independent Reformed congregation’s pastor, Rev. Locker of Kalamazoo, Michigan.
In late 1943 to early 1944 a second group left the Ottawa Avenue Netherlands Reformed Congregation due to its reticence to call a minister in its vacancy. Rev. Benjamin Densel, at this time pastor of the Free Reformed Church of Clifton, NJ, met with this second group on a visit to Grand Rapids in November, 1943. Soon afterwards the consistory of the Clifton congregation agreed to a request by the group to supervise their institution as a congregation, and an organizational meeting was held on June 28, 1944. This second group took the name Rehoboth Reformed Church. On November 1, 1944 the two groups (Free and Rehoboth) united under the name of the latter congregation.

The newly united congregation began the search for a pastor, leading to contact with Rev. C. Smits, a pastor of the Christlelijke Gereformeerde Kerken (CGK) in the Netherlands. Despite not making a permanent move to America, Smits came for two preaching stays – one in 1946, the other in 1947. Through him the congregation began its correspondence with the CGK, establishing an official corresponding relationship in 1947, and broadening its search for a pastor in this Dutch denomination. In 1948 a call was extended to, and accepted by Rev. G. Zijderveld of the CGK.

Schism, Expansion, and New Connections –The 1950’s

The late 1940’s and the following decade of the 1950’s marked a period of substantial migration from the Netherlands to Canada. The postwar period would see nearly 200,000 Dutch emigrants moving to Canada, the nation from which their chief liberators had come. Canada was seen as a land of economic opportunity, peace, freedom, and greater social conservatism than the Netherlands. For some, the threat of Soviet expansion was a factor in the journey to Canada. Canada was seen as the land of better opportunity and a brighter future.
In the Netherlands the CGK initially encouraged its emigrating members to affiliate with the CRC in Canada. However as the CGK immigrants came to Canada they soon realized that the differences with the GK (CRC) in the Netherlands carried over to their new home, despite a somewhat different history of the CRC in America. This was especially true as many of the GK immigrants to Canada were strongly Kuyperian in their covenant theology.

Among the Dutch immigrants immediately following World War II came the family of Jetse Hamstra arriving in the area of Dundas, Ontario in 1948. Jetse Hamstra had served as an exhorting elder in the CGK in Veenwouden, Friesland , the Netherlands. In the spring of 1950 Hamstra was invited to Grand Rapids to the Rehoboth Reformed Church (which in the meantime had been renamed Rehoboth Old Christian Reformed Church to better identify with the CGK in the Netherlands , while at the same time distinguishing itself from the Christian Reformed Churches of North America). He was interviewed to discuss the possibility of working among the growing numbers of Dutch immigrants in Canada, with the result that he was given official support for the task. A short time later, in April 1950 an Old Christian Reformed Church was instituted at West Flamborough (Dundas), Ontario, meeting in the Presbyterian Church in Canada at Christie’s Corners.

Around the same time, during the summer of 1950, the CGK in the Netherlands sent Rev. Jacob Tamminga, “a prominent minister in the Netherlands – serving a large congregation” on a fact finding and preaching mission to CGK immigrants in Canada and the USA. He found that CGK immigrants were dissatisfied with existing church options, missing the experiential preaching they were accustomed to in the Netherlands. Groups were beginning to organize, at first holding worship services in private homes. In the year following his return to the Netherlands, a church was instituted in Chatham, Ontario, on April 24, 1951. Tamminga, seeing the need for preaching ministry and organizational leadership in Canada, accepted their call to him as pastor and was installed on August 23, 1951.

Church formation now began in earnest. However with the growth came an early clash and division. In 1951 an Old Christian Reformed Church was instituted in Smithville under the lead of Jetse Hamstra and the Dundas consistory. In 1952, under the leadership of Jacob Tamminga and the Chatham consistory a congregation was formed in St.Thomas. The five congregations of Grand Rapids, Dundas, Smithville, Chatham and St. Thomas together formed a classis association of churches in full correspondence with the CGK in the Netherlands. Despite the common ties, there were from inception two distinct theological roots of the churches – Grand Rapids, Dundas, and Smithville with a closer affinity to the Drenthe faction theology, shown in both the Grand Rapids roots in the Netherlands Reformed Congregations, and the leadership G. Zijderveld and of Jetse Hamstra, while Chatham and St.Thomas were more reflective of the Gelderland faction, with close ties to the mainstream of the CGK.

Once instituted, St.Thomas sought to call CGK pastors reflecting their roots and ties in the Netherlands. A call was first extended to J.H. Velema arousing the reaction of Grand Rapids, with the support of Dundas, and Smithville. Grand Rapids argued that as “mother” church in North America it should have deciding authority over the calling of pastors by new congregations. At a meeting on April 22, 1953, the classis deposed the consistory of St.Thomas from office, a move not well received by St.Thomas and Chatham. These events split the fledgling denomination in two: the “Old Christian Reformed Church” (Grand Rapids, Dundas, Smithville) and the “Free Christian Reformed Church” (Chatham and St.Thomas).
During the remainder of the decade, the Old Christian Reformed remained largely static while the Free Christian Reformed denomination continued to organize new congregations at a rapid pace. In 1953, a group of ten people came together to form the Free Christian Reformed Church of Hamilton. A year later, in 1954, two Free Christian Reformed congregations were established, one in Toronto and one in Mitchell, Ontario. The following year, in 1955 a congregation was instituted in Aldegrove, B.C., made up of families who had heard of the Free Christian Reformed Church in Ontario. In 1958 a Free Christian Reformed Church was instituted in London, Ontario, made up of members who had belonged to the St.Thomas congregation.

The 1950’s saw several new pastors coming to the two denominations. The Old Christian Reformed Church of Grand Rapids called Rev. C. Smits, who stayed for a two year period, prior to returning to the Netherlands. In 1954 Smits ordained and installed Jetse Hamstra of Dundas as the pastor of that congregation. After Smits departure the Grand Rapids congregation turned to a number of English preachers during the period 1956-1959 to supply their pulpit. Contact was made with the Free Church of Scotland and Westminster Theological Seminary. Rev. J. MacSween of the Free Church in Toronto, and Rev. M. MacRitchie of the Free Church in Detroit both preached in the congregation, as did Dr. William Young, Dr. David Freeman, Prof. John Murray, and Terence Atkinson -- at the time a student at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia. Under the latter’s preaching in 1956-57 revival broke out in the Grand Rapids congregation.

The same years marked the arrival of a number of CGK pastors called by the newly formed Free Christian Reformed congregations in Ontario. Rev. J. Overduin left Amelo, the Netherlands for St.Thomas, Ontario in 1955. Rev. W.F. Laman left Rotterdam for Hamilton, Ontario in 1956, and Rev. C. Noordegraaf left s’Gravendeel, the Netherlands for Chatham, Ontario in 1958. The arrival of these pastors further solidified the transatlantic connection between the CGK and the Free Christian Reformed Churches in Canada.

Reunion, Growth and Missions – The 1960’s and 1970’s

In 1960 the division ended between the Old and Free Christian Reformed Churches. The reunification process began with Grand Rapids calling J. Tamminga to pastor them, which he accepted in September 1960. A month later, on October 13, 1960 a combined classis meeting of the Old and Free Christian Reformed Churches (with the exception of the Old Christian Reformed Church of Dundas – which remained apart) was held at which the “deposing of the consistory of the St.Thomas Free Reformed Church by the classis of the Old Christian Reformed Church was acknowledged to be an error.”

Half a year after the reunion, in April 1961, the first Synod of the Free and Old Christian Reformed Churches was held. After watching the developments of the new denomination, the independent Free Reformed Church of Clifton, New Jersey joined in 1965. Synod records of 1968 indicate that the Old Christian Reformed congregation of Artesia, California, “has been closed”, its membership having declined after the period of vacancy following the departure of G. Zijderveld to the Netherlands. Other western congregations such as Aldegrove and Pitt Meadows maintain a steady existence during this period, while two Alberta congregations appear at Red Deer and Edmonton for a time, but are noted in 1967 as no longer being in the denomination. On October 11, 1967, the West Flamborough (Dundas) Old Christian Reformed congregation rejoined the denomination, ending the schism, with “the first presence of Rev. Hamstra” noted in classis minutes.

While some ebb and flow remained, the denomination was at this point firmly established on the Canadian scene. Congregational life, especially the development of men’s and ladies’ societies, catechetical classes, and young peoples societies was in evidence from the earliest days of each congregation, the new denomination transplanting an instant microcosm of church life in the Netherlands. Statistical records indicate that, aside from occasions of theological controversy and schism within congregations, growth during the 1960’s and 1970’s remained steady, though overwhelmingly by natural increase.

These two decades also saw the development for the first time of a pastorate trained in North America. In 1967 A. Stehouwer was accepted as a ministry candidate, while Cornelius Pronk, a graduate of Calvin Theological Seminary, was ordained at Aldegrove, B.C. in 1968. In 1971 L.W. Bilkes was examined and accepted as a candidate for the ministry, while in 1972 a colloquim doctum was held for G. Hamstra, a graduate of Westminster Theological Seminary, and pastor of the Presbyterian Reformed Church in Toronto, who had accepted a call to the congregation of Dundas, Ontario. The Synod records of 1974 indicate that Carl Schouls and Pieter VanderMeyden were accepted as students, and sent to the Protestant Reformed Theological Seminary in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Four years later, in 1977, they were accepted as candidates for the pastoral ministry in the churches. Theocharis Joannides, a Greek immigrant, with English connections, was accepted as a student for the ministry in 1978. While the men were trained in North America, the denomination would establish a pattern of using selected Reformed seminaries, along with the guidance of a Theological Education committee in their development, rather than establishing a denominational seminary.

The 1970’s also mark other denominational developments: classical and synodical minutes were published fully in English for the first time in 1970. The Messenger an official denominational magazine begun in the 1960’s, became well established as a means of denominational communication and education. Following the The Messenger came the publishing of the denominational Yearbook in 1974, along with the unofficial Youth Messenger published by the Young Peoples League, all of which aided in development of a North American denominational identity.

A 1974 synodical decision decreed the King James Version was the sole version to be used in the life of the church, a decision which would become grounds for heated debate in the following decades. The tradition of exclusive psalmody, a heritage dating to the 1834 secession’s return to the decisions of the Synod of Dordt 1618-19 would continue unchanged. In many ways, the 1970’s proved to be a decade of solidification and tightening of identity – perhaps best identified in the Acts of Synod 1974, which included the new denominational name, Free Reformed Church of North America, which would be changed, with some struggle, to the Free Reformed Churches of North America in 1993.

The 1970’s also marked the beginnings of denominational missionary endeavor. The late 1960’s had seen a mission work in Spain, initiated by Grand Rapids in the 1950’s, come to an end after the remaining missionary, David Estrada came to reject paedo-baptism. However, new opportunity arose in 1975 as the denomination agreed to send Rev. M. Rebel to Kwa Ndebele and Venda in South Africa. This work flourished, despite increasing vagaries and loss of communication with Rev. Rebel. Several native South Africans, Sethi Masango, Solomon Molokombe, and S.M. Mugeri, were trained and took over leadership roles in Venda. Miss Mary Overduin, a medical nurse sent out by the Free Reformed Churches would work in Kwa Ndebele and Venda for some seventeen and a half years, until increasing violence and unrest forced the white mission workers to leave what was by then a well-established work.

Challenge and Change – The 1980’s, 1990’s and beyond

The 1980’s and 1990’s marked a period of challenge and change for the Free Reformed Churches of North America. Growth continued both by natural increase, and by influx from other Dutch Reformed denominations, due to divisions over liberalizing tendencies in the Reformed Church in America, Christian Reformed Churches, and in the Netherlands Reformed Congregations. These factors led to the beginning of new congregations: Brantford, Ontario (1996), Chilliwack, British Columbia (1991), Monarch, Alberta (2000), Wellandport, Ontario (2002), and St.George, Ontario. New urban mission congregations were also begun in Seattle, Washington (1996) and Cowichan Valley, British Columbia (2000). There were also difficult church splits which were allowed to spawn new congregations: Langley, British Columbia (1980) and Bornholm, Ontario (2003).

One example of the continuing historical tensions in the denomination during the 1980’s and 1990’s was that Synod floor saw strong concern and debate over committee voting requirements for the acceptance of theological students. This was noted both in minutes and overtures from congregations, one of which stated “over a period of time 3 men could have significant impact on the kind of men who are allowed to become ministers in our denomination [due to the need for a 75% majority in a committee of ten].” The committee itself took the bold step of making the following comment in its report “since our committee is made up of 10 members, this means that 8 out of 10 votes are needed for acceptance. Three times we have had to reject an applicant who was deemed acceptable by 7 of your deputies. Your committee has struggled with this and is obviously not of one mind.” While the moderate side of the denomination pushed for change in this area, the conservative side pushed for closer ties with the new Heritage Netherlands Reformed denomination, and especially the use of Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary.

Despite the continuing dissensions, the 1990’s also witnessed a new foreign mission which would prove to be a glowing chapter in the missionary history of the Free Reformed Churches. Beginning in the late 1980’s a work was established in Cubulco, Guatemala among Achi Indians. A missionary, Ken Herfst, was sent in 1991, along with a medical and linguistic team. The group was joined in 1992 by Mary Overduin, the veteran missionary worker from South Africa. The tireless trekking and preaching of Herfst through mountains and aldeas, along with relief work and teaching, would lead within a decade to the establishment of a substantial and growing congregation in Cubulco as well as five smaller remote congregations. The work would result in development of lay pastorate, elders, deacons, theology students, and an Achi Bible translation and psalmbook in progress.

Conclusion

The denomination called the Free Reformed Churches of North America has been firmly established during the past century in North America and particularly in Canada, though in many ways, being an ethnic body, it remains isolated from both Canadian society and surrounding denominations. With a rich Reformed heritage, unswerving commitment to its historic confessional orthodoxy, and stability in biblical worship, it has much to offer. In some local regions where Free Reformed Churches are found, former Free Reformed members are filling various other Presbyterian, Reformed and evangelical churches. This results partly from anglicization, but also in part from a history of dissension and compromise traceable in part to the dual Netherlandic streams of origin of this denomination. Yet positive growth is attested to, as this denomination is the nurtuting ground for a growing and prosperous missionary movement, a growing number of congregations with a history of stability, continued natural increase and retention of youth, spiritual growth, increasingly active ministry in Canadian communities, along with the export of able Reformed leaders to other North American denominations, where their service to Christ has been exemplary in life and doctrine.

Bibliography
Beeke, Joel R. The Quest for Full Assurance: The Legacy of Calvin and His Successors. Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth, 1999.

Bilkes, Gerald M. “The Word of God as the ‘Seed of Regeneration.’” Free Reformed Theological Journal 3 (Fall, 1998): 7-26.

Bratt, James D. Dutch Calvinism in Modern America: A History of a Conservative Subculture. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984.

Church Order of the Free Reformed Churches of North America. St.Thomas: Free Reformed Publications, 2000.

DeJong, Gerald F. The Dutch Reformed Church in the American Colonies. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978.

Free Reformed Classis Minutes 1956-1961. St.Thomas: Free Reformed Publications, 2000.

Free Reformed Synodical and Classical Decisions 1961 - 1974. St. Thomas: Free Reformed Publications, 2000.

Free Reformed Acts of Synod 1968 - 1999. St.Thomas: Free Reformed Publications, 2000.

Gelderbloom, I. “Twenty-fifth Anniversary of the London Free Reformed Church - Brief History” in Yearbook of the Free Reformed Church of North America 1983. Grand Rapids: Yearbook Committee, 1983.

Groeneweg, Pieter L. To God Be Praise: Report of the First 25 Years of the Free Christian Reformed Church of St.Thomas Ontario 1952-1977. [ca. 1977]

Introducing the Free Reformed Churches of North America. St.Thomas: Free Reformed Publications, 1996.

Kersten, G.H. Reformed Dogmatics: A Systematic Treatment of Reformed Doctrine. Grand Rapids: Netherlands Reformed Book and Publishing Committee, 1980.

Langbroek, G. “Brief History of the Church of Aldergrove, B.C.” in 1975 Yearbook of the Free Reformed Churches of North America. Grand Rapids: Yearbook Committee, 1975.

Langerak, Robert Jr. “Brief History of the Old Christian Reformed Church of Grand Rapids, Michigan” in 1974 Yearbook of the Free and Old Christian Reformed Churches of Canada and the United States. Grand Rapids: Yearbook Committee, 1974.

Postma, M. “Twenty-fifth Anniversary of the Vineland Free Reformed Church” in Yearbook of the Free Reformed Church of North America 1984. Grand Rapids: Yearbook Committee, 1984.

Pronk, Cornelius. “Experimental Preaching: How Relevant is it Today?” in 1974 Yearbook of the Free and Old Christian Reformed Churches of Canada and the United States. Grand Rapids: Yearbook Committee, 1974.

Pronk, Cornelius. “In Memoriam: Rev. J. Tamminga June 10, 1907-October 9, 1984” in 1985 Yearbook of the Free Reformed Church of North America. Grand Rapids: Yearbook Committee, 1985.

Schouls, Carl A. “Origins and Development of the Free Reformed Churches.” The Messenger vol. xlviii no.7 (July/August 2001): 11-12.

Schouls, Carl A. 1892-1992. St.Thomas: Free Reformed Publications, 1992.

Stehouwer, A. “1973 in Retrospect” in 1974 Yearbook of the Free and Old Christian Reformed Churches of Canada and the United States. Grand Rapids: Yearbook Committee, 1974.

Tanis, James R. Dutch Calvinistic Pietism in the Middle Colonies. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1967.

VanderMeyden, Pieter. “Free Reformed Church, Grand Rapids, Michigan 1944-1994” in Yearbook of the Free Reformed Church of North America 1994. Chilliwack, BC: Yearbook Committee, 1994.

VanderMeyden, Pieter. “Preaching as the Means of Grace.” Free Reformed Theological Journal 3 (Fall, 1998): 7-26.

Velema, J.H. Wie Zijn Wij? Plaats Van - Informatie Over - Kijk Op - De Christelijke Gereformeerde Kerken. Amsterdam: Buiten & Schipperheijn, 1992.

Velema, W.H. “The Place of Experience in the Preaching.” Free Reformed Theological Journal 5 (Fall, 2001): 32-60.

Wells, David F., ed. Reformed Theology in America: A History of Its Modern Development. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1997.

The appendixes are available in the original publication.

The Marrow of the Gospel

2010-11-20T20:41:00.000-05:00

Bill VanDoodewaard - Marrow Lecture from Puritan Reformed on Vimeo.

Peace with God through the blood of Jesus.

2010-07-18T20:07:00.000-04:00

William Reid; London England, 1860

I. FORGIVENESS OF SINS THROUGH THE BLOOD OF JESUS

The God of love, dear reader, in His written Word, gives an account of the rich mercy He has provided for the guilty, and tells you that you may be saved. His Word assures you that you may be saved from guilt, sin, and wrath. And that Word also informs you that your salvation depends not on anything you may do, but on what God has already done. Good news about God has reached our world, and in believing these glad tidings, you shall be saved.

This is the good news,

“God commends His love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us,” (ROM 5:8).
“For God so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life,” ().
“Christ died for the ungodly,” (ROM ).
“He has made Him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him,” ().

If, by simply believing the good news about what God through Christ has done for sinners, we become “partakers of Christ” (), and are “accepted in the Beloved,” (), it will become matter of personal consciousness and spiritual joy that “we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins according to the riches of His grace,” (). “Be it known unto you therefore, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins; and by Him all that believe are justified from all things,” ().

I ask you to settle it in your mind that “forgiveness of sins” () lies at the very threshold of the Christian life. It is a blessing needed and obtainable now. You must have forgiveness, or perish for ever; you must have it now, or you cannot have peace.

It is surely a delightful thought that you may have the guilt of all your past sins blotted out at once and for ever! God pardons freely and at once. He does not need any preparation on your part in order to pardon. One who knew the blessedness of enjoying His pardoning mercy testifies:
“If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness;” and this testimony was given on the ground of what he had affirmed in the same letter, that “the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin,” ().

He does not say: After you have repented more thoroughly, after you have spent days and weeks in agonizing prayer, after you become more thoroughly instructed in divine things, and after you pass through years of “trouble and sorrow,” then you may dare to hope for forgiveness. No; but, knowing that Christ died to put away sin, you are allowed to, by simply taking the place of a sinner, and accepting of Jesus as your Savior, to believe that, through the all-perfect merits of Christ, you are pardoned that very moment, and enjoy perfect peace with God; for God “justifies the ungodly,” (ROM ).

Peace with God through the forgiveness of all your sins may be obtained at any moment, seeing that you do not have to repent for it, work for it, or wait for it, but simply believe what God says regarding Christ “having made peace by the blood of His cross,” (). “And being justified freely by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,” (ROM )—and being fully satisfied that your sin has been forgiven you in a righteous way, being put away by “the precious blood of Christ,” ()—God being “well pleased for His righteousness’ sake,” ()—“just, and the justifier of him that believes in Jesus,” (ROM )—“peace that passes all understanding” () will spring up spontaneously within your soul, like the fresh, flowing current of a continuous fountain.

For the pardon of your sins, there is no time to be lost, for “the Holy Spirit says, Today,” (); and if you now refuse to listen, and die in your sins before tomorrow’s sun rises, you would inevitably perish eternally, notwithstanding your conviction of sin, and anxieties of soul; for Jesus Himself assures us that “he that believes not shall be damned,” ().

Besides, you can do nothing that will be helpful to yourself, or well pleasing to God, until you have obtained the forgiveness of your sins. And as pardon of sin is the first thing that you feel in need of, so it is the first thing which is presented by the God of love for your acceptance; for God is still to be found “in Christ reconciling sinners unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them,” ().

Also, you will have your whole life and character affected in a most striking way by the scripturalness or unscripturalness of the views you now entertain of “the God of all grace,” (), and the heartiness or hesitance with which you embrace His pardoning mercy.

The most useful life must ever be that which is firmly based on a knowledge of Christ crucified as the sole ground of acceptance with God, and on being justified, and having peace “through our Lord Jesus Christ who died for us,” (). It will be found that those who do most for God and their fellow-sinners are such as he. Rev. Robert M’Cheyne, who knew himself to be forgiven by God and safe for eternity—of whom his biographer says, that “he walked calmly in almost unbroken fellowship with the FATHER and the SON”; and who himself thus describes his own undoubted conversion in the only record he has left of it:—

“When free grace awoke me, by light from on high,
Then legal fears shook me, I trembled to die;
No refuge, no safety in self could I see—
The Lord our Righteousness (Jehovah Tsidkenu) (5) my Savior must be.
“My terrors all vanish’d before the sweet name,
My guilty fears banish’d, with boldness I came
To drink at the Fountain, life-giving and free—
The Lord our Righteousness (Jehovah Tsidkenu) is all things to me.”

II. HOW OUR SINS ARE TAKEN AWAY BY THE BLOOD OF JESUS

There is every reason why you should now intelligently and believingly behold the Lamb of God, “which takes away the sin of the world,” (). You are not directed in this passage to a Savior who has already “taken away the sin of the world,” but to Him who “takes away the sin of the world.” The meaning plainly is, that Jesus is the God-appointed Taker-away of sin for the world. We find him asserting this, when He says, “The Son of man has power on earth to forgive sins,” (); “All power” (or authority) “is given me in heaven and on earth,” (). Jesus is the only and the all-sufficient, as He is the authorized, Taker-away of sin, for the world at large. The whole world is brought in guilty before God, “for all have sinned,” (ROM ); and the true gospel of God is, that when any one belonging to our sinful world feels his sin to be oppressive, and comes straight to “the Lamb of God” with it, and frankly acknowledges it, and tells out his anxieties regarding it, and his desire to get rid of it, he will find that Jesus has both the power and the will to take it away; and on seeing it removed from him by “the blood of His cross,” (), “as far as the east is from the west,” (), he will be enabled to sing with a grateful heart and “joyful lips:”—

“I lay my sins on Jesus,
The spotless Lamb of God;
He bears them all, and frees us,
From the accursed load.”

You can never make an atonement for your past sins, nor by personal obedience receive the inheritance of glory; but Jesus is willing to take away all your sins, and to give you His own title to the glorious kingdom, if you will only consent to entrust Him alone with your salvation.
“Well,” you may perhaps resolve, “I will go to Him, and cast myself upon His mercy, and if I perish, I perish.” Ah, but you need not go to Him in that spirit, for it throws a doubt upon the all-sufficiency of His completed atonement for sin, and His perfect, spotless life of obedience.

Jesus Himself says, “God so loved the world, that He gave His only-begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life,” (). These being the “true sayings of God,” (), where, my friend, is there the least cause for you saying, with hesitancy and doubt, “If I perish, I perish?” (). The proper thought you ought to have in reference to the glorious Gospel is this—God has so loved the world as to give His only-begotten Son to die for sinners, and He assures me that if I, a perishing sinner, believe in Him, I shall not perish, but have everlasting life; I believe His Word, and reckon that if He gave His Son to die for us when we were yet sinners, He will with Him also freely give all such things as pardon and purity, grace and glory; and if, in accordance with His own gracious invitation, I rest my soul upon His manifested love in Christ Jesus, I believe that it will be as impossible for me to perish, as for God to change His nature, or to cancel the word of grace and truth, that the “blood of Jesus Christ, His Son, cleanses us from all sin,” ().
God the Father loved sinners so much as to send Jesus to die for them. Jesus loved sinners so much as to lay down His life for their redemption. The Holy Spirit loved sinners so much that he has written a record of God’s manifested love to them in Jesus Christ, and He Himself has come down in person, to reveal that love to their souls, that they may be saved.

If you, O anxious one, will now agree to God’s method of transferring all that Divine justice demands of you to Jesus, “who was made of a woman, made under the law,” who perfectly obeyed and pleased the Father in His holy life, and in death endured and exhausted the penalty due to sin, you will obtain pardon, peace, grace, and holiness; the full tide of the love of God, which passes knowledge, will flow into your soul, and, in the spirit of adoption, you will cry, “Abba, Father,” (), feel the constraining influence of the love of Christ, and live to the glory of “Him who died for us and rose again.”

That I may make the method of a sinner’s salvation so “plain, that he that reads it” () may have his mind’s eye so full of its meaning, “that he may run” at once to Jesus Christ, as his Divine sinbearer, I will present the following illustration:—

While standing one day on the platform of the Toronto Station of the CPR, I saw a carriage with a sign on it stating that it ran all the way from Toronto to Edmonton. The doors open, and a few individuals were entering. They looked for this particular train as soon as they had passed through the ticket-office, and on seeing “Edmonton” on it, they carried in their luggage and sat down, ready to travel. Having bought tickets, and satisfied themselves that they were in the right train, they were relaxed and confident that they would soon be on their way to Edmonton. I did not see any one of them coming out of the train, and running about in a state of excitement, calling to those around them, “Am I on the right train? Am I on the right train?”
Nor did I see any one refusing to enter, because the train provided for only a limited number of seats. There might be 1,000,000 inhabitants in and around the city; but still there was not one who talked of it as absurd to provide accommodation for only three-hundred people on the train, for experience taught that this was sufficient. Trains leave the city continually all day, and it is found that one train for Edmonton daily is quite sufficient. On the particular day to which I now refer, I noticed that so ample was the accommodation, that one of the passengers had a whole compartment to himself. The carriage is for the whole city, but carries only as many as come.

God, in His infinite wisdom, has made provision of a similar kind for our lost world. He has provided a train of grace to carry as many of its inhabitants to heaven, the great metropolis of the universe, as are willing to avail themselves of His gracious provision.

When we call you by the preaching of the gospel, the meaning is, that all who will may come, and passing through the ticket-office of justification by faith alone, seat themselves in a train marked, “From Guilt to Glory.” Whenever you hear the free and general offer of salvation, you need not stand revolving the question in your own mind, “Is it for me?”—for just as the railway carries all who comply with their printed regulations, irrespective of moral character, so if you come to the station of grace at the advertised time, which is “now,”—for “Behold now is the accepted time,” (),—you will find the train of salvation ready; and the only regulation to be complied with by you, in order to board it, is that you consent to let the Lord Jesus Christ charge Himself with paying for your seat,—which cannot surely be anything but an easy and desirable arrangement, seeing you have no means of paying for yourself.

Now if you came to the railway-station with no money in your pocket, and were running to catch a train about to leave, because you wanted to receive a valuable inheritance left to you by a friend; and if you would meet a kind gentleman at the ticket-office, who offered, “I will pay your fare for you,” you would not feel anything but thankfulness to this stranger.

It is not an easy matter for you, coming to the station of mercy, to submit to the regulation of the gospel, to let Jesus pay your fare for the train of grace, that you may take your seat with confidence, and be carried along the new and living way to everlasting glory?

If we want to know the gospel and be saved, we must know Jesus as our Sin bearer; for Christ crucified is the sum and the richness of the gospel. Paul was so taken with Jesus that nothing sweeter than Jesus could drop from his pen and lips. It is observed that he has quoted the precious name of JESUS five hundred times in his epistles.
“Jesus” was his constant subject of meditation, and out of the good treasure of the heart his mouth spoke and his pen wrote. He felt that Christ was made of God unto him “wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption,” (), and glorying in the Lord and in His cross, he determined not to know anything among those to whom he preached and wrote, “save Jesus Christ and Him crucified,” (). That faith which is not built on a dying Christ is but a perilous dream: God awaken all from it that are in it!

“Christ alone is our salvation—
Christ the rock on which we stand;
Other than this sure foundation,
Will be found but sinking sand.
Christ, His Cross and resurrection,
Is alone the sinner’s plea;
At the throne of God’s perfection,
Nothing else can set him free.
“We have all things, Christ possessing;
Life eternal, second birth;
Present pardon, peace, and blessing,
While we tarry here on earth;
And by faith’s anticipation,
Foretastes of the joy above,
Freely given us with salvation,
By the Father in His love.
“When we perfect joy shall enter,
‘Tis in Him our bliss will rise;
He’s the essence, soul, and centre,
Of the glory in the skies:
In redemption’s wondrous story,
(Plann’d before our parents’ fall),
From the Cross unto the Glory,
Jesus Christ is all in all.”

III. THE BLOOD OF JESUS, NOT CONVICTION OF SIN, IS THE FOUNDATION OF OUR PEACE AND JOY

If the Holy Spirit is awakening you to a true apprehension of your danger as a rebel against God’s authority,—a guilty, polluted, hell-deserving sinner,—you must be in a deeply anxious state of mind, and questions as these must be ever present with you:—

“What must I do to be saved?
What is the true ground of a sinner’s peace with God?
What am I to believe in order to be saved?”

Well, in so far as laying the foundation of your reconciliation is concerned, I need to tell you that you have nothing to do; for the Almighty Surety of sinners said on Calvary, “It is finished,” (). Jesus has done all that the Holy Jehovah deemed necessary to be done to insure complete pardon, acceptance, and salvation to all who believe in His name. If you take Jesus as your Savior, you will build securely for eternity. “For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ,” (). He is the foundation-stone of salvation laid by God Himself, and on His finished atoning work alone you are instructed to rest the salvation of your soul, and not on anything accomplished by you, wrought in you, felt by you, or proceeding from you.

It is of the utmost importance to be clear as to the fact that it is the work of Christ without you, and not the work of the Spirit within you, that must form the sole ground of your deliverance from guilt and wrath, and of peace with God.

You must beware of resting your peace on your feelings, convictions, tears, repentance, prayers, duties, or resolutions. You must begin with receiving Christ, and not make that the end of a course of preparation. Christ must be the Alpha and Omega. He must be EVERYTHING in our salvation, or He will be nothing.

Be careful that you don’t fall into the common mistake of supposing that you will be more welcome and accepted of Christ if you are brought through a terrible process of “law-work.” You are as welcome to Christ now as you will ever be. Don’t wait for deeper convictions of sin, for why should you prefer conviction to Christ? And you would not have one iota more safety though you had deeper convictions of sin than any sinner ever had. “Convictions of sin are precious; but they bring no safety, no peace, no salvation, no security, but war, and storm, and trouble. It is well to be awakened from sleep when danger is hanging over us; but to wake from sleep is not to escape from danger. It is only to be sensible of danger, nothing more.
Likewise, to be convinced of your sins is merely to be made sensible that your soul is in danger. It is no more. It is not deliverance. Of itself, it can bring no deliverance; it tells of no Savior It merely tells us that we need one. Yet there are many who, when they have had deep convictions of sin, strong terrors of the law, congratulate themselves as if all were well. They say, “Ah, I have been convinced of sin; I have been under terrors; it is well with me; I am safe.” Well with you? Safe?

Is it well with the seaman when he wakes up and finds his vessel going to pieces on the rocks in the fury of the roaring tide? Is it well with the sleeper when he wakes up to the smell of smoke and a roaring blaze beside his bed? Does he say, “Ah, it is well with me; I have seen the flames?”

In this way sinners are not infrequently led to be content with some resting-place short of the appointed one. Anxiety to have deep convictions, and contentment with them after they have been experienced, are too often the means which Satan uses for turning away the sinner’s eye from the perfect work of Jesus, who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree.

Our peace with God, our forgiveness, our reconciliation, flow wholly from the sin-atoning sacrifice of Jesus.
Listen then, O Spirit-convinced soul, the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world!

In His death on the cross, behold the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world! In His death on the cross, behold the mighty sacrifice, the ransom for the sins of many!
Behold there the sum of all His obedience and sufferings!
Behold the finished work!—a work of astonishing magnitude, which He alone could have undertaken and accomplished!
Behold our sacrifice, our finished sacrifice, our perfected redemption, the sole foundation of our peace, and hope, and joy. “He His own self bare our sins in His own body on the tree,” (). It is not said that our duties, or our prayers, or our fasting, or our convictions of sin, or our repentance, or our honest life, or our generosity and tithing, or our faith, or our grace—it is not said that these bore our sins; it was Jesus, Jesus Himself, Jesus alone, Jesus, and none but Jesus, “bore our sins in His own body on the tree.” Rest, then, in nothing short of peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.

“Christ has done the mighty work;
Nothing left for us to do,
But to enter on His toil,
Enter on His triumph too.
“His the labor, ours the rest;
His the death, and ours the life;
Ours the fruits of victory,

to be continued.
edited by CVD.

CONFESSION OF TRUTH

2010-07-09T13:04:00.024-04:00

A discussion paper by Chris A. Van Doodewaard,
St. Thomas

I believe that the Free Reformed Churches of North America uphold our forms and confessions in this matter, as do the Christelijke Gereformeerde Kerken in the Netherlands.

We do not endorse “confession of the truth” Our churches agree with, and take the position outlined above, that confession of faith is to be a true confession. The great majority of the congregations in our denomination follow the proper Biblical and Reformed practice of requiring those who desire to confess their faith, to confess before God and His congregation their living union with Christ, their Saviour.

Perhaps some Free Reformed congregations do allow “confession of the truth”. I believe that the “confession of truth” position has a very detrimental effect on the health of the body of Christ. The church is not a religious society, but the living body of our Lord Jesus Christ on earth. Believers are united to Him through faith and are united in the church to one another.

Consistories are watchmen on Zion’s walls. They defend and protect the church from harmful influences and have regard to its purity in doctrine, confession, life and discipline. They hold the Keys of the Kingdom and their responsibility is to bring the Gospel message, encourage believers, admonish the unrepentant, and guard the church. Their duty is to exercise discretion and discipline both in admitting and removing members. It stands to reason that a church with an open door policy will be very weak, and subject to all kinds of error. The consistories’ responsibility is to admit only true believers to the body of Christ. Those who can truly confess with the mouth and show with their life and deeds that they believe in their Saviour the Lord Jesus Christ.

Our form for adult baptism asks the member who is doing confession to publicly, in the presence of many witnesses, confirm that he/she believes the following:

Question 3:
Do you believe that Christ, who is the true and eternal God, and very man, who took his human nature on him out of the flesh and blood of the virgin Mary, is given you of God, to be your Saviour, and that you do receive by this faith, remission of sins in His blood, and that you are made by the power of the Holy Spirit, a member of Jesus Christ and His Church?

Answer: Yes.

This question is unequivocal, and cannot be interpreted as a question regarding “confession of truth”.

If the consistory applies a double standard and requires from outsiders coming in to the church the above profession for entering the church by baptism and confession of faith, and for its home grown children requires only a “confession of the truth” it is not consistent, true to its calling, nor properly using the keys of the kingdom of God entrusted to it. The objective standard cannot be changed to suit the applicant.

Each applicant for confession of faith has to learn the Heidelberg Catechism. It also sets out the standard for doing confession of one’s faith. It teaches very personally, it does not teach: If you are a believer, what would be your only comfort in life and death? It teaches plainly: What is your only comfort in life and death. That is the question a consistory is to ask at confession of faith, and not: do you believe the Bible and the standards and doctrines.
The answer is very plain:

That I with body and soul, both in life and death, am not my own, but belong unto my faithful Saviour Jesus Christ; who, with His precious blood, has fully satisfied for all my sins, and delivered me from the power of the devil; and so preserves me that without the will of my heavenly father, not a hair can fall from my head, yes, that all things must be subservient to my salvation, and therefore, by His Holy Spirit, he also assures me of eternal life, and makes me sincerely willing and ready, henceforth, to live unto him. 2

Our denomination has published the book titled “ God’s Yea and Your Amen” by L.H. Vandermeyden. This book is given to persons doing confession of faith by their consistories. We take a very clear position against “confession of the truth” in this publication.

“It is a known fact that the General Synod of the Free Reformed Churches in the Netherlands decided in 1836 that no one may be considered a member of the church except upon confession of faith and by no means as the result of learning some doctrines by heart. Hence the Lord’s Church can never say: If you intellectually accept the truth, you may make confession of faith. That would be misleading.” 3

In an article with the title The Covenant of Grace in Reformed Theology Rev. C.A. Schouls, pastor of the Free Reformed Church of Chatham writes the following regarding confession of truth.

Where do we stand on these issues? A few things must be noted.
1. From a strictly church orderly point of view, we, as independent churches living in North America, have not only never made any official pronouncement on any of these issues, we have not even dealt with them in any official format. Our sister churches in the Netherlands did, not only in their formative years but as recently as the 1950's. Does this mean that we simply assume their position on these various matters? Does the relation of daughter/sister church imply that we inherit and accept as our own, their theological positions? Personally, I would favourably consider this, with prudent safeguards, but can this simply be assumed to have happened or should there be some form of formal recognition of this?
2. Continuing in this line, it must be noted that the Christelijke Gereformeerde Kerken have always been careful and rather broad in their official statements on this subject. Although the infra-lapsarian, three covenant position was widely accepted and taught at the seminary, those who held to the supra-lapsarian position and two covenant view were allowed to do so without fear of ecclesiastical censure.

What was dealt with at various times was the issue of Confession of Faith; an issue which in both theory and practice is derived from the matter at hand. In 1913 and in 1950 Synods rejected the notion of "Confession of Truth" as being something which the Church of Christ cannot appreciate.
Rev. A. Hilbers wrote in 1952 (De Nieuwe Gehoorzaamheid, p. 24) that at these synods

" ... it was pronounced, that on the basis of God’s Word and the Confessions, a living faith as demanded by God must be required in confession of faith. “

This was so stated, probably as a reaction to the neo-reformed doctrines, because many wanted to see in the public confession of faith nothing more than a formal act which happened to be a church orderly requirement. Saying "Yes" before the Lord and His holy congregation would mean only the recognition of the historical accuracy of the Scriptures. Confession is then made of the so-called "historical faith" and one speaks of confession of the truth.

The church cannot appreciate this expression. How could it? Truth needs no confession. The acceptance of this expression would mean the relinquishing of the line of the reformation, violate Scripture and confession and deny the principle of being Christelijk Gereformeerd (Free Reformed)."

I have quoted him at some length because I suspect that these things need to be refocused among us. For the sake of good order in the lives of our churches let us, at least publicly, hold to this line, even if in private we should favour a covenant view which may not be so congenial to this.
3. While no official recognition has been granted to statements made by the Dutch churches, and while these statements have no binding value, we do well, as office bearers, to focus our thoughts and our pastoral work on some of these truths. I would place before you especially the statements of the Synods of the Secession churches, held in 1837 and in 1846.

1837 - "the danger of hypocrisy and self-deception calls for constant exposition from the pulpit of the marks of spiritual life and also for constant exhortation to self-examination, but this danger does not justify the making of the distinction, in practice, between converted and unconverted members and the Church’s inability to judge of the heart excludes all possibility of ecclesiastical action with respect to the latter."

1846 - "...all the children of those who have joined the congregation ought to be baptized; this, however, imparts no internal holiness to the children and when these children, in coming to maturity, give no evidence of godliness, they must, without exception, be dealt with as children of wrath."

We have only touched upon some aspects of this fascinating and very important subject. The Covenant of Grace is a rich truth but it has weighted down many a soul who used this truth in the wrong way. Many have lost the way in the labyrinth of speculation and innovation. Two things can be done to avoid that danger:

1. In preaching, teaching and dealing with the Covenant of Grace and related matters let us not go beyond the bounds set by our Confessions;
2. In preaching and witnessing of these covenant mercies, let us always act as representatives of the Christ of the Covenant who is full of compassion and who, with arms stretched out wide, calls out, "Whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely." 1

There is more Free Reformed material on the Covenant and Election. Rev. C. Pronk, Pastor of the Free Reformed Church of Brantford, has translated a book by this title written by Dr. J. Van Genderen, one of the professors at the Free Reformed Theological University in the Netherlands. This book takes a very clear position on the three covenant doctrine. The confusion and divergence on “confession of the truth” finds its root in the view on election and covenant. Rev. Pronk has provided a great service to the denomination in translating this work so that we have a clear outline of the Biblical doctrine of Covenant and Election.

Van Genderen states:

The confession that God chooses His people does not in any way obscure the proclamation of the gospel and the administration of the sacraments. Any suggestion that over against the covenant which speaks of God’s sovereign grace as well as human responsibility, we are still faced with the fact of divine election which renders us passive, is contrary to Scripture.
Election to salvation is also election to the way of salvation which God has ordained that we should walk therein. (Canons of Dort 1, 8.) Also the confession regarding divine election does not pose any threat to personal assurance which flows from faith in what God has promised us in His covenant. That would be so if one first had to discover signs or fruits of election in one’s life before one were warranted to appropriate the promised salvation. The God of election Who in Christ has chosen sinners to a life of service in communion with Him, is the same God as the God of the covenant, Who comes to us with His promises and demands, because in Christ, the mediator of the covenant, He wants to be Emmanuel, God with us. Through Him we are the people of God. Christ is the mirror in which we perceive our election (Calvin). The gospel is the gospel of the electing love of God which goes out to people who deserve nothing. It is the essential love of God which was there before we came into being.
The covenant of grace, the promise of salvation, the proclamation of the gospel to the congregation, baptism and the Lord’s supper as covenant seals – they all point in the same direction. While the doctrine of election should not be dominant in the doctrine of the covenant, it is an important component of it. 2

Van Genderen makes some other noteworthy statements on this subject, under the heading of Is the covenant dominated by election? he writes:

In Steenblok’s historical overview Calvin comes last. This is very remarkable. Calvin, according to Steenblok, taught the same thing as the other Reformed fathers discussed earlier, namely that only the elect are truly in the covenant. He who is acquainted with the teachings of the reformer of Geneva cannot but object to this interpretation. For Calvin especially, the idea of a covenant of grace with promises for believers and their children is a real as can be!
The conviction that the covenant of grace is dominated by election has led to the view in the Netherlands Reformed congregations that the promise of the covenant is reserved for a segment of the congregation, even though there is admittedly, also an administration of the covenant which comes with a well meant offer of Christ and of the covenant benefits in the gospel.
In Steenblok’s theology this election-dominated thinking resulting in a covenant and promise for none but the elect has become a system which leaves room only for an offer of grace to those who have come to know themselves as sinners before God and who wait for grace – which presumably is the first mark of election.
In connection with the conflict of 1953 Steenblok and like-minded spirits produced this very consistent formulation:
The essence of the covenant consists in this “that through regeneration the elect are ingrafted into Christ and it is not until this ingrafting takes place that they receive the right to the promises which God in Christ has bequeathed to His elect”.

This view of election and the covenant, however, does not agree with Holy Scripture and the Reformed confessions. We admitted already that there is a reformed tradition which has evolved in this direction. But you cannot find support for this position with Calvin. 1

What happens when a consistory allows “confession of the truth”?

It is allowing unbelievers admittance to church membership, the body of Christ, and as confessing members the consistory now also permits these unbelievers admittance to the sacrament of the Lord’s supper. This is a violation of their responsibility in the use of the keys of the Kingdom. The consistory may not provide permission to unbelievers to have admittance to the Lord’s table.

What problems are created in allowing unbelievers to become members?

This leads to many problems in the body of Christ. When many dead members make up the “church” the church will feel the weight of that. The church will be half dead. This has an effect on everything the church does. It will be evident where ever these dead members function. In society at large they cannot give a witness of the hope that is in them. When they are asked what church they belong to they can give the answer, and then when they are asked if they believe; they are silent. They are useless for the purpose of witnessing for the Lord. In the church itself they will deaden the church’s activities because the required essential matter, a living faith, is missing. If they are Sunday school teachers will they then have a burning zeal for the souls of the children entrusted to their care? Or are they merely history teachers? If they are consistory members they will be blind leading the blind.
Dead orthodoxy will overtake such a church, and often we see when people come to faith that they want to leave a church that has these practices. Satan is very pleased with a church of which many members cannot give a testimony of their faith. It will make this church ineffective. It will rob the church of a living witness to the outside.

At synod we often hear reports of deadness in the church. There are so few people who are spiritually minded. Can it be that when the elders load the church with dead members, there is cause and effect? Can it be when we have no power of attraction on the world, that this is due to the debilitating effect of a partially dead church membership?

At the elders and deacons conference the question was discussed if such members who do not attend the Lord’s supper should be disciplined. This discussion is indicative of the quagmire “confession of truth” leads to. If a consistory allows an unbeliever (there are only two categories of persons; believers and unbelievers, there is no in between) to be a full member of the church of Christ and allows this unbeliever admittance to the sacraments, it would be hypocritical for the consistory to discipline this unbeliever for not attending the Lord’s supper.

We can note that in denominations where “confession of the truth” is practiced, that some members are given home visitation to question their motives, when they do “dare” to attend the Lord’s supper, while no care or home visitation is given immediately after the Lord’s supper to the many members who do not attend the Lord’s supper. There appears to be little care or concern for all those who are in darkness and do not participate in the Lord’s supper. In reality these are the members who need pastoral care, and a visit subsequent to communion if they have not attended.
The practice of normal Reformed admittance by confession of faith, when replaced by “confession of the truth” turns the church upside down and leads to harmful abnormalities.

Notwithstanding the “Nadere Reformatie” the practice of “confession of truth” is unbiblical and unreformed. It may, at great cost, give the appearance of peace in the church, by admitting all those who want to join, even those who have no personal testimony. It does ad a maximum number of members to the congregation. It also allows individuals to become communicant members without having to deal with the pressing demand of the Gospel, to be born again.
Does the preaching feed this wrong thinking or does it seek to correct it? Does it bring home man’s responsibility?

When young people are refused entrance into the membership of the body of Christ because they cannot speak of a living faith in their Lord, it requires them to be more earnest, to make this a matter of prayer, to fight against sin and to plead the Lord’s promises. If the consistory admits these young people on the basis of “confession of the truth”, they can rest comfortably, and continue as before.

Particularly because we have a joint seminary with the Heritage Netherlands Reformed Congregations we should clearly delineate our differences regarding confession of truth at our elders and deacons conferences. As Free Reformed Churches of North America, when we are cooperating with a denomination that has erroneous doctrines and practices in this area, we have to take position and affirm where we as Free Reformed denomination stand. I was disappointed by the weak position taken in the discussion on the Free Reformed doctrines at this conference.

Please peruse the attached translation from a book of J.H. Velema, one of the most respected and prolific authors in the Free Reformed Churches in the Netherlands. He discusses in his book “Who Are We?” and there clearly delineates the differences between ourselves and the Netherlands Reformed Congregations.

Although there are many matters we share in common with the HNRC such as a love for the scriptures, a recognition of the entire scriptures as the living Word of God, the same creeds, there are also dangers in having a joint seminary with this denomination. The material presented by Rev. J.H. Velema is a real revelation and shows the divergent views we hold compared with this denomination. Not only the matter of “confession of the truth” is at issue, but also the view of the church and the covenant.

The matter of confession of the truth is not the root problem, but only a symptom of wrong doctrines held by the HNRC that appear to go mostly unrecognized. The doctrinal differences concern the view of the Covenant, Election, the doctrine of the Church, and flowing out of that, confession of the truth. The view held by Velema is thoroughly Calvinistic and Reformed.

Chris A. Van Doodewaard
11.02.2000

Background notes regarding "Confession of Truth", a continuation of the public discussion at the elders & deacons conference.

At the elders and deacons conference held on October 21, 2000 held in the Free Reformed Church of London, Rev. P. VanderMeyden, Pastor of the Free Reformed Church at Grand Rapids lectured on the above subject. The paper he presented regarding Confession of faith and truth was discussed. I will not repeat the scriptural analysis he presented. I am sure this would be available upon request. In the discussion, the line taken in this paper appeared to be bent in the direction of acceptance and tolerance towards confession of truth, or at least tolerance of a confession that did not include the profession of Christ as personal Saviour.

At the end of the conference Rev. VanderMeyden asked if anyone had further comments that these be communicated to him. Regretfully, the discussion at the elders and deacons conference was mostly a pastoral exchange and although I did try to speak on several occasions at the end of the meeting, the discussion was closed without having the opportunity to present some of the material below. For this reason I am communicating these comments to you and also to others, who were unable to reflect on this. I trust that it will impart some clarity to this matter and will be of benefit to the reader.

In the discussion one of the participants, stated that confession of truth should not be allowed, and that we should only have confession of faith. The discussion about this was ambivalent and appeared to create room for both a confession of faith, and a confession that was less than a confession of faith, since it did not include acquiescence in a most personal manner to LD 1, question and answer 1 of our Heidelberg Catechism.

cc. Rev. P. VanderMeyden

For further background information on this matter, a quotation follows from

Wie Zijn Wij?

by J.H. Velema.

published by Buiten & Schipperheijn, Amsterdam, 1992.

De Gereformeerde Gemeente (p. 166-177)

J.H. Velema. Who are We? Amsterdam: Buiten & Schipperheijn, 1992

The Netherlands Reformed Congregations (p.166-177)

The following is a translation of the above section of the above work into the English language. Rev.J.H. Velema is a pastor in the Christelijke Gereformeerde Kerken in the Netherlands (Free Reformed Churches of North America equivalent). The work is of value due to the relationship developing with the Heritage Netherlands Reformed Congregations in North America through the Free Reformed use of and partial cooperation with Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary, the official seminary of the HNRC. The HNRC has no official doctrinal differences with the Netherlands Reformed Congregations, but divided from them in over a situational issue of church polity.

“We steadfastly desire to continue to defend the doctrines and experiential emphases of our Reformed forefathers, holding the authority of the Word of God above all, as well as maintaining the authority of the confessions and the church order of Dort (which are based on the Scriptures and to which we have subscribed) as above the councils of men who depart from them. The Word of God cannot and may not be bound; the law and gospel must be preached to all people (Acts 4:29-31; 5:41-42).
Though we cannot refuse to assist those who, like us, cannot accept Synod’s unbiblical decisions and yet desire to continue on in the NRC (for we cannot cease to “teach and preach Jesus Christ” [Acts 5:42], and must remain our “brother’s keeper” [Gen.4:9], we wish to make it clear we still pray for ultimate reunion on scriptural grounds. Even though we may not turn a deaf ear to Macedonian callers (Acts 16:9) who yearn to remain true to the Scriptures and all that the NRC has always stood for... may God be pleased to heal the unnecessary breaches...” (Consistory of the First Netherlands Reformed Congregation “An Open Letter with Heavy Hearts” in The Banner of Sovereign Grace Truth September 1993, 12.)

“After a brief discussion, unanimous approval was given to adopt the denominational name ‘Heritage Netherlands Reformed Congregations,’ being understood as a continuation of the heritage and denomination of our fathers established in 1907.” (Report of the “Charter Classical Meeting of the Heritage Netherlands Reformed Congregations of North America” in The Banner of Sovereign Grace Truth September 1994, 189.)

A separate history

The following denomination, to which we now turn our attention, is formed by the Netherlands Reformed Congregations -- a denomination which takes an entirely separate, and fairly isolated place on the right wing of the Reformed community. It is a group of churches which has also over the years had a large influence and still influences the Free Reformed Churches, for various reasons. There is much that connects us to these churches -- not only that they desire to stand on the foundation of Scripture and the Reformed confessions -- that also binds us to the Canadian Reformed and the other Reformed Churches -- but first of all also the focus on the need for personal conviction of what we believe.
One of the deepest similarities is a common root. All of those who are outside of the Dutch State Church (Reformed Church) and claim the name Reformed have their roots in the Secession of 1834. This is also the case with the Netherlands Reformed Congregations. These churches came together under this name in 1907. In that year there was a combining of two smaller groups of churches -- two groups both dating from the previous century, running alongside, yet having real differences with the church of the Secession. These two groups were the Ledeboerian congregations and the Churches under the Cross.
The first group of churches is named after Rev. L.G.C. Ledeboer (1808-1863), who was a man of a peculiar personality, marked by subjectivism and an independent streak. On November 8, 1840, in the middle of his sermon he hurled his psalter and the church regulations from the pulpit, and then after the service buried them in the garden of the parsonage. During the week following he was suspended for his actions, but continued preaching, and was defrocked as a pastor in the following January. Because of this he ended up outside of the Reformed Church. Not surprisingly the Secession Churches sought contact with him. These contacts however did not lead to any sort of unity. The freedom or independence question of the Secession churches created a hindrance which Ledeboer did not want to accept. But at the same time we do not read in historical documents of any contact with the Churches under the Cross, who had the same problem with the Secession Churches. Ledeboer was an individualist and preached for all sorts of fellowships in all sorts of circles. Through his itinerating preaching he gathered various groups around himself, which -- not surprisingly -- were named Ledeboerian congregations. He lived by his mystic impulses and subjective feelings/experiences and therefore could hardly conform to an ordered church situation, where church order rules over the life of the church.
Towards the end of his life he had two followers: Rev. P. van Dijke and Rev.D. Bakker. It would be going too in depth for this book to describe the struggles between these two men and their followers in various congregations, especially in Zeeland. It is a colorful history from which it is clear that individualism and subjectivism had a substantial and formative role in the Ledeboerian congregations, to the point that these became definitive characteristics of the congregations. They followed in the tracks of the “father” of the denomination, Ledeboer.
In 1869 the Secession Churches and the Churches under the Cross united and were subsequently named the “Christian Secession Reformed Church and the Reformed Church under the Cross” as set out in chapter 2 of this book.
But despite having this new denomination as option to the national Reformed Church, not all congregations joined: Enkhuizen, Lisse and Tricht remained independent. There were also other congregations which felt uncomfortable in the new denomination and also wanted to stand as independents. People felt that the experiential preaching which was characteristic of the Churches under the Cross was being pushed to the background by the second generation of preachers of the Secession churches.
To sum it up briefly, around the turn of the century there were diverse free-floating “congregations” or small groups -- congregations each having their own independent existence. But during the same time period there was among the Churches under the Cross a gradual to increasingly strong tendency, desiring to move to a more ordered church life.
It was indeed a tangle of strands and threads -- churches, meeting groups, conventicles -- out of which the more structured Netherlands Reformed Congregations would be formed in 1907. The Churches under the Cross took the initiative. The driving and initiating force was Rev.G.H. Kersten who with great organizational skill bound together not only the circle of congregations to which he belonged, where he met with resistance, but also brought together the Ledeboerian congregations and gaining their support, so that at the mutual Synod of October 9 and 10, 1907 in Rotterdam there were delegates from 13 Churches under the Cross and 22 Ledeboerian Congregations.
A historian writes: “all of these congregations had different origins, and often were so isolated to themselves, that they only knew of one another by name, but not with the communion or fellowship of true understanding. No wonder there were at once tensions in the young fellowship of churches.”
Nonetheless Kersten remains a figure worthy of admiration, who as another albeit smaller Kuyper, stands as a similar organizer in church, politics, and education. He was the central and dominating figure. He wrote “Reformed Dogmatics explained to the Congregation” in order to give direction. He took care of the Church Handbook and in so doing underscored the importance of the church order in binding together denominational life. He edited the church periodical Bound Together (De Saambinder) and initiated the establishment of the Theological School in 1927. Talented with a skilled pen and being a gifted orator he received the support of many.
The Netherlands Reformed Congregations continued to develop and transformed themselves to a strong and closed church society, which found its strength in its isolation.

Appraisal

Also with these churches there is much to be appreciated and much that we wish we had some more of. Things such as sincere and earnest church-going, the willingness to give and make sacrifices, the steadfastness, the pious lifestyle, and the warnings against conformity to this world. Of course we know not all is well that looks that way outwardly; the power of tradition is strong -- and it is not the same as the power of faith. But in spite of these qualifications, the fact remains that these churches are less affected by the shifting tides of modern developments than the churches to their left.
In the last ten years the Netherlands Reformed Congregations have begun to come forward as defenders of the ancient Reformed heritage. They name themselves by preference “reformational”, because the word Reformed is deemed by them to have become too superficial. They have somewhat self-righteously taken the name for themselves, which they have no monopoly over.
In various areas the Netherlands Reformed Congregations have sought cooperation with those whom they deemed to be worthy of working together with as fitting their reforming, experiential standard and by this have developed one great strength, through which now in the Netherlands a Reformed influence has been established which must be thoroughly reckoned with.
During the sixties the fruit of ecumenism burst into the Netherlands, and Christian organizations, schools and media were infected with ecumenicism, generally there was a trend towards becoming superficial in spirit, truths were undermined, confessions pushed away, and the orthodox view of Holy Scripture was in decline. In response a right-wing front was also formed among the Netherlands Reformed Congregations. This was done using various means and included various people, who did not always operate from the same motives or with the same purposes. In newspaper, school, and political party, these presented themselves as solidly “reformational”, and that “reformational” theme often developed the filling of the days of the Dutch Second Reformation. There was a clear and discernable minimization of the Reformation of the 16th century. Nevertheless there is appreciation of the effort to throw up a dam to block the flow of secularization. Often also a concentration of Reformed believers, though different in background and formation, want to maintain the great importance of the confessions for all areas of life. As a result this reformational work in many respects earned support and cooperation.
In the following years this cooperation caused on the one hand an experience of spiritual unity, but on the other hand the particular emphasis of “reformational” (Dutch Second Reformation) church history and theology was underlined through this influence, which some continue to desire to push according to their own conception; these have lately have come to prevail and are at times difficult to dialogue with.
As Free Reformed Churches we feel kinship for the Netherlands Reformed Congregations as fellow believers in their love for God’s truth, which affects both heart and mind. But we also realize, certainly in organized interdenominational relations, our divergent history rooted in differing views, which ultimately go back to a different vision of the congregation and of the meaning of God’s Word for our personal lives.

History of the Relations

The Free Reformed Synod of 1919 named deputies who received the mandate to dialogue with the Netherlands Reformed Congregations regarding the possibility of unity. The Netherlands Reformed Congregations had by this point been in existence in this form for twelve years and some consolidation had taken place. In 1917 Kersten had formed the State Reformed Party (SGP), which also drew supporters from our denomination. This party was stood in opposition against Kuyper’s theology as well as Kuyper’s politics. The SGP gave a welcome political alternative, and eyes began to focus on the Netherlands Reformed Congregations as a result. It is worthy to note that at the southern Free Reformed regional synod concrete instructions were given to work towards unity with the Netherlands Reformed Congregations; those of the middle Free Reformed regional synod wanted unity with all those who loved the Reformed faith, while those of the northern Free Reformed regional synod did not even want to discuss the idea of unity, because they viewed the Free Reformed denomination as the only legitimate and true body of Christ -- believing cooperation and unity can only find a place where this legitimacy was acknowledged. These differences are typical of the Free Reformed Churches. It would not be a misstatement to say that the influence of the Netherlands Reformed Congregations in the south was the reason for the specific welcoming attitude of the southern regional synod.
The dialogues began and Kersten soon became aware of the perspective of the north. “As long as the error of schism was completely our fault, there was a possibility of moving towards unity; but there was no possibility at all if we took the standpoint ‘you schismatics ought to join us!”
The Synod of 1922 softened these statements and took the same stance as the Synod of 1869 regarding the Churches under the Cross. These Synods declared that the Netherlands Reformed Congregations were a legitimate revelation of the body of Christ. But despite the taking away of this obstacle the talks went nowhere. The Synod of the Netherlands Reformed Congregations was of the opinion that there was no mutual love and it was best that the talks were ended. There was a substantial separation in places where there is a Netherlands Reformed Congregation and also a Free Reformed Church. The present time is not prime for attempts toward unity.
The times have apparently never become prime -- not after the Second World War either. Moves towards talks by both sides were called off due to “large and difficult points of difference, which are not unknown to you – connected weighty and entangling problems which stand between us.”
In 1950 a more concrete statement was set forth:

that the Netherlands Reformed Congregations have not changed at all in their stance concerning the covenant of grace.

Because of this significant difference regarding this most important doctrine, the Free Reformed synod determined that any discussion would be a totally fruitless exercise!
While there are good personal contacts here and there, and while there is some cooperation in various efforts during the past years, there have been no official moves towards any sort of talks.

Differences

Where do the differences between the Free Reformed Churches and the Netherlands Reformed Congregations lie? Do they really exist? And if they do, are they in reality simply blown out of proportion?
These are understandable questions seeing the affinity between part of our churches and the Netherlands Reformed Congregations! If these churches, or people, can work together intensively in the areas of education and politics, why then can’t there be some sort of cooperation or official talks towards greater unity? The refusal to hold talks resides with the Netherlands Reformed Congregations. They see no future in, and have no vision for dialogue.
From an objective standpoint there are two outstanding and important points on which attempts for unity hit a dead end: covenant and experience.

1. Covenant

After the failure of the dialogues of 1928, the stances of the respective denominations were sharpened through the fierce polemics between “Bound Together” and “The Watchman” (Saambinder and De Wekker), between Rev. Kersten and Rev. Jongeleen (Free Reformed).
The latter preacher wrote on the topic of the covenant of grace and defended with urgency the Reformed position: the covenant of grace is made with believers and their seed: God’s promise is for all covenant members who must prayerfully ask for the fulfilling of these promises, in order to appropriate through God’s Spirit that which they are promised in Christ.
But Rev. Kersten took the standpoint, which was also common in the days of the Second Reformation, and above all stressed strongly among the Scottish theologians: the covenant of grace is made with the elect. The question of how then to view the place of children is immediately raised. What is the grounds or reason for their baptism? If the emphasis falls on the starting point: the covenant is only made with the elect, that means that by logical implication that the covenant is only with those who are actually part of the covenant and that the promise at baptism is actually in some places of no real value.
Those who study the history of the confessions of the Reformed churches, know that since the days of the Secession different insights have been given into these questions, which profoundly influence the practical life of the congregation, the view of the congregation, and the point of the preaching in its approach to the members of the congregation.
It is always remarkable that there is so much formal agreement between the covenant teaching of the Netherlands Reformed Congregations and the Christian Reformed Church. Both believe: the covenant is made with the elect.
As result of the debate with Rev. Jongeleen the 1931 general synod of the Netherlands Reformed Congregations pronounced six declarations, which were still deemed weighty and important by a professor of their Theological School, Rev. A. Moerkerken in 1979.
The first reads: that the covenant of grace is shaped by election to salvation; that the promise of the covenant is thus only of value, sufficient and efficient, for God’s elect and does not count for the natural seed. That the nature and essence of the covenant of redemption and the covenant of grace are one and not two. In promise it is one covenant.
The second reads: that the Holy Scriptures speak of two covenants in relation to man’s eternal state, namely the covenant of works and the covenant of grace.
The latter stands squarely in opposition to what our churches hold -- though that is not written in any doctrinal statement -- namely three covenants, because we make a distinction between the covenant of redemption and the covenant of grace. Here lies the reason why our churches are more often scoffed than graciously named as the church of the three covenants.
It remains quite sad that the relations have developed this way and that the positions of the Netherlands Reformed Congregations are etched in stone by synodical decision.
Through Kersten and followers in his line the objection against the so-called three covenant teaching was brought, that the teaching of the covenant with the believers and their seed leads to and implies a veiled Arminianism: the covenant members have the promise and all they have to do is take hold of that, and all is well. This covenant teaching, they claimed, leads to spiritual superficiality.
It can be asked whether that same concern could not be brought against the sixth declaration of the synod of 1931: “in particular the responsibility becomes greater through the earnest call from Christ and the covenant promises in the gospel.” When Dr. C. Steenblok brought objections against the teaching of the offer of grace to everyone who comes under the gospel, he was right, given the starting point of the Netherlands Reformed Congregations. He followed the logical implications of the declarations of the synod of 1931.
The agreement between, at any rate the relationship between the theology of the doctrinal declaration of the Netherlands Reformed Congregations and that of the Christian Reformed Church concerns three points:
- both speak of an eternal covenant between Christ as Head with the elect; next to which the administration of the covenant is discussed.
- the promise is by both an unconditional promise of salvation, which is meant for the elect, and besides this the offer of grace is given in conditional form.
- Baptism is the sealing of the unconditional promise of salvation to the elect or of the being sanctified of the elect in Christ.
There is still a great deal of difference in practice. In the Christian Reformed Church the children are held to be regenerate until by their walk of life the contrary is shown, and so all covenant members are held to be elect, creating a broadly positive covenant view of the church as generally elect. However among the Netherlands Reformed all covenant members are viewed as unregenerate, until signs are shown of inclusion (“inlijving”) in the covenant through faith and conversion -- thus proving the opposite, and thus only the elect are covenant members, and the circle of the covenant becomes very small.
In the first situation generalizations are preached about the congregation as the congregation of the elect; in the second, the character and nature of the church as a covenant fellowship is minimized far too much, though they do admit there are children of God in the congregation. The first creates a false sense of security and a tendency towards complacency, and the second a false sense of passivity and inability. In the first situation the promises of God to covenant members are in practice generalized, where in the second these promises are completely individualized.
Another way of putting this point of contrast is: in the Christian Reformed Church the position of covenant members is overstated, and in the Netherlands Reformed Congregations it is understated.
When we say that the covenant of grace is made with the believers and their children we stand in harmony with the truth of the Scriptures, with the teaching of the church of the Reformation -- though the covenant is not set forth explicitly there --, with the form for baptism, with Calvin and many following theologians, also those in the line of the Secession.
The stance of the Netherlands Reformed Congregations, officially declared in 1931, goes back to a fairly old tradition, but that tradition cannot be called a biblical tradition.
The fact that the Reformed confessions do not teach a definitive covenant theology, makes it possible for everyone to claim them as their foundation, but in doing so they are certainly guilty of reading their own thoughts into the confessions. For example when the word “elect” is added to answer 74; but this was certainly not the intention of the writers of the Heidelberg Catechism.

In light of the above the following differences can be clearly stated:

Netherlands Reformed Congregations:

1) There are two covenants: covenant of redemption and covenant of works
2) The covenant of redemption or the covenant of grace is made with Christ, as the representative head of the members.
3) Christ is the head of the covenant.
4) The promise of the covenant is unconditional.
5) There is a difference between the promise and the offer of grace.
6) Only when people know they are elect does their baptism become of value.
7) The preaching culminates in the sincere wish that the hearer may be given “it” (faith).
8) Covenant and election are essentially the same.

In comparison the same eight points from a FRC perspective:

Free Reformed Churches
1) There are three covenants: covenant of redemption, covenant of grace, and covenant of works
2) The covenant of grace is made with Abraham and his seed; New Testament: with believers and their children.
3) Christ is the mediator of the covenant.
4) The promise of the covenant is conditional from the perspective of fulfillment; unconditional from the perspective of the giving of the promise.
5) The offer of grace comes in the form of the promise to covenant members.
6) Baptism is a pleading ground to ask of God that which He has promised to give us.
7) The preaching has the character of appealing for and compelling faithful activity in response to God’s demands and promises.
8) Election finds its realization in the realm of the covenant.

2. Experience

Another difference plays through these correctly stated divergences, one which influences the content, meaning, and understanding of the word “experience” or “experiential.”
As already stated previously, the words experience and experiential are fully biblical, and are essential to the Reformed faith. We take the emphasis of experiential Reformed in contrast to those who are simply orthodox Reformed or those who are neo-Reformed. Those who reject experience, do not preach experientially, or think that the preaching should not be experiential are not Reformed in the classic sense of the word.
The Netherlands Reformed Congregations are best classified under the experiential Reformed. Out of their practice it appears that experience plays a large role and has taken a unique character. Especially in publications of the last fifteen years, it becomes clear that experience is heavily emphasized above all else. Examples of this can be found in the paper written by the late Rev. A. Vergunst “The Theological Identity of the Netherlands Reformed Congregations among Reformed Denominations”, and in the book written by Rev. A. Moerkerken “A Life of Grace and the Covenant of Grace”, which begins with “The Stages in Spiritual Life.”
Both works contain valuable thoughts, which certainly need to be understood: the necessity of the new birth, the necessity of a personal relationship with the Lord, the personal knowledge of the necessity of the way to, and living out of Christian surety in the Saviour. But in both cases experience is very strongly set forth in a particular pattern. Experience is strongly pressed in a particular mold, and as a result one particular way is laid out by which the sinner must go in order to have true faith and become one of the elect.
Such people love Comrie, and take from him a peculiar model of the necessity of an experiential knowledge of our misery. The writer adds:

“In the entirety of the Reformed world this is often missed. We would not want to assert that this is found only in the Netherlands Reformed Congregations; but this is a matter that has set us apart. If the day should come that these words would no longer be heard, we would lose our identity, through which we, also by those outside us, are known.”

Here then is clearly stated that the Netherlands Reformed Congregations distinguish themselves from the rest of the Reformed world by the emphasis on the experiential knowledge of [conviction of] sin. Naturally that is their right, but then it follows that they are putting forth their own distinct emphasis -- as a characteristic it certainly can be seen to lie within the line of the classic Reformed confessions -- but this characteristic has received a specific prominence and has started to live a life of its own.
Clearly the knowledge of sin very easily becomes dominant and free-standing, is loosened from the prophetic teaching of Christ, and becomes a ground for salvation. The knowledge of sin becomes a criteria. Experiential Reformed then begins to mean: Reformed churches which put more emphasis and spend more time on stressing the knowledge of sin than other Reformed churches. It then follows that you must end up with a one-sided preaching. A certain hermeneutic is then laid over the text. And as a result there can be much truth in the saying: “our pastor preaches on many different texts, but he always has the same sermon.”
In this climate it becomes more important to have a specific experiential path for God’s elect church prescribed, rather than having God’s Word preached, explained, and brought to bear on the heart and life of the actual churchgoer. In the latter way biblical experiential preaching is brought, and experience is preached which flows directly from the Word of God.
For the remainder there is a close connection between the first and the second points of difference: the more election dominates the preaching, the more as well the particular path to getting behind the mystery of election is preached, along with all the ensuing consequences.
This analysis is written to clarify the differences between the Free Reformed Churches and the Netherlands Reformed Congregations. With thankfulness we can note that in practice some of the preachers in the Netherlands Reformed Congregations do bring a biblical message, which is not at heart in accord with the declarations of 1931.
It would be an amazing blessing if the day would come when these declarations were retracted. “Then the Netherlands Reformed Congregations would no longer be the Netherlands Reformed Congregations” -- was the last comment someone made in response to a similar statement. And indeed that would be true. The real importance is not about historical identity, but that of the one catholic church of our Lord Jesus Christ, which deals correctly with the entirety of God’s truth, and does not allow one “part” -- sin, salvation or thankfulness, to prevail over any other parts.

We would summarize the differences in the view of what is experience/ experiential as follows:

Netherlands Reformed Congregations
1) Experience concentrates itself on the knowledge of one’s misery/ conviction of sin.
2) Experience is a static idea.
3) Experience governs the preaching.
4) Experience gives a unique voice quality to the preacher which sometimes comes across as unnatural.

Free Reformed Churches
1) Experience relates to the totality of the life of faith: conviction of sin, redemption/salvation, and thankful living.
2) Experience is a dynamic matter.
3) Experience flows from the biblical unfolding of the text.
4) Experience is no addition to the preaching, but is identical with biblical preaching, which is brought in a natural and lively manner.

Translators note: Not included in J.H. Velema’s discussion of differences is the substantial difference of the view of the church, and particularly of church membership. In order to become a full member of a Netherlands Reformed Congregation a profession of personal faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour is not required. This view of the church remains in part as a pragmatic “solution” to the problem of little faith and assurance created by the very nature of the preaching, which in turn is closely related to views of covenant and election. A predominant focus of the preaching in these churches has been to convict men of sin and to seek to nurture spiritual experiences, with a strong focus on self-examination and the marks of grace in order to seek to discern one’s election.
The result is non-Christians make up a large portion of the full membership of these churches, can both vote for, and rule as office-bearers, and have their children baptized. Through these heresies, the problems are propounded and increased (including rather bizarre phenomena such as where those who attend communion receive pastoral visits to inquire of their motives), and the preaching and church view quickly lead to a self-fulfilling reality -- that most of the church is indeed not the church of Jesus Christ.

Translator: W.E. Van Doodewaard 11.02.2000

A BURNING ISSUE

2009-11-04T11:26:00.000-05:00

When our Free Reformed fathers came to North America they smoked cigars, pipes and cigarettes. They loved to settle down with a nice cup of coffee and an aromatic cigar. We used to say, "You're not a man if you don't smoke". We secretly (or openly?) snickered at those over- zealous Baptists who proclaimed smoking a great evil. However, our ladies were not supposed to smoke, smoking was for men; men were masculine and strong. Men smoked.

But men have also paid the price. For instance, lung cancer is the most common form of malignant tumour of the respiratory tract system, and it began increasing in frequency at an alarming rate about 1940. In 1980 it was the leading cause of cancer deaths in men and today it is also rapidly increasing in women. As a matter of fact, in the mid-80's nearly 6 million new cancer cases and more than 4 million deaths from cancer were being reported world-wide each year. To bring it a little closer to home: about 400,000 Americans die each year from breathing their own smoke. In Ontario, where most of our churches are, over 14,000 residents die every year from smoking-induced lung cancer.

Did you ever stop to think how much grief is caused by so many deaths every year? Many people are fatalistic. They reason that if they will get it, they will get it. They will just "hope for the best." Or they may be optimistic. Just because there is a warning on the label, it doesn't mean that I will get it. Some say: my grandfather became 98 and he smoked like a chimney!

When we talk about smoking, many say that we should not be judgmental about others. You have bad habits too, they say, and therefore, mind your own business! What I do in the privacy of my own home or vehicle is my responsibility and will affect no one else.
Is this true? Will your premature death not affect your loved ones? Doesn't your smoking affect the health of your spouse and children? Do you, by smoking, set a good example for your children? Isn't the likelihood great that they will catch the addiction and become smokers themselves? Can you by smoking be a good Christian witness in your environment? Do you not present a stumbling block to those who are struggling to quit the habit?

Reports about smoking are plentiful. Just ask the lung cancer society and you will have all the statistics you will (n)ever want to know. Let's see what the medical community has to say about smoking.

First some background. Smoking most commonly refers to the practice of inhaling smoke from burning tobacco in a pipe, cigar, or cigarette. American Indians smoked pipes and European explorers introduced the practice into the Old World by the early sixteenth century.
Controversy over the health effects of smoking has existed ever since that time. Cigarette smoke consists of more than 4,700 compounds, 43 of which are carcinogens, such as tar and nicotine--a poisonous alkaloid, which is considered the addicting agent that makes quitting smoking so difficult. Nicotine is an extremely poisonous, colourless, oily liquid alkaloid that turns brown on exposure to air. The most potent ingredient of the tobacco plant, Nicotiniana tabacum, is found mainly in the leaves. Both nicotine and the tobacco plant are named for Jean Nicot, a French ambassador who sent tobacco from Portugal to Paris in 1560. Nicotine can affect the human nervous system, causing respiratory failure and general paralysis. It may be absorbed through the skin. Only two or three drops (less than 50 mg.) of pure alkaloid placed on the tongue is rapidly fatal to an adult. A typical cigarette contains 15 to 20 mg. of nicotine. However, the actual amount that reaches the bloodstream and hence the brain through normal smoking is only about 1 mg. Nicotine is believed to be responsible for most of the short-term and many of the long-term effects of smoking and for the fact that tobacco smoking is such a powerful habit. Nicotine yields of cigarettes have declined by about 70 per- cent since the 1950's, largely due to the popularity of filter-tipped varieties.

By the early 1960's numerous clinical and laboratory studies on smoking and disease had been made. In 1964 a committee appointed by the surgeon general of the U.S. Public Health Service issued a report based on the critical review of previous studies on the effects of smoking. The report concluded that nearly all lung cancer deaths are caused by cigarette smoking, which was also held responsible for many deaths and disabilities from various illnesses such as chronic bronchitis, emphysema, and cardiovascular diseases. A more recent study estimated that about 400,000 Americans die each year from inhaling their own smoke.

As for your non-smoking spouse and children, a 1984 report by the Health Service also suggested that passive inhalation of smoke by non-smokers is very harmful. Although considered controversial at the time, studies have since confirmed these charges. Some experts estimate that passive smoke kills as many as 50,000 Americans a year, and it is the third leading preventable cause of death, behind smoking and alcohol. Studies have shown that children are particularly sensitive to passive smoke and that pregnant women who smoke may harm the fetus. Smoking during pregnancy affects fetal growth and development due to increased carbon monoxide and decreased oxygen in the blood. Babies are smaller, sicker, and more likely to be stillborn. In addition, babies born to women who used drugs during pregnancy may be addicted to the drug at birth.

Should parents of little children continue to smoke? Is this responsible Christian behaviour? Is smoking sin?

Edward T. Welch strongly posits in his book,
Addictions, A Banquet in the Grave, Finding Power in the Hope of the Gospel,

"that we live in a culture that encourages self-indulgence. It should be no surprise that addictions are everywhere. Addiction is not a disease and sin is not a sickness. Scripture emphasizes sex, food, and alcohol (a category which would include modem mind-altering drugs) as the most common addictions and these appetites remain the most prevalent. Yet the list of potential taskmasters is always growing. Addiction was once a term used for the chronic heavy drinker. but over the past two decades its turf has expanded dramatically. Now the list of addictive substances and desires is limited only by our own imagination. as we see here:

anger, alcohol, music, gambling, work, caffeine, love, exercise, nose drops, shoplifting, radio, cocaine, sex, money, lying, chocolate, sleep, nicotine, sports, internet, risk, pain, sugar, success/winning, TV, weightlifting, ipods, pornography, computer games, fashions, gossiping etc.

Some criticize the widening scope of addictions, claiming that when a category expands too much it loses its meaning. But God's Word anticipates the way the term is being applied to more and more behaviors. The thing that drives addictions can be found in every human heart.

For example: we all have had experience with unruly desires that don't take no for an answer. If we are afraid to admit it, we can take our cue from the apostle Paul who said. "1 have the desire to do what is good. but I cannot carry it out. For what I do is not the good I want to do" (Rom. 7:18-19). Indeed, "the addiction experience is the human experience." -
This broader view of addictions is important because it challenges us to examine what drives addictions instead of focusing on the particular drug of choice. What is it about our humanness that leaves us susceptible to being overtaken by certain desires? Why do alcoholics, drug addicts, smokers, compulsive shoppers, and secret indulgers in pornography crave things that are wrong or unwise? Why do we inordinately desire things that, in themselves, might be legitimate (money, approval from others. comfort) but then become too important to us?

Why do we have a hard time saying no to our desires? Since the answers to these questions strike at the core of our humanness, the biblical teachings are relevant to us all.

Definition of addiction – “ Addiction is bondage to the rule of a substance, activity, or state of mind, which then becomes the center of life, defending itself from the truth so that even bad consequences don’t bring repentance, and leading to further estrangement from God.”

How the addict views his or her addiction:
“We don’t want to be ruled by alcohol, drugs, sex, gambling, food, or anything. No, we just want these substances or activities to give us what we want: good feelings, a better self-image, a sense of power, or whatever our heart is craving.

Idols, however, do not cooperate. Rather than mastering our idols, we become enslaved by them and begin to look like them.”

There is only one way in which sin can be dealt with; there is only one way in which sin can be destroyed! There can be no salvation for those who aren’t convinced of the wickedness of sin. It is only when one acknowledges that his external actions originate from a sinful heart that he will flee to the only Saviour of sinners: the Lord Jesus Christ! It is only by repentance towards God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ that one can ever begin to conquer any sin. This is the only way in which the guilt, punishment, or power of sin can be removed from your life. There is no hope in renaming your sin ‘disease’ – for then you become merely a victim of circumstance. But when you take responsibility for your sins – when you acknowledge your sin – there is forgiveness with the Lord! There is only hope when you call sin, sin! There is no hope when you call sin, disease. "

Since 1964, health warnings have been mandated on tobacco advertising, and the use of such advertising has been restricted. Most of the states in the United States, as well as the Canadian federal government, have passed laws to control smoking in public places such as restaurants and work places, where non- smoking has become the rule. In Toronto and most other cities smoking is banned from all public places. American and Canadian airlines have prohibited smoking on flights. Among the military, the U.S. Army has been particularly strict in imposing smoking restrictions.

Despite the help available from various organizations many people apparently find it impossible to quit smoking. But surely, with God's help, any addiction, including smoking, can be overcome!

Are we getting the message?

The tobacco industry and many smokers regard anti-smoking measures as harassment, whereas many non- smokers defend the measures on the grounds that the government has a duty to discourage harmful practices, that public funds in one form or another are used to treat diseases caused by smoking, and that smokers pollute the air for non-smokers.

Smoking is not only a dangerous addiction, but it is also the source of many ailments and much suffering, both for the smoker, and for the relatives of the smoker who have to assist him or her through the various stages of life-threatening diseases which most smokers experience.

A clinic in one the southern States which specializes in the healing of complicated fractures, found that for (then) unknown reasons, it took twice as long for some patients to heal their bones as it did for others. It did not matter what kind of fracture the client had, but if it normally took, for instance, six months to heal, it would take twice as long for some patients: a full year for exactly the same fracture. This baffled them for quite some time, but after much research it was discovered that the difference was caused by smoking. In each case the non- smokers would heal in half the time. The reasons for this soon became evident. Substantial healing requires great amounts of oxygen. Lungs which are very polluted cannot supply much oxygen, and furthermore, if they are filled much of the time with smoke, resulting from a fire at the end of a cigarette, which uses most of the oxygen they need for their healing process, it is clear that all healing will be greatly delayed.

Some researchers have estimated that if Americans stopped smoking cigarettes, lung cancer deaths could virtually be eliminated within twenty years. Lung cancer has also risen rapidly in developing nations because of the spread of cigarette smoking, so that it has becomes the leading fatal cancer in the world today.

Although cigarette smoke contains many initiating agents, the cessation of smoking results in a negligible risk of lung cancer after a year or so. Can you think of a better incentive to stop smoking?

The evidence that smoking is dangerous and deadly is overwhelming. Yet many of our older people continue to set a poor example for our youth. Also, many young people are starting to smoke. Is it not time to act in a principled manner and decide that smoking is harmful, not only to your own health, but also to the health of your children, especially teen-agers and all who come within the reach of your smoke?

Have we not allowed this terrible practice to go unchallenged far too long? Is it healthy for office bearers to smoke? Do they give a good example to the congregation? How can an elder or pastor who is addicted to nicotine (and thus in bondage) counsel and admonish young people who are enslaved (in bondage) to Rock music?

In light of the above statistics, can there really be any doubt that smoking is harmful to our bodies? Let us hear God's Word on the matter: What, know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? For you are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's (1 Cor.6:19,20.)

These are searching questions, are they not? Perhaps those who still smoke are unhappy with this article. You may argue that other people have other bad habits. This is probably true. But is this an excuse for your addiction? Admittedly, it is very difficult to break out of an addiction. Despite the help available from various organizations many people apparently find it impossible to quit smoking.

But surely, with God's help any addiction, including smoking can be overcome!

Is it responsible to have part of your resources go up in smoke when you can support a needy child in a developing country for the same amount of money? Even when you can afford to smoke, are you a good steward of your funds when a considerable amount of your money goes up in smoke annually? Is it not better to give it for the cause of the Lord, such as missions or evangelism? It will not cause illness, but instead spread the Gospel!

It seems that in this matter the world is providing better leadership than the church. By banning smoking from all public buildings and areas, the children of this world show they are wiser than the children of light (Luke 16:8). Society has recognized the evil of smoking and its disastrous consequences for the health of the population.
Particularly the effect of second-hand smoke is seen as very dangerous. In light of this, what are we to think of Christian parents who smoke in their home or car and pollute their little ones? It is a fact that many smokers have children who smoke. In many cases they have been introduced to the habit by second-hand smoke and by the example of their parents.

Can we do anything about this matter? Should we do anything? I believe the answer is "yes." Churches which have implemented a NO SMOKING policy on their premises (and I believe that most of our churches have) , are to be commended for their initiative and the love and care shown to their members. This policy shows that as a whole, the church recognizes that this addiction is unethical. But the church can do more:

1) We can pray for those who are addicted to the habit and striving to be delivered.
2) Each church which has not yet done so, may consider banning all smoking from all its premises, inside and outside buildings.
3) Consistories can lead by example and only nominate non-addicted brothers for the office of pastor and elder.
4)Consistories can decide to make smoking and its detrimental health effects on children (especially smoking of mothers-to-be) a topic of discussion at home visitations.
5) Church leaders can sit down with young people who are prone to take up this evil habit and urge them not to do so.
6) Family members and friends can support and encourage their brothers or sisters and so help them in the struggle to find a release from this dangerous addiction.

This is an article reprinted (updated and expanded) from the Messenger of April 1994.
Editor's Note: The following guest editorial is by Mr. Chris Van Doodewaard, a member of the Editorial Committee.

Sexual Detox I: Pornifying the Marriage Bed: Tim Challies

2009-11-02T17:17:00.002-05:00

I am going to devote this article to the topic of sex. I want to speak especially to young men, those who are teenagers or dating or engaged or newly married. However, I do hope that anyone can read and enjoy the series, even if the teen years are far behind you. I want to talk to young men as an older man. I would like to think that I’m in a sweet spot between young and old—where I am young enough to remember the troubles and travails of youth but old enough to bring a measure of maturity. I want to be forthright with you and yet I also want to be discreet; I often think we, as Christians, talk entirely too much about sex and in too much detail. You may accuse me of the former simply because I’ve written this series but I hope to remain innocent of the second.

I often thank God that I grew up in the years before the internet was in every home; I’m not sure that I would have handled it very well. It’s not like I’m ancient, either, but my thirty-three years do mean that I was born and raised in a pre-internet world. It is difficult to quantify or even qualify how the world has changed since the web tied us all together into this elaborate network of bits and bytes. There is scarcely an area of life that has remain untouched by it. We do not have the old world plus the Internet; we have a whole new world all around us. Even something as flesh and blood as sex has been radically altered in this digital world.

Teenagers in the 90s were not a lot different from teens today. We wanted the same things—we just had to work a little bit harder to get some of them. If we wanted to see pornography (and we did, of course), the process usually involved at least two kids working in tandem, one of whom would distract a shop keeper while the other would try to steal a magazine from the rack at the back of the store. It was dangerous, high stakes work that, if it went wrong, could easily involve a visit with the police. Times have changed.

Today a teenager needs only to turn on his computer and, within two or three clicks of the mouse, he can have unlimited amounts of pornography available to him. Today it is far more difficult to avoid pornography than it is to find it. It would be literally impossible for one person to watch all of the pornography being created today; there would not be enough hours in the day. Not even close.

Needless to say, teens, and teenaged boys in particular, are quick to take advantage of this pornographic feast. Even pre-teen boys are being drawn into the world of porn. From the first awakenings of a boy’s sexuality, he is being inundated with pornographic images. These are not simple images of naked women as they may have been a couple of generations ago, but are hard core images that often extend to what is base and degrading. The sexuality of a whole generation of children is being formed not by talks with their parents, not by reading the kind of book I was given as a young man, but by professional pornographers who will do anything, anything!, to fuel the increased desire for increased depravity.

This is the very nature of sin, isn’t it? Sin is always progressive in nature. If you give it an inch, it soon seeks to take a mile. Sin is never content, but always seeks and desires more. Have you ever been scared by your sin? Perhaps there was a time that you saw how a particular sin was taking you over. Maybe you had thought you were in control of your sin but suddenly found that, almost in an instant, it had increased to the next level. You were no longer in control—sin was leading the way and you were more and more just along for the ride, obeying the impulses of the flesh. This is a terrifying place to be and I believe everyone has experienced it at one time or another.

I know beyond doubt that many, many young (and middle-aged and old) men can testify to the power of pornography in taking over. The first glimpse of porn may be fleeting—intriguing but short-lived. A naked body is all the eye needs to see and it provides plenty of fuel for a while. But before long the heart craves more. What was once satisfying is now boring; what was once repulsive is suddenly desirable. Along the way, a person’s whole perception of sex is changed. No longer is sex simple intercourse between a man and a woman. Instead it becomes a series of acts, even acts that are in some way uncomfortable or degrading. Pornography teaches that sex is everything but intimate face-to-face, body-to-soul contact between willing spouses. And, as they say, life soon imitates “art.” Young men enter into marriage with their minds full of pornographic images and their hearts filled with the desire to fulfill pornographic fantasies.

A short time ago I read an article by a woman who considered herself a feminist. She insisted that she enjoyed sleeping with men and thought little of sleeping with a continual succession of men. Yet she shared what for her was a growing concern. More and more, she said, the men she slept with had no real interest in her at all. They simply wanted her to act like a porn star for their benefit. They were using her to do little more than act out their pornography. There was no tenderness, no desire for shared intimacy, and certainly no love. They simply used her body as a means to a very immediate end. This, she saw, was very quickly becoming the new norm. She was disgusted by it but saw that her feminist worldview gave her no real recourse, no effective means of explaining her disgust, her discomfort.

What seemed clear is that a generation of men, drowning in a cesspool of porn, has a new set of expectations for what they want from women. They want women to subdue their own selves in order to act like porn stars. The women walk away feeling like little more than prostitutes.

In the new bestseller SuperFreakonomics Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner spend almost an entire chapter investigating the economics of prostitution. They make many interesting observations, not the least of which is based on comparisons in the relative pricing between sex acts in the past and sex acts today. It seems that the taboo nature of certain acts has always claimed a certain premium. Yet “taboo” is a moving target. What was forbidden in the past, and hence what was expensive, is today so mainstream that the price has fallen substantially. What was once the most expensive act is today among the least expensive. Acts that were once taboo because of their exceedingly intimate or vulgar and degrading nature are now accepted as legitimate forms of sexual expression in any relationship. What would by any other standard be considered “normal” is now too undesirable, too boring. It has been replaced by the invasive, the degrading.

Pornography is inherently violent, inherently unloving. It is a perversion of sexuality, not a true form of it, and one that teaches violence and degradation at the expense of mutual pleasure and intimacy. It is about conquests, about conquering. It is the very opposite of God’s intention for sex. It tears love from sex, leaving sex as the immediate gratification of one’s most base desires. It lives beyond rules and ethics and morality. It exists far beyond love. And yet countless young men, Christian young men, are coming into marriage bringing with them all of this pornographic baggage.

Having seen thousands of sex acts in a pornographic setting, they load the porn star expectation upon their wives. The young husband assumes or demands that his wife will be willing to do anything, that she will do it all with the proper joy and encouragements, and that she will be as willing and eager and skilled as the women he has seen on the screen.

My great concern with young men today (which is really more a concern for their young wives) is that they may perhaps inadvertently or perhaps intentionally pornify the marriage bed. They may bring impurity to the pure, selfishness to the selfless. Having given themselves over to pornography, they have had their whole perception of sexuality altered, shaped by professional pornographers. They may be imposing on their young brides the impossible expectation of a porn star.

With the vast majority of young men having been exposed to pornography (at least 90% according to recent studies), with a large percentage of them having been addicted to it and with many enjoying it still as they enter into marriage, they need to have their understanding and their expectations reset according to the One who created sex.

Many young men need a kind of sexual detox before they are equipped to be the kind of pure, loving, attentive, sacrificial husbands that God calls them to be. In this series of articles I hope to help young men reorient their understanding of sex, both in the big picture and in the act itself, according to God’s plan for this great gift.

Source:
Sexual Detox I: Pornifying the Marriage Bed

1. Chelsey
October 26, 2009
9:19 AM

Thanks so much for this series. I’ve been married about six months and while I’m a female, I’m definitely looking forward to hearing more about this topic from an older saint who has much more wisdom than I or my husband do.

2. Dan
October 26, 2009
9:30 AM

I grew up like you did, in the pre-internet days, but I caught on fast after that and almost ruined everything. That’s as much as I’ll admit in this forum, but let me tell you that detox is much worse after you’re married than before, so I hope that your younger readers take you up on your offer of this sort of mentorship-by-distance and learn from you.

I’m very humbled by your post and I look forward to learning more from you myself.

3. Drew K
October 26, 200910:00 AM

Kudos to you Tim for taking on this important and pervasive issue. It is not fun but necessary partof the Lord purifying His church.

4. marriagejunkie
October 26, 2009
10:32 AM

Spot on! Going to RT on Twitter and link on the site for my book, Before “I Do”. (http://fullmarriageexperience.com) A real concern for young (and old) marriages and an issue to address for most young grooms to know about. Kudos and thanks!

5. Candice
October 26, 2009
10:36 AM

Tim, thanks for taking on this topic. I know as a wife affected by porn that it is a powerful tool that the enemy loves to use to tear down men and tear the hearts of their wives apart, too. Satan loves to whisper to men that it will only affect them, and that they aren’t hurting anyone but themselves. I look forward to reading your series that is setting out to debunk that lie.

6. Anonymous
October 26, 2009
10:54 AM

so are your next articles going to list out a “sexual detox” program?

7. Alan
October 26, 2009
10:56 AM

This was good, and I think you’ve hit the nail on the head. One thing I would add goes right in line with the major points of this post.

Once the pornstar expectations are placed on a wife, and she comes up short, it leads to more involvement in pornography to fill the void left by the non-pornstar wife. This only deepens the problem all the way around. The sin goes further, and the expectations become greater on the wife, who will have a harder time fulfilling these new expectations. And on and on it goes.

The whole thing seems so harmless at the very first, and yet it is so incredibly lethal to a person’s soul and marriage—if not more.

8. Dave Dunbar
October 26, 2009
11:00 AM

It is right to carefully address an insidious attack by the enemy upon Christians. Thank you, Tim.

One of the things that men need to remember is the pictures aren’t “real”. What I mean is that our standard of beauty is falsely affected by the parade of perfect bodies on TV, movies, etc. Even then, what percentage of pictures are photo-shopped? In other words, the perfect pictures have been altered, and do not reflect reality.

Or in the case of movies, the women involved in vile acts ACT like they enjoy it, but they are paid actresses (or porn stars, or whatever), and their false enjoyment of degrading activities in no way indicates that an honest and holy wife would enjoy such defilement of the marriage bed.

Please keep up the good work on this series of articles. Just taking a guess, this could become a popular and widely-read (and helpful!) series.

9. Tim Challies
October 26, 2009
11:07 AM

so are your next articles going to list out a “sexual detox” program?

Pretty much. Then plan is to replace truth with lies.

Once the pornstar expectations are placed on a wife, and she comes up short, it leads to more involvement in pornography to fill the void left by the non-pornstar wife. This only deepens the problem all the way around. The sin goes further, and the expectations become greater on the wife, who will have a harder time fulfilling these new expectations. And on and on it goes.

Exactly so. This is the consistent pattern of sin, isn’t it? It spirals, it twists, it is never satisfied.

10. BigNorm
October 26, 2009
11:18 AM

Great Post.

As a newly-wed, we fought hard for a blank canvas to build our marriage on, including keeping the bedroom pure.

Divine innovation and creativity is the ONLY way to go for marriage.

Loving it.
N

11. Matthew
October 26, 2009
11:30 AM

“Pornography is inherently violent, inherently unloving. It is a perversion of sexuality, not a true form of it, and one that teaches violence and degradation at the expense of mutual pleasure and intimacy. It is about conquests, about conquering.”

I think you might be looking at the wrong kind of porn. There is some good stuff out there that is not violent or degrading. Don’t let the bad stuff spoil you on the rest.

Pornography and masturbation can have a role in a healthy marriage. It is very unlikely that you and your spouse will have the same appetite: allowing one of you to have some extra release can reduce the pressure on the other to perform when not in the mood.

12. Mike D
October 26, 2009
11:33 AM

Scripture itself teaches the bondage that sexual sin brings. After speaking of the sin of adultery and of some of the repurcussions (Proverbs 5), Solomon adds the following (v. 22)…”he will be HELD with the CORDS of his sin.”

There is an enslaving nature attached to sexual sin. By God’s grace I have been kept from it in large measure, but I have seen it wrap its tenticals around many a man and not relinquish. There is a reason that Solomon also says or the adulteress in verse 5 of that same chapter, “Her feet go down to death, her steps lay hold of hell.”

I am glad you are talking about it, Tim. But please encourage FATHERS to do their duty as watchmen upon the city wall - warning their children of this decieitful enemy. It is time for men, as heads of their households, to call sin what it is, and to be as the angel with the flaming sword, not allowing his family or his friends down that path, God giving him help. This duty should also be pressed upon SHEPHERDS of the flock of God, that they might watch over the souls that God has put under their charge.

May God give you help as you seek to chart a course - faithfully dealing with prevailing sin and men’s souls AND yet not giving such detail and content as would prove a carnal feast to our remaining flesh.

Matt. 11:12…”the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and the violent take it by force.” May God give us grace to do battle. It is a war. May God give us grace to deal ruthlessly with our remaining sin and the sin that so easily besets us. May we be willing to go to all extremes to be rid of it - even to such extremes as represented by an eye plucked out and a hand cut off. As Christ said, such extremes might be necessary if we would enter heaven.

13. Rodica
October 26, 2009
11:35 AM

what about writing a book on this topic? Haven’t seen a good book to recommend to someone with this problem. The book shelves may have many books on pre-marriage and marriage counseling yet I have not seen one that focuses squarely on this topic. Can you suggest any?

14. Ken Davis
October 26, 2009
11:37 AM

“I want to talk to young men as an older man … my thirty-three years…” - Well - you’re older than somebody.

15. Bonnie
October 26, 2009
11:40 AM

Thank you for addressing this topic. From my vantage point (being of a certain age, married 22 years, with a teenaged son), I wonder whether ubiquitous p*rn has simply ramped up something that men are already tempted toward. Even without taking it to base extremes, and absent p*rn, a young man can still develop a selfish sexual view toward women. Later he might be unloving and subtly degrading to his wife because he views her as a means to satisfy his fantasies rather than someone to relate with.

I think it’s important that young men, from the time they are small children, learn to view others, especially their female peers, in terms of relationship as fellow human beings, rather than objects of any type, sexual or otherwise. They need to be guided to learn how to express themselves properly across the board, so that they will be able to do so properly sexually as well, when the time comes. And yes, parents need to talk to their kids about sex, from an early age and age-appropriately, so they grow up to hold it in proper regard.

In this way, when temptation comes, they have strong values to hold onto, and character training from an early age which has strengthened them.

16. Tim Challies
October 26, 2009
11:42 AM

I think you might be looking at the wrong kind of porn. There is some good stuff out there that is not violent or degrading. Don’t let the bad stuff spoil you on the rest.

Matthew - the foundational “badness” in pornography is not the violence. Pornography is bad simply because already it inflames the heart to adultery. Jesus says that adultery is not simply the act of sleeping with another person, but is as much as a lustful thought about another person. It is impossible to watch pornography and not be incited to lust. The whole point of pornography, even pornography that is “normal” as opposed to violent, is to incite sin.

Pornography and masturbation can have a role in a healthy marriage. It is very unlikely that you and your spouse will have the same appetite: allowing one of you to have some extra release can reduce the pressure on the other to perform when not in the mood.

Let’s just call this what it is—a man’s justification to look at porn and masturbate. Why even bother rationalizing?

17. Christina
October 26, 2009
11:47 AM

Thank you for taking this topic on. Until the church starts addressing these issues with the gospel of Jesus Christ we can have no hope that our culture will change. I look forward to this series.

18. Polarbear
October 26, 2009
12:12 PM

Thank you Tim for this post and I look forward to the series this week. This pornification of the marriage bed is perhaps the number one tool that the enemy is using to destroy Christian marriages.

Matthew, I am praying for you man.

19. Jerry
October 26, 2009
12:29 PM

Greetings,
I am excited about this series and will send the link to everyone I know. I think that this topic is of the utmost importance. There should be more conversations about this issue in our local churches. Maybe this will get some to start talking about it.

20. Eddy Alexandre
October 26, 2009
12:51 PM

I will be waiting…

21. Jerod
October 26, 2009
1:00 PM

Great post Tim. This is a deadly sin that so many times stays hidden and is not discussed. Church culture needs to change so that it’s ok to not be ok. Otherwise we will continue to hide sin and not find healing from it.

I hid for a long time. Bringing it to light by talking about it and confessing is extremely difficult, but the only place to find freedom and healing from it. (James 5:16) God forgives, and it’s through confession to one another we find healing!

22. Tom W.
October 26, 2009
1:29 PM

Wow, Matthew. That whole approach is wrong on so many levels; to add to Tim’s reply, consider this verse in your approach to sexual intimacy with your wife:
“Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves; “
(Philippians 2:3)

23. Mike D
October 26, 2009
1:41 PM

Rodica…

…you asked about a good book on this subject.

I would recommend a small book by Randy Alcorn entitled…
The Purity Principle: God’s Safeguards for Life’s Dangerous Trails (LifeChange Books).

If you want an excerpt from the book, you can go here…
http://www.epm.org/artman2/publish/Randys_books_excerpts_from_Randys_books/Chapter_5_and_6_from_the_Purity_Principle.shtml

It is a small book and an easy read. I hope this helps…

24. Kath
October 26, 2009
1:44 PM

Please, please don’t overlook that this is a very serious issue for women too, too often men in the church have at this point in the porn conversation effectively told women to close their ears because this won’t affect them. The thing is it does. It’s a real and even more taboo struggle for many women who feel unable to be honest about all this because so many people hold the expectation that only men struggle with this. I’m tired of hearing pastors tell me that only the men should listen at these point. Women struggle in this area. Sure, we may struggle differently but it is no less pervasive and all the more dangerous because it’s a whole lot more harder to be honest about it.

25. Josh Reich
October 26, 2009
1:45 PM

Great post.

I just preached a message in a marriage series on pornography and what it does in a marriage. To go with that, my wife and I wrote on how a wife can handle her husband’s addiction and how to find healing: http://missionalthoughts.wordpress.com/2009/10/16/how-a-wife-handles-her-husbands-sexual-addiction/. This comes out of our personal experience and our story and how it shaped our marriage.

Looking forward to the rest of the series.

26. An Honest Question
October 26, 2009
2:14 PM

very needed stuff. excellent post. I would be interested, however, how you develop “right sex” from “porn star sex” in marriage. in Song of Solomon the couple seem to delight in pleasing one another, and she even dresses to delight his eyes. you mention “face to face intimacy” as if any other kind of sexual position might be wrong.

asking your wife to act like a porn star is obviously wrong but just what are the rules? if it delights a husband for his wife to wear “frilly pajamas” (so to speak!) is that wrong of him to ask her to do so? if the wife likes a man with a beard is it wrong for her to ask him to grow one? just how far is one obligated to go to bring sexual pleasure to their mate? I think that is an area a lot of marriage could use some help with. hope you will be able to address that.

27. Tim Challies
October 26, 2009
2:18 PM

asking your wife to act like a porn star is obviously wrong but just what are the rules?

I am planning on covering some of that in a couple of days. There is a bit of ground work first, but we’ll get there.

you mention “face to face intimacy” as if any other kind of sexual position might be wrong.

I don’t mean to be a prude! I more just mean that there are things you can do in sex that personalize it (even without being nose-to-nose) and others that de-personalize it.

28. Grace
October 26, 2009
2:46 PM

Tim,

Looking forward to reading more!

29. Anonymous
October 26, 2009
2:46 PM

Thanks Kath for bringing to light that women struggle too. I am thankful Tim is addressing this issue.

30. Tim Challies
October 26, 2009
2:49 PM

Please, please don’t overlook that this is a very serious issue for women too, too often men in the church have at this point in the porn conversation effectively told women to close their ears because this won’t affect them. The thing is it does.

I have purposely targeted this series to young men because I feel that I understand young men. I am not far removed from being one myself. I have infinitely less experience being a young woman so I hesitate to speak out about such things. However, I do think much of what I say will apply either way. If pornography is shaping a man’s expectation of his wife, it will also shape a wife’s expectation of her husband. And in either case, the solution will be to repent of sin and to replace sin with truth. So do stay tuned. I hope you’ll find the rest of the series relevant.

31. Neil King
October 26, 2009
3:08 PM

Like many others who have already commented, I really appreciate that you’re dealing with this issue, Tim. It’s the area of my life where I can mostly sympathise with Paul when he cries out ‘Who will save me from this body of death?’

In a way, I can thank God for the struggles I have with sexual sin. Obviously, this isn’t because He gave me these evil desires, which is a blasphemous idea to contemplate, but rather that I am constantly struggling with them rather than having them removed, because I truly know that my strength in overcoming sexual sin can only come from Him alone, and not from my own efforts. It is a constant reminder for me that the Christian life is not a holiday; rather it is a day-by-day, hour-by-hour, minute-by-minute struggle that we cannot hope to succeed in without God’s grace and mercy.

32. Rodica
October 26, 2009
4:31 PM

Mike D.
thanks for the book recommendation. After scanning the excerpt, I found it to be a very useful book to read, and to pass along to the young men and women in my family life.

…also, planning on passing on the full text of this article series , once complete, to family and friends. I agree with all other comments that speaking truth on this issue, at this time, is very warranted and very welcome.

33. Daniel Holter
October 26, 2009
4:34 PM

“Pornography is bad simply because already it inflames the heart to adultery.”

I’d blame the heart so inflamed, not the fuel.

If it weren’t porn leading to adultery, it’d be something else.

Until one can control vices, no matter the form, one is in danger of being weak and suspect, hypocritical and wicked… all while blaming the vice instead of one’s own character.

34. Tim Challies
October 26, 2009
5:00 PM

I’d blame the heart so inflamed, not the fuel.

While I know what you are getting at, that is a bit of a silly line to take, I think. I’ll grant that pornography is not morally culpable (porn has no soul, will not go to hell, etc) it is still evil simply because it distorts and perverts. It is a medium used to share evil.

35. Tim Irvin
October 26, 2009
5:19 PM

I have to agree, whole-heartedly, with Daniel (#33). A man isn’t a thief because he steals, he steals because he is a thief already in his heart.
Any married person who turns to porn, even if they say they’re just curious, is doing so because adultery is already in their heart.
Discussion is not what is needed. Reproof is what is needed.
Ephesians 5:11-12

36. Daniel Holter
October 26, 2009
5:26 PM

“[Porn] is a medium used to share evil.”

With all due respect, Tim, so is religion. So what?

37. mark
October 26, 2009
5:27 PM

nice try on I’d blame the heart so inflame, not the fuel.”

however porn has no legit use of any kind. it’s express purpose is to incite lust. thus it can be blamed because there is no good thing to be said for it.

and while certainly granting that a heart that is not right with God will find other avenues of sin it is foolish to think that we can’t help the problem by pointing out how depraved this “fuel” really is, and all the effects that come from “consuming” it.

38. Anonymous, please
October 26, 2009
5:38 PM

As a redeemed sinner, one who - pre-conversion - became a feminist “out of necessity”, feeling abandoned by a husband who acted as if I were there to support him and be a playtoy at the same time, and then he would wondered why I began to shudder every time he even touched my shoulder, with both of us investigating what could be wrong with ME and why I was suddenly so frigid; and after the divorce, learning that I was anything but frigid, but became a misandrist due to exactly this sort of thing, I can recall lamenting that it seemed that men got their sex education from the skin flicks. There is nothing more dehumanizing than to be expected to live up to that expectation, and to have all sense of worth and value placed upon my ability to perform in that manner. The sheer selfishness inherent in that kind of mindset destroys women, it destroys marriages, and it destroys families.

39. Daniel Holter
October 26, 2009
5:46 PM

@mark (37.) :

How nice it must be to eradicate one’s life of all inciters and stimulus. :)

I can imagine a life worth living here on planet earth with no lust, no thirst, no desire to escape, no groove to satiate one’s need to grind on the dancefloor, no poetry to open a soul nor images to affect a heart, no food on which to gorge oneself.

Oh, wait… no I can’t.

“Porn” is what you make of it… one man’s porn is another man’s marital aid. One man’s joint is another man’s nausea helpmate. One man’s celebratory feast is another’s gluttonous escapade. One man’s justified vindication is another’s cold-blooded murder. The vice/method/tool/path is not evil. A man’s heart can be. Can be.

40. Daniel Holter
October 26, 2009
5:54 PM

@Anonymous, please (38.) :

“There is nothing more dehumanizing than to be expected to live up to that expectation, and to have all sense of worth and value placed upon my ability to perform in that manner.”

While your personal story is, indeed, sad and regrettable… there are more than a few experiences more dehumanizing than being expected perform like a porn star.

Just off the top of my head : think of being sold as a child sex slave; actual rape; or, you know, enjoying a spontaneous, free, and unplanned vacation in Dachau or Auschwitz circa 1939.

41. Tim Challies
October 26, 2009
6:03 PM

Daniel - You’ve made your view well known. I think it’s probably a good idea for you to back off a bit now. You aren’t going to convince people here of what you’re saying.

42. Daniel Holter
October 26, 2009
6:05 PM

@Tim :

fair enough… all meant in the interest of honest discussion, please know that. :)

I’ll still be reading, with interest.

43. Anonymous, please
October 26, 2009
6:51 PM

Daniel,

You are correct. It’s the end of a long day, and I surely have misspoken to a degree, though perhaps you don’t know what it is to participate in some very dark situations just to please someone enough to keep a roof over your head (again, pre-conversion). But the coldness and callousness that comes through in your response to me is exactly the kind of attitude that makes it very clear that you don’t get it, and that you clearly have no desire to. As a result of all this, I was once quite heavily involved in the whole thing, not realizing it then but after a couple of decades of that kind of expectation, my attractiveness to the opposite sex and my ability to gain and hold their interest in that way was the only place I had any sense of any kind of worth - and I hated it, and I hated men because of it. One thing I think a lot of men really don’t understand, is the reality of the anatomy of it. Physically, it is an external act for you; for a woman it is internal; we are literally taking another person into ourselves.

Reading through this discussion thread, the one thing that stands out to me more than anything is that we in our flesh will do anything we can to justify our sin and hold onto our idols, muddying up the clear counsel of God on the matter of sin (if your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out - so it doesn’t matter if your lust makes you look at porn, or your porn causes you to lust, it’s all sin, so just throw out the porn and seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness.)

It wasn’t until recently, since Christ saved me (just last year!) that I have come to see a glorious picture of the Gospel in God’s design for the marriage relationship, and while I do believe that I am not a candidate for dating/marriage given the words of Christ, I love its design and I pray for the marriages of those around me. Here’s the thing I see - If marriage is intended to be a reflection of the relationship between Christ and His church (His Bride), and the intimacy involved in that is intended to be a reflection of the unity between Christ and Christians (John 17) just as it is a reflection of the unity within in the Trinity, and if the covenant of marriage is intended to reflect the covenant between God and His people, then any turning away to satisfy the flesh in a cheapened version of the real thing just - to me - makes porn look like a golden calf, or maybe Asherim. It is not for no reason that God calls it adultery when His people turn to the world and to the flesh instead of to Himself, and He calls out lust as adultery, and I think too of the fact that Christ loves His Bride, He gave Himself up for her, He died for her, and if one’s spouse is a part of that Bride, and you’re (I say “you” in a general way) abusing that relationship (or that spouse) in that way, choosing to sow to the flesh rather than to the Spirit when intimacy is not possible, or if there is a refusal to submit to one another, then there is Another who is angry at you, whether the other spouse is (yet) or not.

44. DR
October 26, 2009
7:15 PM

Mark Driscoll wrote on this subject - Porn Again Christian - downloadable or read online. http://relit.org/porn_again_christian/

May you be given wisdom Tim to stick to scripture and grace on this subject and be succinct.

At 33yo I would not say you are an old man - you’re still young!

45. Mike Toreno
October 26, 2009
7:33 PM

I’m glad you wrote this, your view of the effects of pornography is so true! I don’t have any problem with pornography, but I have experienced an analogous issue. Last year I started watching Bollywood movies, and they have caused me to bring unrealistic expectations to my everyday experiences. Now, whenever any kind of significant event happens, I am disappointed whenever a group of singers and dancers fails to converge and put on a big production number. Just as with pornography, my viewing of Bollywood pictures has caused me to become dissatisfied with ordinary life. And it’s just the same whatever anyone reads, hears, or views. A lot of my friends read “Arabian Nights” and are now dissatisfied with ordinary, non-flying carpets.

46. Yooper
October 26, 2009
7:51 PM

Despite popular belief, there is no such thing as safe sin.

47. kitchen table
October 26, 2009
10:05 PM

I also grew up in the pre-internet days. Sex in my teenage years is not as easy as it is now. And internet has been a big factor for that. We thought what we are doing are not sinful because it is like everybody is doing it, too.

48. ANON
October 26, 2009
11:23 PM

A few observations Tim:
1. Please think of another name for this series. “Sexual Detox” sounds so humanistic and ‘program’ orientated. There is nothing wrong with appropriately expressed God - given human sexuality, within the confines of marriage. In fact it’s a wonderful blessing! Sexual expression within marriage needs no “detox”. For young men (and maybe women) who find themselves addicted to porn or whatever tickles their lust of the flesh … have done with sin!

2. You want to speak to young men you say … well let me tell you that some of us here are older men who have struggled all our Christian lives with the temptations of lust, of committing fornication with the eyes and our minds, of abusing our bodies, of misusing the organs meant for sexual pleasure for our wives and ourselves within the marital bed. The locusts have eaten the years which should have been spent with the wife of one’s youth and given them the second best.

3. The sins of the flesh are rampant but well concealed from one another within the church. I sometimes wonder as I hear some great preacher-teacher whether they too are beset with the same sins we’re taking about here. Having preached - do they then go home to secretly view porn somewhere? (Actually I have heard mature Christian business men - one a Christian bookseller admit that they have to work so hard to keep their mind-heart in check when away from their wife - once it was the temptation of a playboy at the newsagent, for another watching porn movies in the hotel whilst they were away…)

4. The devil wants all Christians dead…. he wanted Adam and Eve dead and he many a Christian man, he has made dead (in ministry and marriage and godliness).

If you are a young man (or woman) - this sounds like a “must read” series and may God give us all grace, and may we be men (and women) of conviction to do that which is right. have done with sin! His grace is sufficient!

49. Jennifer
October 27, 2009
1:56 AM

To Annon, please
I am praising the Lord for the work He has done in you and in your life! He is so good and merciful! I loved your words and hope you keep contributing.
To Tim
Thank you so much for putting your eloquence to this difficult subject. We have three boys and a girl and need to hear what you have to say. I will be praying for you as you craft these posts.
God Bless you.

50. J. B. Hood
October 27, 2009
8:52 AM

Tim,

What is the feminist writer who noted the pornification of sex in the men she was with, and where was that article?

Thanks

51. C
October 27, 2009
10:13 AM

I would like to address Daniel. Porn is indeed evil. It work solely to give people sexual (and not at all spiritual) release one-on-one, when sex is designed to be communion.
Calling out think about all the worse things like rape and child abuse and genocide… that is absurd. Absolutely absurd and pardon, but I would hope you try to purge your soul of the devil working through you.This is an important discussion for everyone to hear, and your comments through it seek only to protect the sin everyone struggles against.
What would you say to a woman who has been sexually assaulted and raped, but not killed? “Don’t focus on that, because it has been a lot worse for others?” That is the same as saying porn is not bad when you look at everything else bad in the world. For shame.
And porn and masturbation are not ok. I have been in the mood when he is not, and I wait or relive in my mind memories that belong to the two of us. To tun to another avenue and leave him out of such a beautiful thing, and to create for me a sexual memory that excludes him, would be to cheat on him and on God, and is wrong.

As for sex itself, when everyone was talking on face-to-face etc, I can speak from personal experience on that. There are a myriad of positions and acts, but when each one is a gift that you give to each other, you feel as pure and whole if you face a pillow or are under covers as when you face each other. The sex acts are acts of love, and when you truly love your partner (or man for me, since I’m a woman), any of them feel like gifts. If it didn’t, you would feel dirty whenever an act was pleasuring one or the other of you, and it doesn’t. If you’re the one giving, the act turns you on as well because you know what you give and how much you light him up, and when he gives to you you know its from the heart and it feels that way. I always feel like a beacon at the close of our sessions, and very close to God, and I think that’s the purpose, to honor and fulfill one another in the eyes of God.

I don’t know if you can post this Tim, since I suppose I’m mildly graphic, but I think it’s important to let people know.

A good standard, for me, I remember telling my younger brother when he got his first girlfriend and was struggling with where the line was, I told him to only do what you were comfortable with God knowing you’re doing. God has to be present.

The sexual relationship- God gave it to us, and it should be held in highest esteem and regard, not degraded and perverted by the obscene and base in pornography.

The same act in a willing marriage partnership and in porn would be entirely different, because one is a mutual glorification, and one a degradation.

52. Brian Roden
October 27, 2009
11:43 AM

Some books to recommend:

The Game Plan: The Men’s 30-Day Strategy for Attaining Sexual Integrity by Joe Dallas
http://www.amazon.com/Game-Plan-Strategy-Attaining-Integrity/dp/0849906334/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1256658066&sr=8-4

At the Altar of Sexual Idolatry by Steve Gallagher
http://www.amazon.com/Game-Plan-Strategy-Attaining-Integrity/dp/0849906334/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1256658066&sr=8-4

Think Before You Look: 40 Powerful Reasons to Avoid Pornography by Daniel Henderson
http://www.amazon.com/Think-Before-You-Look-Pornography/dp/0899571646/ref=pd_sim_b_1

53. Traylor Lovvorn
October 27, 2009
3:19 PM

Tim-

Thank you for this wonderful post and for addressing the growing epidemic coming at the Church like a tsunami. In my experience, the Church has not talked enough about sex and therefore has created a vacuum that has allowed most of our education about sex to come, as you say, from the pornographers.

The silence of the Church and unwillingness to talk frankly about this subject has robbed many couples of a proper understanding of sex in their relationship. In a series of articles that have come out over the last few months, many Church leaders are even proposing that the solution is to encourage marriage at an earlier age. The sentiment seems to be that if we get kids married earlier then they’ll get to have sex and we won’t have to live with the tension of how to properly address the issue.

I am a recovering sex addict who lost my wife and family after 11 years of marriage because of my addiction. After six years of divorce, God miraculously reconciled my ex wife and I. (Our Story) I facilitate a sexual addiction recovery group and work with many couples and individuals who are living in the pain and brokenness that this epidemic brings.

I look forward to reading your upcoming posts and appreciate you dealing head-on with this all important topic!

Traylor

54. Brad
October 27, 2009
3:33 PM

“Pornography and masturbation can have a role in a healthy marriage. It is very unlikely that you and your spouse will have the same appetite: allowing one of you to have some extra release can reduce the pressure on the other to perform when not in the mood.”

Matthew - can I humbly encourage you to read this article: http://ccef.org/its-all-about-me-problem-masturbation. It really challenged my thinking on the subject, and specifically addresses your scenario.

55. Melanie
October 27, 2009
3:54 PM

Where I live when a man is arrested for picking up a prostitute he is sent to “John School” where he will hear the first hand testimony of former prostitutes that they do not enjoy their trade. It is a BIG, BOLD, LIE to believe that women working in any form of the sex trade are there by choice and because they like it. An overwhelming amount of those women were molested as young girls and have been abused and used their whole lives.
Annie Lobert shares her story on her site (http://www.hookersforjesus.net/anniestestimony.cfm):
“Sex for money is NOT pleasurable, it is NOT fun, us girls DO NOT enjoy it—in fact there were many times I just wanted to hurt the man that was touching me! … I had to be the best actress all of time just to make sure I got paid—men actually thought I enjoyed what I did. How could men think this? It was a flat out LIE! This is SEXUAL ABUSE in its worst form—a jail cell of your mind….Many times I just wanted to die when I went to sleep at night after I worked, I felt so dirty, sleazy—I felt had no way out—because…who would actually RESPECT me or let alone LOVE ME if they found out what I did for a living?”

56. J.P.H.
October 28, 2009
10:52 AM

Melanie- While I’m certainly not going to disagree with you on whether prostitutes “enjoy” the actual act of prostituting themselves, I do think some folks do it “by choice”. I recently read an article about a phenomenon in Hong Kong where high school age girls are prostituting themselves for money to buy clothes, fancy cell phones, etc. If the article is to be believed, they aren’t from the demographic one would normally expect prostitutes to come from. They’re middle class, stable family situation, etc. And not all of them become “career prostitutes”.

After some digging, here’s the article:

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/09/24/hongkong.teenage.prostitution/

57. Daniel Holter
October 28, 2009
2:42 PM

@ C (51.) :

Thanks for your response, but I think it’s safe we say we’ll disagree on just about everything regarding the issue at hand. I’ll respect Tim’s wishes and not further a discussion that will likely run (far) off course from his intended topic.

I’m curious, though, how I might “try to purge [my] soul of the devil working through [me].” If you want to pray for me, feel free… or to offer some advice directly, you can reach me by clicking my name.

58. Tim Challies
October 28, 2009
4:16 PM

While I’m certainly not going to disagree with you on whether prostitutes “enjoy” the actual act of prostituting themselves, I do think some folks do it “by choice”.

There are definitely some of both. I would think that the vast majority are in it through force or through perceived necessity (“I have to feed my kids somehow…” or “I need to earn money to support my habit…”). The percentage who would be in it fully voluntarily would be very small. And even then I suspect many of them would come from backgrounds that, in one way or another, would have nudged them toward it, perhaps through abuse or another factor. Prostitution is just so far from God’s design for women that it takes a remarkable hardening of God-given feminine instincts for a women to give herself to it and to enjoy it.

59. Brian
October 28, 2009
5:51 PM

Tim, can you expand on what you mean when you say

I want to be forthright with you and yet I also want to be discreet; I often think we, as Christians, talk entirely too much about sex and in too much detail.

On the face of it I have an exactly opposite view and would love to know what you’re referring to here.

60. Jake Aharonian
October 29, 2009
1:26 AM

JB—I think you mean the article by Naomi Wolf http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/trends/n_9437/

61. Tim Challies
October 29, 2009
9:00 AM

I want to be forthright with you and yet I also want to be discreet; I often think we, as Christians, talk entirely too much about sex and in too much detail.

Well, maybe the first part isn’t entirely true. Sometimes I think that we talk about it too much these days (e.g. all these sex sermon series being preached in churches today). And I am definitely convinced we often do so in too much detail (and here a series like Driscoll’s on Song of Solomon comes to mind). The Bible is always subtle when it comes to the actual act of sex and I think we do well to follow that example.

62. Sarah R.
October 29, 2009
1:12 PM

In your comment about the feminist writer, you said that feminism gave her no recourse to feelings of being sexually used by men—but this is wrong, and reflects a shallow understanding of feminism.

Feminism provides the greatest recourse of all, which is to give women a voice in their own relationships. If she’s unsatisfied with her relationships, a feminist view would encourage her to speak up and communicate instead of enduring it silently, wondering what’s wrong.

Unfortunately, the writer you used as an example is not a very good example of a feminist, and I hope that your readers don’t come away thinking of feminism as an excuse to throw one’s body around willy-nilly without regard to consequences.

63. Michael
October 29, 2009
1:49 PM

Interesting discussion. Came over from The Point blog. Glad I did. What I find fascinating is that I know everything that’s mentioned here, all the down sides of porn, why we shouldn’t view it, and yet none of that was enough for me to overcome my attraction to it. And I personally didn’t experience many of the down sides to it, except shame and distancing myself from my relationship from God.

Bad enough, I know, but it’s hard to turn away from something you like. I never treated my wife like a porn star. I never got increasingly addicted. It’s not something I HAD to do, it’s something I liked to do. I also never grew increasingly attracted to a wider array of sex. What was disgusting to me 10 or 20 years ago, is still disgusting to me. One down side I should mention is what porn makes a wife feel like when she knows her husband “likes” it. She feels inadequate and betrayed in a way. I never viewed it with her, but she knew. I believe women will always be somewhat insecure in their relationships, but porn doesn’t help.

But I don’t tell all this to say anything talked about here is not legitimate, only that it didn’t work for me. But something did, and I can never view porn the same again. It was so powerful to me that I literally can never “like” porn again. The illusion of consequences free sex, i.e. porn, was torn from me forever.

It was simply something I read at xxx.church.com about women not enjoying making porn movies, which lead me to Shelly Lubben’s Myspace page. She’s an ex-porn star and now she minsters to women who want to get out of “the industry.” You watch some of those videos of ex-porn stars, and watch Shelly’s testimony, and you tell me porn is just a bunch of people having a good time. Porn is abuse of women, pure and simple, and every “actress” is a woman who is dysfunctional in some way. It uses women for male fantasies. Porn is for men, because men want women to be sexually like men, and thus porn has to destroy a woman’s nature to have her act like she enjoys having sex in front of a camera. Even one click supports the abuse of women, and I just can’t do it anymore.

64. Jim Martin
October 30, 2009
11:44 AM

Tim,
A very good and important post. Thanks for taking the time to develop this series. Much damage has come to new marriages because of this issue.

65. Chris Poblete
October 31, 2009
1:44 AM

Tim,

I seriously love this blog. You can bet that I will be sharing this with a lot of dudes my age, and I will surely profit from this series myself.

Thanks again, man!
Post Your Comment Here »
Sign in to comment, or comment anonymously.
Your Name:
Email Address:
URL:
Remember Info?
Comment:

You may use HTML to style your comment.
Subscribe to comments?
Type the letter l:
This Week's Premium Sponsor
True Church Conference

Please support this site by visiting the sponsors (or Advertise Here!)

« Music Roundup | This Week's Sponsor: True Church Conference 2010 »

Comments
My Book

There are currently 65 comments for this article. Feel free to post a comment of your own. While you must include an email address, this feature exists only to perturb spammers. Your email address will not be sold, rented, given away or otherwise abused. I promise.
Recommend It

Click on the star to recommend this story to other readers.
Vote 9 Votes
Print It
Print this article
Trackbacks
View blog reactions
Tags
This article has been tagged with: pornography, sexuality, teenagers Categories
This article has been filed in Christian Living Social Media / Subscribe / Bookmark / Tools
AddThis
AddThis Feed Button
Plain Old RSS
Subscribe via Email

Visit the Main Page For More Articles & Features

Relevant Happenings

Reader Favorites
"The Shack" by William P. Young (271 votes) A Review of The Shack (Download it Here) (94 votes) Book Review - "Crazy Love" by Francis Chan (36 votes) Book Review - 90 Minutes in Heaven (36 votes) Book Review - The Secret (35 votes) The ESV Study Bible - A Review (15 votes)

Most Read Entries
"The Shack" by William P. Young A Review of The Shack (Download it Here) Book Review - The Secret Book Review - Crazy Love Book Review - 90 Minutes in Heaven Evil as Entertainment

Recent Book Reviews
The Case for God Book Review - "Counterfeit Gods" by Tim Keller Have a Little Faith The Greatest Show on Earth Books I Didn't Review Book Review - Calvin

Irrelevant Details

This & That

I have now blogged for 2194 consecutive days.

Pretty Little Buttons
Wishlist Site Meter

LinkedIn I blog ESV

1. Chelsey
October 26, 2009
9:19 AM

Thanks so much for this series. I’ve been married about six months and while I’m a female, I’m definitely looking forward to hearing more about this topic from an older saint who has much more wisdom than I or my husband do.

2. Dan
October 26, 2009
9:30 AM

I grew up like you did, in the pre-internet days, but I caught on fast after that and almost ruined everything. That’s as much as I’ll admit in this forum, but let me tell you that detox is much worse after you’re married than before, so I hope that your younger readers take you up on your offer of this sort of mentorship-by-distance and learn from you.

I’m very humbled by your post and I look forward to learning more from you myself.

3. Drew K
October 26, 2009
10:00 AM

Kudos to you Tim for taking on this important and pervasive issue. It is not fun but necessary partof the Lord purifying His church.

4. marriagejunkie
October 26, 2009
10:32 AM

Spot on! Going to RT on Twitter and link on the site for my book, Before “I Do”. (http://fullmarriageexperience.com) A real concern for young (and old) marriages and an issue to address for most young grooms to know about. Kudos and thanks!

5. Candice
October 26, 2009
10:36 AM

Tim, thanks for taking on this topic. I know as a wife affected by porn that it is a powerful tool that the enemy loves to use to tear down men and tear the hearts of their wives apart, too. Satan loves to whisper to men that it will only affect them, and that they aren’t hurting anyone but themselves. I look forward to reading your series that is setting out to debunk that lie.

6. Anonymous
October 26, 2009
10:54 AM

so are your next articles going to list out a “sexual detox” program?

7. Alan
October 26, 2009
10:56 AM

This was good, and I think you’ve hit the nail on the head. One thing I would add goes right in line with the major points of this post.

Once the pornstar expectations are placed on a wife, and she comes up short, it leads to more involvement in pornography to fill the void left by the non-pornstar wife. This only deepens the problem all the way around. The sin goes further, and the expectations become greater on the wife, who will have a harder time fulfilling these new expectations. And on and on it goes.

The whole thing seems so harmless at the very first, and yet it is so incredibly lethal to a person’s soul and marriage—if not more.

8. Dave Dunbar
October 26, 2009
11:00 AM

It is right to carefully address an insidious attack by the enemy upon Christians. Thank you, Tim.

One of the things that men need to remember is the pictures aren’t “real”. What I mean is that our standard of beauty is falsely affected by the parade of perfect bodies on TV, movies, etc. Even then, what percentage of pictures are photo-shopped? In other words, the perfect pictures have been altered, and do not reflect reality.

Or in the case of movies, the women involved in vile acts ACT like they enjoy it, but they are paid actresses (or porn stars, or whatever), and their false enjoyment of degrading activities in no way indicates that an honest and holy wife would enjoy such defilement of the marriage bed.

Please keep up the good work on this series of articles. Just taking a guess, this could become a popular and widely-read (and helpful!) series.

9. Tim Challies
October 26, 2009
11:07 AM

so are your next articles going to list out a “sexual detox” program?

Pretty much. Then plan is to replace truth with lies.

Once the pornstar expectations are placed on a wife, and she comes up short, it leads to more involvement in pornography to fill the void left by the non-pornstar wife. This only deepens the problem all the way around. The sin goes further, and the expectations become greater on the wife, who will have a harder time fulfilling these new expectations. And on and on it goes.

Exactly so. This is the consistent pattern of sin, isn’t it? It spirals, it twists, it is never satisfied.

10. BigNorm
October 26, 2009
11:18 AM

Great Post.

As a newly-wed, we fought hard for a blank canvas to build our marriage on, including keeping the bedroom pure.

Divine innovation and creativity is the ONLY way to go for marriage.

Loving it.
N

11. Matthew
October 26, 2009
11:30 AM

“Pornography is inherently violent, inherently unloving. It is a perversion of sexuality, not a true form of it, and one that teaches violence and degradation at the expense of mutual pleasure and intimacy. It is about conquests, about conquering.”

I think you might be looking at the wrong kind of porn. There is some good stuff out there that is not violent or degrading. Don’t let the bad stuff spoil you on the rest.

Pornography and masturbation can have a role in a healthy marriage. It is very unlikely that you and your spouse will have the same appetite: allowing one of you to have some extra release can reduce the pressure on the other to perform when not in the mood.

12. Mike D
October 26, 2009
11:33 AM

Scripture itself teaches the bondage that sexual sin brings. After speaking of the sin of adultery and of some of the repurcussions (Proverbs 5), Solomon adds the following (v. 22)…”he will be HELD with the CORDS of his sin.”

There is an enslaving nature attached to sexual sin. By God’s grace I have been kept from it in large measure, but I have seen it wrap its tenticals around many a man and not relinquish. There is a reason that Solomon also says or the adulteress in verse 5 of that same chapter, “Her feet go down to death, her steps lay hold of hell.”

I am glad you are talking about it, Tim. But please encourage FATHERS to do their duty as watchmen upon the city wall - warning their children of this decieitful enemy. It is time for men, as heads of their households, to call sin what it is, and to be as the angel with the flaming sword, not allowing his family or his friends down that path, God giving him help. This duty should also be pressed upon SHEPHERDS of the flock of God, that they might watch over the souls that God has put under their charge.

May God give you help as you seek to chart a course - faithfully dealing with prevailing sin and men’s souls AND yet not giving such detail and content as would prove a carnal feast to our remaining flesh.

Matt. 11:12…”the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and the violent take it by force.” May God give us grace to do battle. It is a war. May God give us grace to deal ruthlessly with our remaining sin and the sin that so easily besets us. May we be willing to go to all extremes to be rid of it - even to such extremes as represented by an eye plucked out and a hand cut off. As Christ said, such extremes might be necessary if we would enter heaven.

13. Rodica
October 26, 2009
11:35 AM

what about writing a book on this topic? Haven’t seen a good book to recommend to someone with this problem. The book shelves may have many books on pre-marriage and marriage counseling yet I have not seen one that focuses squarely on this topic. Can you suggest any?

14. Ken Davis
October 26, 2009
11:37 AM

“I want to talk to young men as an older man … my thirty-three years…” - Well - you’re older than somebody.

15. Bonnie
October 26, 2009
11:40 AM

Thank you for addressing this topic. From my vantage point (being of a certain age, married 22 years, with a teenaged son), I wonder whether ubiquitous p*rn has simply ramped up something that men are already tempted toward. Even without taking it to base extremes, and absent p*rn, a young man can still develop a selfish sexual view toward women. Later he might be unloving and subtly degrading to his wife because he views her as a means to satisfy his fantasies rather than someone to relate with.

I think it’s important that young men, from the time they are small children, learn to view others, especially their female peers, in terms of relationship as fellow human beings, rather than objects of any type, sexual or otherwise. They need to be guided to learn how to express themselves properly across the board, so that they will be able to do so properly sexually as well, when the time comes. And yes, parents need to talk to their kids about sex, from an early age and age-appropriately, so they grow up to hold it in proper regard.

In this way, when temptation comes, they have strong values to hold onto, and character training from an early age which has strengthened them.

16. Tim Challies
October 26, 2009
11:42 AM

I think you might be looking at the wrong kind of porn. There is some good stuff out there that is not violent or degrading. Don’t let the bad stuff spoil you on the rest.

Matthew - the foundational “badness” in pornography is not the violence. Pornography is bad simply because already it inflames the heart to adultery. Jesus says that adultery is not simply the act of sleeping with another person, but is as much as a lustful thought about another person. It is impossible to watch pornography and not be incited to lust. The whole point of pornography, even pornography that is “normal” as opposed to violent, is to incite sin.

Pornography and masturbation can have a role in a healthy marriage. It is very unlikely that you and your spouse will have the same appetite: allowing one of you to have some extra release can reduce the pressure on the other to perform when not in the mood.

Let’s just call this what it is—a man’s justification to look at porn and masturbate. Why even bother rationalizing?

17. Christina
October 26, 2009
11:47 AM

Thank you for taking this topic on. Until the church starts addressing these issues with the gospel of Jesus Christ we can have no hope that our culture will change. I look forward to this series.

18. Polarbear
October 26, 2009
12:12 PM

Thank you Tim for this post and I look forward to the series this week. This pornification of the marriage bed is perhaps the number one tool that the enemy is using to destroy Christian marriages.

Matthew, I am praying for you man.

19. Jerry
October 26, 2009
12:29 PM

Greetings,
I am excited about this series and will send the link to everyone I know. I think that this topic is of the utmost importance. There should be more conversations about this issue in our local churches. Maybe this will get some to start talking about it.

20. Eddy Alexandre
October 26, 2009
12:51 PM

I will be waiting…

21. Jerod
October 26, 2009
1:00 PM

Great post Tim. This is a deadly sin that so many times stays hidden and is not discussed. Church culture needs to change so that it’s ok to not be ok. Otherwise we will continue to hide sin and not find healing from it.

I hid for a long time. Bringing it to light by talking about it and confessing is extremely difficult, but the only place to find freedom and healing from it. (James 5:16) God forgives, and it’s through confession to one another we find healing!

22. Tom W.
October 26, 2009
1:29 PM

Wow, Matthew. That whole approach is wrong on so many levels; to add to Tim’s reply, consider this verse in your approach to sexual intimacy with your wife:
“Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves; “
(Philippians 2:3)

23. Mike D
October 26, 2009
1:41 PM

Rodica…

…you asked about a good book on this subject.

I would recommend a small book by Randy Alcorn entitled…
The Purity Principle: God’s Safeguards for Life’s Dangerous Trails (LifeChange Books).

If you want an excerpt from the book, you can go here…
http://www.epm.org/artman2/publish/Randys_books_excerpts_from_Randys_books/Chapter_5_and_6_from_the_Purity_Principle.shtml

It is a small book and an easy read. I hope this helps…

24. Kath
October 26, 2009
1:44 PM

Please, please don’t overlook that this is a very serious issue for women too, too often men in the church have at this point in the porn conversation effectively told women to close their ears because this won’t affect them. The thing is it does. It’s a real and even more taboo struggle for many women who feel unable to be honest about all this because so many people hold the expectation that only men struggle with this. I’m tired of hearing pastors tell me that only the men should listen at these point. Women struggle in this area. Sure, we may struggle differently but it is no less pervasive and all the more dangerous because it’s a whole lot more harder to be honest about it.

25. Josh Reich
October 26, 2009
1:45 PM

Great post.

I just preached a message in a marriage series on pornography and what it does in a marriage. To go with that, my wife and I wrote on how a wife can handle her husband’s addiction and how to find healing: http://missionalthoughts.wordpress.com/2009/10/16/how-a-wife-handles-her-husbands-sexual-addiction/. This comes out of our personal experience and our story and how it shaped our marriage.

Looking forward to the rest of the series.

26. An Honest Question
October 26, 2009
2:14 PM

very needed stuff. excellent post. I would be interested, however, how you develop “right sex” from “porn star sex” in marriage. in Song of Solomon the couple seem to delight in pleasing one another, and she even dresses to delight his eyes. you mention “face to face intimacy” as if any other kind of sexual position might be wrong.

asking your wife to act like a porn star is obviously wrong but just what are the rules? if it delights a husband for his wife to wear “frilly pajamas” (so to speak!) is that wrong of him to ask her to do so? if the wife likes a man with a beard is it wrong for her to ask him to grow one? just how far is one obligated to go to bring sexual pleasure to their mate? I think that is an area a lot of marriage could use some help with. hope you will be able to address that.

27. Tim Challies
October 26, 2009
2:18 PM

asking your wife to act like a porn star is obviously wrong but just what are the rules?

I am planning on covering some of that in a couple of days. There is a bit of ground work first, but we’ll get there.

you mention “face to face intimacy” as if any other kind of sexual position might be wrong.

I don’t mean to be a prude! I more just mean that there are things you can do in sex that personalize it (even without being nose-to-nose) and others that de-personalize it.

28. Grace
October 26, 2009
2:46 PM

Tim,

Looking forward to reading more!

29. Anonymous
October 26, 2009
2:46 PM

Thanks Kath for bringing to light that women struggle too. I am thankful Tim is addressing this issue.

30. Tim Challies
October 26, 2009
2:49 PM

Please, please don’t overlook that this is a very serious issue for women too, too often men in the church have at this point in the porn conversation effectively told women to close their ears because this won’t affect them. The thing is it does.

I have purposely targeted this series to young men because I feel that I understand young men. I am not far removed from being one myself. I have infinitely less experience being a young woman so I hesitate to speak out about such things. However, I do think much of what I say will apply either way. If pornography is shaping a man’s expectation of his wife, it will also shape a wife’s expectation of her husband. And in either case, the solution will be to repent of sin and to replace sin with truth. So do stay tuned. I hope you’ll find the rest of the series relevant.

31. Neil King
October 26, 2009
3:08 PM

Like many others who have already commented, I really appreciate that you’re dealing with this issue, Tim. It’s the area of my life where I can mostly sympathise with Paul when he cries out ‘Who will save me from this body of death?’

In a way, I can thank God for the struggles I have with sexual sin. Obviously, this isn’t because He gave me these evil desires, which is a blasphemous idea to contemplate, but rather that I am constantly struggling with them rather than having them removed, because I truly know that my strength in overcoming sexual sin can only come from Him alone, and not from my own efforts. It is a constant reminder for me that the Christian life is not a holiday; rather it is a day-by-day, hour-by-hour, minute-by-minute struggle that we cannot hope to succeed in without God’s grace and mercy.

32. Rodica
October 26, 2009
4:31 PM

Mike D.
thanks for the book recommendation. After scanning the excerpt, I found it to be a very useful book to read, and to pass along to the young men and women in my family life.

…also, planning on passing on the full text of this article series , once complete, to family and friends. I agree with all other comments that speaking truth on this issue, at this time, is very warranted and very welcome.

33. Daniel Holter
October 26, 2009
4:34 PM

“Pornography is bad simply because already it inflames the heart to adultery.”

I’d blame the heart so inflamed, not the fuel.

If it weren’t porn leading to adultery, it’d be something else.

Until one can control vices, no matter the form, one is in danger of being weak and suspect, hypocritical and wicked… all while blaming the vice instead of one’s own character.

34. Tim Challies
October 26, 2009
5:00 PM

I’d blame the heart so inflamed, not the fuel.

While I know what you are getting at, that is a bit of a silly line to take, I think. I’ll grant that pornography is not morally culpable (porn has no soul, will not go to hell, etc) it is still evil simply because it distorts and perverts. It is a medium used to share evil.

35. Tim Irvin
October 26, 2009
5:19 PM

I have to agree, whole-heartedly, with Daniel (#33). A man isn’t a thief because he steals, he steals because he is a thief already in his heart.
Any married person who turns to porn, even if they say they’re just curious, is doing so because adultery is already in their heart.
Discussion is not what is needed. Reproof is what is needed.
Ephesians 5:11-12

36. Daniel Holter
October 26, 2009
5:26 PM

“[Porn] is a medium used to share evil.”

With all due respect, Tim, so is religion. So what?

37. mark
October 26, 2009
5:27 PM

nice try on I’d blame the heart so inflame, not the fuel.”

however porn has no legit use of any kind. it’s express purpose is to incite lust. thus it can be blamed because there is no good thing to be said for it.

and while certainly granting that a heart that is not right with God will find other avenues of sin it is foolish to think that we can’t help the problem by pointing out how depraved this “fuel” really is, and all the effects that come from “consuming” it.

38. Anonymous, please
October 26, 2009
5:38 PM

As a redeemed sinner, one who - pre-conversion - became a feminist “out of necessity”, feeling abandoned by a husband who acted as if I were there to support him and be a playtoy at the same time, and then he would wondered why I began to shudder every time he even touched my shoulder, with both of us investigating what could be wrong with ME and why I was suddenly so frigid; and after the divorce, learning that I was anything but frigid, but became a misandrist due to exactly this sort of thing, I can recall lamenting that it seemed that men got their sex education from the skin flicks. There is nothing more dehumanizing than to be expected to live up to that expectation, and to have all sense of worth and value placed upon my ability to perform in that manner. The sheer selfishness inherent in that kind of mindset destroys women, it destroys marriages, and it destroys families.

39. Daniel Holter
October 26, 2009
5:46 PM

@mark (37.) :

How nice it must be to eradicate one’s life of all inciters and stimulus. :)

I can imagine a life worth living here on planet earth with no lust, no thirst, no desire to escape, no groove to satiate one’s need to grind on the dancefloor, no poetry to open a soul nor images to affect a heart, no food on which to gorge oneself.

Oh, wait… no I can’t.

“Porn” is what you make of it… one man’s porn is another man’s marital aid. One man’s joint is another man’s nausea helpmate. One man’s celebratory feast is another’s gluttonous escapade. One man’s justified vindication is another’s cold-blooded murder. The vice/method/tool/path is not evil. A man’s heart can be. Can be.

40. Daniel Holter
October 26, 2009
5:54 PM

@Anonymous, please (38.) :

“There is nothing more dehumanizing than to be expected to live up to that expectation, and to have all sense of worth and value placed upon my ability to perform in that manner.”

While your personal story is, indeed, sad and regrettable… there are more than a few experiences more dehumanizing than being expected perform like a porn star.

Just off the top of my head : think of being sold as a child sex slave; actual rape; or, you know, enjoying a spontaneous, free, and unplanned vacation in Dachau or Auschwitz circa 1939.

41. Tim Challies
October 26, 2009
6:03 PM

Daniel - You’ve made your view well known. I think it’s probably a good idea for you to back off a bit now. You aren’t going to convince people here of what you’re saying.

42. Daniel Holter
October 26, 2009
6:05 PM

@Tim :

fair enough… all meant in the interest of honest discussion, please know that. :)

I’ll still be reading, with interest.

43. Anonymous, please
October 26, 2009
6:51 PM

Daniel,

You are correct. It’s the end of a long day, and I surely have misspoken to a degree, though perhaps you don’t know what it is to participate in some very dark situations just to please someone enough to keep a roof over your head (again, pre-conversion). But the coldness and callousness that comes through in your response to me is exactly the kind of attitude that makes it very clear that you don’t get it, and that you clearly have no desire to. As a result of all this, I was once quite heavily involved in the whole thing, not realizing it then but after a couple of decades of that kind of expectation, my attractiveness to the opposite sex and my ability to gain and hold their interest in that way was the only place I had any sense of any kind of worth - and I hated it, and I hated men because of it. One thing I think a lot of men really don’t understand, is the reality of the anatomy of it. Physically, it is an external act for you; for a woman it is internal; we are literally taking another person into ourselves.

Reading through this discussion thread, the one thing that stands out to me more than anything is that we in our flesh will do anything we can to justify our sin and hold onto our idols, muddying up the clear counsel of God on the matter of sin (if your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out - so it doesn’t matter if your lust makes you look at porn, or your porn causes you to lust, it’s all sin, so just throw out the porn and seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness.)

It wasn’t until recently, since Christ saved me (just last year!) that I have come to see a glorious picture of the Gospel in God’s design for the marriage relationship, and while I do believe that I am not a candidate for dating/marriage given the words of Christ, I love its design and I pray for the marriages of those around me. Here’s the thing I see - If marriage is intended to be a reflection of the relationship between Christ and His church (His Bride), and the intimacy involved in that is intended to be a reflection of the unity between Christ and Christians (John 17) just as it is a reflection of the unity within in the Trinity, and if the covenant of marriage is intended to reflect the covenant between God and His people, then any turning away to satisfy the flesh in a cheapened version of the real thing just - to me - makes porn look like a golden calf, or maybe Asherim. It is not for no reason that God calls it adultery when His people turn to the world and to the flesh instead of to Himself, and He calls out lust as adultery, and I think too of the fact that Christ loves His Bride, He gave Himself up for her, He died for her, and if one’s spouse is a part of that Bride, and you’re (I say “you” in a general way) abusing that relationship (or that spouse) in that way, choosing to sow to the flesh rather than to the Spirit when intimacy is not possible, or if there is a refusal to submit to one another, then there is Another who is angry at you, whether the other spouse is (yet) or not.

44. DR
October 26, 2009
7:15 PM

Mark Driscoll wrote on this subject - Porn Again Christian - downloadable or read online. http://relit.org/porn_again_christian/

May you be given wisdom Tim to stick to scripture and grace on this subject and be succinct.

At 33yo I would not say you are an old man - you’re still young!

45. Mike Toreno
October 26, 2009
7:33 PM

I’m glad you wrote this, your view of the effects of pornography is so true! I don’t have any problem with pornography, but I have experienced an analogous issue. Last year I started watching Bollywood movies, and they have caused me to bring unrealistic expectations to my everyday experiences. Now, whenever any kind of significant event happens, I am disappointed whenever a group of singers and dancers fails to converge and put on a big production number. Just as with pornography, my viewing of Bollywood pictures has caused me to become dissatisfied with ordinary life. And it’s just the same whatever anyone reads, hears, or views. A lot of my friends read “Arabian Nights” and are now dissatisfied with ordinary, non-flying carpets.

46. Yooper
October 26, 2009
7:51 PM

Despite popular belief, there is no such thing as safe sin.

47. kitchen table
October 26, 2009
10:05 PM

I also grew up in the pre-internet days. Sex in my teenage years is not as easy as it is now. And internet has been a big factor for that. We thought what we are doing are not sinful because it is like everybody is doing it, too.

48. ANON
October 26, 2009
11:23 PM

A few observations Tim:
1. Please think of another name for this series. “Sexual Detox” sounds so humanistic and ‘program’ orientated. There is nothing wrong with appropriately expressed God - given human sexuality, within the confines of marriage. In fact it’s a wonderful blessing! Sexual expression within marriage needs no “detox”. For young men (and maybe women) who find themselves addicted to porn or whatever tickles their lust of the flesh … have done with sin!

2. You want to speak to young men you say … well let me tell you that some of us here are older men who have struggled all our Christian lives with the temptations of lust, of committing fornication with the eyes and our minds, of abusing our bodies, of misusing the organs meant for sexual pleasure for our wives and ourselves within the marital bed. The locusts have eaten the years which should have been spent with the wife of one’s youth and given them the second best.

3. The sins of the flesh are rampant but well concealed from one another within the church. I sometimes wonder as I hear some great preacher-teacher whether they too are beset with the same sins we’re taking about here. Having preached - do they then go home to secretly view porn somewhere? (Actually I have heard mature Christian business men - one a Christian bookseller admit that they have to work so hard to keep their mind-heart in check when away from their wife - once it was the temptation of a playboy at the newsagent, for another watching porn movies in the hotel whilst they were away…)

4. The devil wants all Christians dead…. he wanted Adam and Eve dead and he many a Christian man, he has made dead (in ministry and marriage and godliness).

If you are a young man (or woman) - this sounds like a “must read” series and may God give us all grace, and may we be men (and women) of conviction to do that which is right. have done with sin! His grace is sufficient!

49. Jennifer
October 27, 2009
1:56 AM

To Annon, please
I am praising the Lord for the work He has done in you and in your life! He is so good and merciful! I loved your words and hope you keep contributing.
To Tim
Thank you so much for putting your eloquence to this difficult subject. We have three boys and a girl and need to hear what you have to say. I will be praying for you as you craft these posts.
God Bless you.

50. J. B. Hood
October 27, 2009
8:52 AM

Tim,

What is the feminist writer who noted the pornification of sex in the men she was with, and where was that article?

Thanks

51. C
October 27, 2009
10:13 AM

I would like to address Daniel. Porn is indeed evil. It work solely to give people sexual (and not at all spiritual) release one-on-one, when sex is designed to be communion.
Calling out think about all the worse things like rape and child abuse and genocide… that is absurd. Absolutely absurd and pardon, but I would hope you try to purge your soul of the devil working through you.This is an important discussion for everyone to hear, and your comments through it seek only to protect the sin everyone struggles against.
What would you say to a woman who has been sexually assaulted and raped, but not killed? “Don’t focus on that, because it has been a lot worse for others?” That is the same as saying porn is not bad when you look at everything else bad in the world. For shame.
And porn and masturbation are not ok. I have been in the mood when he is not, and I wait or relive in my mind memories that belong to the two of us. To tun to another avenue and leave him out of such a beautiful thing, and to create for me a sexual memory that excludes him, would be to cheat on him and on God, and is wrong.

As for sex itself, when everyone was talking on face-to-face etc, I can speak from personal experience on that. There are a myriad of positions and acts, but when each one is a gift that you give to each other, you feel as pure and whole if you face a pillow or are under covers as when you face each other. The sex acts are acts of love, and when you truly love your partner (or man for me, since I’m a woman), any of them feel like gifts. If it didn’t, you would feel dirty whenever an act was pleasuring one or the other of you, and it doesn’t. If you’re the one giving, the act turns you on as well because you know what you give and how much you light him up, and when he gives to you you know its from the heart and it feels that way. I always feel like a beacon at the close of our sessions, and very close to God, and I think that’s the purpose, to honor and fulfill one another in the eyes of God.

I don’t know if you can post this Tim, since I suppose I’m mildly graphic, but I think it’s important to let people know.

A good standard, for me, I remember telling my younger brother when he got his first girlfriend and was struggling with where the line was, I told him to only do what you were comfortable with God knowing you’re doing. God has to be present.

The sexual relationship- God gave it to us, and it should be held in highest esteem and regard, not degraded and perverted by the obscene and base in pornography.

The same act in a willing marriage partnership and in porn would be entirely different, because one is a mutual glorification, and one a degradation.

52. Brian Roden
October 27, 2009
11:43 AM

Some books to recommend:

The Game Plan: The Men’s 30-Day Strategy for Attaining Sexual Integrity by Joe Dallas
http://www.amazon.com/Game-Plan-Strategy-Attaining-Integrity/dp/0849906334/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1256658066&sr=8-4

At the Altar of Sexual Idolatry by Steve Gallagher
http://www.amazon.com/Game-Plan-Strategy-Attaining-Integrity/dp/0849906334/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1256658066&sr=8-4

Think Before You Look: 40 Powerful Reasons to Avoid Pornography by Daniel Henderson
http://www.amazon.com/Think-Before-You-Look-Pornography/dp/0899571646/ref=pd_sim_b_1

53. Traylor Lovvorn
October 27, 2009
3:19 PM

Tim-

Thank you for this wonderful post and for addressing the growing epidemic coming at the Church like a tsunami. In my experience, the Church has not talked enough about sex and therefore has created a vacuum that has allowed most of our education about sex to come, as you say, from the pornographers.

The silence of the Church and unwillingness to talk frankly about this subject has robbed many couples of a proper understanding of sex in their relationship. In a series of articles that have come out over the last few months, many Church leaders are even proposing that the solution is to encourage marriage at an earlier age. The sentiment seems to be that if we get kids married earlier then they’ll get to have sex and we won’t have to live with the tension of how to properly address the issue.

I am a recovering sex addict who lost my wife and family after 11 years of marriage because of my addiction. After six years of divorce, God miraculously reconciled my ex wife and I. (Our Story) I facilitate a sexual addiction recovery group and work with many couples and individuals who are living in the pain and brokenness that this epidemic brings.

I look forward to reading your upcoming posts and appreciate you dealing head-on with this all important topic!

Traylor

54. Brad
October 27, 2009
3:33 PM

“Pornography and masturbation can have a role in a healthy marriage. It is very unlikely that you and your spouse will have the same appetite: allowing one of you to have some extra release can reduce the pressure on the other to perform when not in the mood.”

Matthew - can I humbly encourage you to read this article: http://ccef.org/its-all-about-me-problem-masturbation. It really challenged my thinking on the subject, and specifically addresses your scenario.

55. Melanie
October 27, 2009
3:54 PM

Where I live when a man is arrested for picking up a prostitute he is sent to “John School” where he will hear the first hand testimony of former prostitutes that they do not enjoy their trade. It is a BIG, BOLD, LIE to believe that women working in any form of the sex trade are there by choice and because they like it. An overwhelming amount of those women were molested as young girls and have been abused and used their whole lives.
Annie Lobert shares her story on her site (http://www.hookersforjesus.net/anniestestimony.cfm):
“Sex for money is NOT pleasurable, it is NOT fun, us girls DO NOT enjoy it—in fact there were many times I just wanted to hurt the man that was touching me! … I had to be the best actress all of time just to make sure I got paid—men actually thought I enjoyed what I did. How could men think this? It was a flat out LIE! This is SEXUAL ABUSE in its worst form—a jail cell of your mind….Many times I just wanted to die when I went to sleep at night after I worked, I felt so dirty, sleazy—I felt had no way out—because…who would actually RESPECT me or let alone LOVE ME if they found out what I did for a living?”

56. J.P.H.
October 28, 2009
10:52 AM

Melanie- While I’m certainly not going to disagree with you on whether prostitutes “enjoy” the actual act of prostituting themselves, I do think some folks do it “by choice”. I recently read an article about a phenomenon in Hong Kong where high school age girls are prostituting themselves for money to buy clothes, fancy cell phones, etc. If the article is to be believed, they aren’t from the demographic one would normally expect prostitutes to come from. They’re middle class, stable family situation, etc. And not all of them become “career prostitutes”.

After some digging, here’s the article:

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/09/24/hongkong.teenage.prostitution/

57. Daniel Holter
October 28, 2009
2:42 PM

@ C (51.) :

Thanks for your response, but I think it’s safe we say we’ll disagree on just about everything regarding the issue at hand. I’ll respect Tim’s wishes and not further a discussion that will likely run (far) off course from his intended topic.

I’m curious, though, how I might “try to purge [my] soul of the devil working through [me].” If you want to pray for me, feel free… or to offer some advice directly, you can reach me by clicking my name.

58. Tim Challies
October 28, 2009
4:16 PM

While I’m certainly not going to disagree with you on whether prostitutes “enjoy” the actual act of prostituting themselves, I do think some folks do it “by choice”.

There are definitely some of both. I would think that the vast majority are in it through force or through perceived necessity (“I have to feed my kids somehow…” or “I need to earn money to support my habit…”). The percentage who would be in it fully voluntarily would be very small. And even then I suspect many of them would come from backgrounds that, in one way or another, would have nudged them toward it, perhaps through abuse or another factor. Prostitution is just so far from God’s design for women that it takes a remarkable hardening of God-given feminine instincts for a women to give herself to it and to enjoy it.

59. Brian
October 28, 2009
5:51 PM

Tim, can you expand on what you mean when you say

I want to be forthright with you and yet I also want to be discreet; I often think we, as Christians, talk entirely too much about sex and in too much detail.

On the face of it I have an exactly opposite view and would love to know what you’re referring to here.

60. Jake Aharonian
October 29, 2009
1:26 AM

JB—I think you mean the article by Naomi Wolf http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/trends/n_9437/

61. Tim Challies
October 29, 2009
9:00 AM

I want to be forthright with you and yet I also want to be discreet; I often think we, as Christians, talk entirely too much about sex and in too much detail.

Well, maybe the first part isn’t entirely true. Sometimes I think that we talk about it too much these days (e.g. all these sex sermon series being preached in churches today). And I am definitely convinced we often do so in too much detail (and here a series like Driscoll’s on Song of Solomon comes to mind). The Bible is always subtle when it comes to the actual act of sex and I think we do well to follow that example.

62. Sarah R.
October 29, 2009
1:12 PM

In your comment about the feminist writer, you said that feminism gave her no recourse to feelings of being sexually used by men—but this is wrong, and reflects a shallow understanding of feminism.

Feminism provides the greatest recourse of all, which is to give women a voice in their own relationships. If she’s unsatisfied with her relationships, a feminist view would encourage her to speak up and communicate instead of enduring it silently, wondering what’s wrong.

Unfortunately, the writer you used as an example is not a very good example of a feminist, and I hope that your readers don’t come away thinking of feminism as an excuse to throw one’s body around willy-nilly without regard to consequences.

63. Michael
October 29, 2009
1:49 PM

Interesting discussion. Came over from The Point blog. Glad I did. What I find fascinating is that I know everything that’s mentioned here, all the down sides of porn, why we shouldn’t view it, and yet none of that was enough for me to overcome my attraction to it. And I personally didn’t experience many of the down sides to it, except shame and distancing myself from my relationship from God.

Bad enough, I know, but it’s hard to turn away from something you like. I never treated my wife like a porn star. I never got increasingly addicted. It’s not something I HAD to do, it’s something I liked to do. I also never grew increasingly attracted to a wider array of sex. What was disgusting to me 10 or 20 years ago, is still disgusting to me. One down side I should mention is what porn makes a wife feel like when she knows her husband “likes” it. She feels inadequate and betrayed in a way. I never viewed it with her, but she knew. I believe women will always be somewhat insecure in their relationships, but porn doesn’t help.

But I don’t tell all this to say anything talked about here is not legitimate, only that it didn’t work for me. But something did, and I can never view porn the same again. It was so powerful to me that I literally can never “like” porn again. The illusion of consequences free sex, i.e. porn, was torn from me forever.

It was simply something I read at xxx.church.com about women not enjoying making porn movies, which lead me to Shelly Lubben’s Myspace page. She’s an ex-porn star and now she minsters to women who want to get out of “the industry.” You watch some of those videos of ex-porn stars, and watch Shelly’s testimony, and you tell me porn is just a bunch of people having a good time. Porn is abuse of women, pure and simple, and every “actress” is a woman who is dysfunctional in some way. It uses women for male fantasies. Porn is for men, because men want women to be sexually like men, and thus porn has to destroy a woman’s nature to have her act like she enjoys having sex in front of a camera. Even one click supports the abuse of women, and I just can’t do it anymore.

64. Jim Martin
October 30, 2009
11:44 AM

Tim,
A very good and important post. Thanks for taking the time to develop this series. Much damage has come to new marriages because of this issue.

65. Chris Poblete
October 31, 2009
1:44 AM

Tim,

I seriously love this blog. You can bet that I will be sharing this with a lot of dudes my age, and I will surely profit from this series myself.

Thanks again, man!