Journalists are under obligation to ensure that what they publish is verifiable. If what they put into print is incorrect, they and the media outlet they work for could be sued. Thus, a journalist might say, “The chief economist says that interest rates are going to rise.” That is a verifiable fact, and the journalist might actually have a recording of the chief economist saying those very words. The same journalist could write, “Interest rates are going to rise,” and if they did write that, they would have verified that fact. How do they know that interest rates are going to rise? A credible journalist will not make a statement without being able to support that statement with credible sources.

That being said, journalists can still shape the story by deciding what to report and what to leave out. Thus, CNN and Fox News can report on the same story, but their takes on the story are so different we wonder if they are living on the same planet. Yet, both Fox and CNN journalists will be able to give a list of credible sources. The reasons that the stories are radically different is not because they are reporting false facts but that they are reporting only part of the facts. They do this because they want to spin the story so that it matches the political leanings of the media outlet that is paying their salary. The journalist has something to gain by presenting a particular perspective. The media outlet, when presenting a story about the presidential campaign, for example, spins the story so that the political party they are backing will gain power and return favours to them. It is not very difficult to identify some sort of benefit the journalist receives by presenting a biased story. As consumers of media, we always need to ask, “What does this person/outlet gain by presenting the facts in the way they do?” Or, if the journalist or the media outlet spreads false information, they may be sued, thus incurring loss.

Some have accused the Bible of having a bias as well, and it would be difficult to deny it. John, in his gospel, actually states his bias: These are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name” (John 20:31). At the end of the next chapter, John openly admits that he could have recorded much more of Jesus’ life and ministry, but that if he recorded everything, the number of volumes would have become overwhelming (John 21:25). John had a purpose for his gospel, and he picked things from Jesus’ life that supported that purpose. He also left a lot out, leaving us to wonder if perhaps we are left with an incomplete picture and therefore a biased picture of Jesus.

John put a certain spin on the life story of Jesus, and his spin is a little different from that of the other three gospels. In fact, all four gospel writers seem to have a purpose in mind that results in their telling the story in a particular way. This can lead us to ask the question: do the gospels give a fair presentation of who Jesus is? Or are they so biased that we can’t trust them fully?

Some will never be convinced that the biblical accounts of Jesus life and ministry are untrustworthy because of the biases of the authors. We can challenge that accusation with this one question: what do the gospel writers have to gain by presenting Jesus in the way that the do? Let’s consider John for example. What did John gain from presenting Jesus as he did?

John did not gain a position of power. When the mother of John and his brother James suggested to Jesus that they become the vice presidents in his kingdom, Jesus taught that those who wanted to be first in his kingdom had to become servants. Or, as Jesus said several times over, those who are first will be last and the last will be first. John did not follow Jesus for his own personal advantage. In fact, the opposite is true. Instead of gaining a position of power and influence, John was eventually arrested and exiled, being humiliated by the political powers of that time. None of the followers of Jesus Christ became rich from following Jesus. Peter and John, when asked for money by a beggar by the gates of the temple, told him, “We don’t have any money,” although, as we know, through the power of Jesus, they were able to give the man the ability to walk. That too led to a loss on their parts, for the healing led to a challenge by the religious authorities with the command to be silent about Jesus.

In the first three centuries of the New Testament church there was no distinct advantage to being a Christian, at least not economically, socially, or politically. In fact, the early Christians found themselves at a significant disadvantage as they followed Jesus Christ. We cannot say that either the apostles or those who followed them gained anything by presenting Jesus in the way that they did. Anyone who says that the early Christians presented a biased view of Jesus for their own gain would have a hard time proving it. (This changed quite significantly when Christianity became the preferred religion of the west and the church gained tremendous political, economic and social power. Leaders presented very biased views of Jesus and the teachings of Scripture often for great personal gain. The world still suffers from some of those abuses.)

If we cannot say that John and the other gospel writers wrote what they did for personal gain and in fact suffered great disadvantage by believing what they did, we would have to say that the reason for their presentations of Jesus was for some other purpose. In fact, John’s statement that he chose to present certain parts of Jesus’ ministry and not others so that people would believe in Jesus and gain eternal life becomes very credible. John became a servant of the gospel not for his own benefit but for the benefit of others.

As a church we must be careful that we do not present the gospel for personal gain. The church growth movement in which churches seek to gain members by whatever means possible often results in a biased view of Jesus. The problem with the church growth movement is that the church presents the gospel to unbelievers so that it can fill the seats in the sanctuary and boast of the largest youth program in the community. We can sense that the efforts of such a church are not entirely altruistic (showing unselfish concern for the welfare of others). In the same way, our efforts as a church to bring the gospel to the world (VBS, Burger Bash, for example), should be entirely for the benefit of others without the thought that they come to our church. Rather, we do expend energy and time on the lives of others so that they also can believe in Jesus and by believing have eternal life. Our efforts should never be for our own gain.

If we do things as a church for our own gain, we will be presenting Jesus in a biased way that is unhealthy and maybe even incorrect. If, however, we go about the work of the church in making Jesus known to the world and we do so entirely as servants seeking the blessing of others sometimes at great cost to our ourselves, we will never be accused of presenting Jesus in a biased way.

Journalists work for media outlets which have a bias, and that bias results from the desire for personal gain or the avoidance of personal loss. As Christians we want those who benefit to be others, and we tell them about Jesus so that they too can have life in his name. And, for our efforts, we gain nothing and even if we are put at a disadvantage as were the apostles, we continue our work. If we gain nothing, it would be hard for others to accuse us of having a bias. Let it never be said that our church is doing something because we sense it will gain us something, but, rather, may it always be clear that what we are doing gains us nothing but gains others eternal life.

Some years ago, a friend took her daughter, Lucy, to a restaurant in a Jewish neighbourhood. Because of the neighbourhood, most of the people in that restaurant at lunch hour were Jewish, and the place was quite busy. When she was finished eating, this little girl, a very precocious sort, stood up on her seat, turned around and said in a loud voice, “I have something to say to everyone.” She attracted the attention of nearly everyone in the restaurant who then heard her proclaim loudly, “Jesus Christ was born King of the Jews.” With that she sat down. Her mother didn’t know how to respond, for while her daughter had told the truth, it created a very awkward moment. Most of the Jewish people in that restaurant did not believe that Jesus was their King, nor did they recognize them as their Saviour.

We often hear the phrase, “have the faith of a child” or “a childlike faith.” What people are often advocating for is a simple faith that is not “clouded” by deep theological teaching. Simply believe and that is enough, they tell us. They want to keep it simple, making straightforward statements like Lucy did. Those who use these phrases point us to Jesus’ teaching about children as is recorded for us in the synoptic gospels (Matthew 18:1-3, Mark 10:13-16, Luke 18:15-17). “The Bible teaches us that we have to have a childlike (simple) faith,” they say. A careful reading of these passages, however, reveals to us that Jesus is not speaking about having faith like that of a child but rather that we be like children when it comes to entering and living within God’s Kingdom. For us to fully understand what Jesus means, it is necessary to think about the context given to these discourses.

In Matthew and Mark Jesus’ teaching about children and the Kingdom of God takes place in the context of the disciples trying to determine who would be greatest in Jesus’ kingdom. It is at that point that Jesus brings a child forward and advises that whoever wants to enter the Kingdom of God must change and be like little children. What makes someone worthy of a position in God’s Kingdom? Jesus confronts the idea of meriting or earning a place in the kingdom by presenting to his disciples a little child. Children, in those days, had no rights and privileges, and they knew that everything they had was given to them as a gracious gift.

In Mark’s gospel, the context is decidedly different. There Mark gives us a glimpse of ongoing discussions in the Jewish community in which scholars tried to set boundaries for remaining in God’s Kingdom. How far can someone push the boundaries before they are no longer living by God’s principles and rules? In that context, Jesus confronts the idea that one can do things to become acceptable to God and remain so. Again, using a child as an example, Jesus shows that like children we can do nothing to earn a place in God’s Kingdom.

In all three gospels (John does not include this discussion), when Jesus puts a child forward as an example, he is not saying that we should advocate for a simple, straightforward kind of faith that allows for little deeper thought. Rather, he is saying that if we want to be part of God’s Kingdom, we must first realize that there is nothing we can do but merely receive what has been offered to us. Essentially what Jesus is teaching is that, like little children, we accept God’s grace, and his gracious act to include us in his Kingdom is not something we earn for ourselves.

A child can understand this, as Lucy did when she announced that Jesus was born King of the Jews. She knew that most of the people in the restaurant were Jewish, and she knew that Jesus came to save them as well. She was simply offering to those around her the same grace God had given to her. She could not have articulated God’s grace with greater depth because, after all, she was only three years old.

Children have a simple faith, this is true, but they also have no problem believing that they can do nothing to earn a place in God’s Kingdom. They are used to accepting gifts because everything they have has been given to them. What can a three-year old do to earn what they receive? They receive what has been given because they have no other means by which to survive.

As adults, we develop the idea that we have something to offer. In fact, we become less inclined to accept a gift freely given, and we want to find some reason to say that we merited what we received. So, when it comes to entry into God’s Kingdom, we like to believe that we have done something to earn a place there. But, like little children, we have done nothing, and we can do nothing.

This is where a deepening understanding of God’s Word is helpful. Rather than operating on a child’s storybook knowledge of the Bible, as we grow up, we need to read Scripture more and more and understand it more deeply so that we can counteract some of those feelings of self-sufficiency. As we grow in our theological understanding, we should become more and more convinced that we have nothing to offer to God to move him to give us a place in his Kingdom. The complexities of theology support the basic truths and give credence to the fact that we are like little children when it comes to providing for ourselves.

The Bible does not support a childlike faith, if by that we mean a faith that is not examined and deepened. We need more than that as we become adults. Rather, instead of depending on storybook understanding of God’s Word, we can be assured that as we study the Bible, we will become more and more aware of how complex and vast is the grace of God in Jesus Christ. And the more we know, the more we will realize how like little children we need to be, trusting fully on God’s grace and never on our own merit.

I used to work with someone who said almost every day, “Your strength is your weakness.” For example, some people are very stubborn. They refuse to budge on their view of things, and they won’t try something new. Stubbornness is a weakness. But people who are stubborn can also be stalwart. Someone who is stalwart is loyal and reliable. If you ask a stalwart person to help you for a day, they will be there. Unfortunately, if their stubborn side reveals itself, you’ll end up doing it their way.

Of, as another example, we might meet someone who is disorganized, seemingly unable to make a decision and always living in a bit of a mess. That same person is probably also very creative and has the ability to think outside the box. Don’t let that kind of person take minutes at a committee meeting, but listen carefully to them as they come up with new ways of thinking about things. They may not be organized enough to be able to carry through with their ideas, but their ideas usually will be very novel and helpful.

When in a job interview, the potential employer will often ask, “What are your strengths?” Most people who are applying for a job have thought this through carefully enough, and they are able to give a clear summary of what they are good at. This same question is usually followed up by, “And what are your weaknesses?” We are less inclined to want to list those, and the interviewee may struggle. Perhaps the best answer he/she could give is, “I am not only dependable, but I can be a little stubborn.” Or, “I am able to think creatively, but I can’t always implement my ideas.” A good employer will appreciate the candidate’s strengths but will also understand that these same strengths can become a problem if not recognized and used effectively.

When I was in university, I took a course in which we filled out a survey which resulted in a strengths profile. We spent a couple of class periods talking about what we had discovered, and I quickly realized that I was fairly unique among my classmates. As the professor talked to us about our various profiles, he spoke of people of my type of profile in a fairly negative way. I went home rather dispirited because I felt that God had given me strengths that he could not use. I struggled with this for a few hours, and when I returned to class, I challenged the professor who continued to disparage my strength type, for I felt that he was concentrating the weaknesses of who I am rather than on the strengths. I don’t know if he heard my challenge, but I do know that I learned to accept myself for who I am, at least a little more. True, I don’t have the personality or strengths that pastors normally have, but I have something that God can use in his church.

We often talk about how the Holy Spirit has given gifts to all those who believe in Jesus. There is no believer who has nothing to offer. We would say, further, that all the gifts necessary for a local congregation to fulfill its calling are already present. God always equips a congregation to do the work that he calls it to do, and thus we can say with confidence that Nobleford CRC has all the gifts necessary to carry out the ministry that God has called us to. At the same time, we recognize that our strengths, among them the gifts of the Holy Spirit, can become our weaknesses. The very strengths that God has given me can also be used for harm, for the devil likes to take what God has made good and turn it toward evil. Thus, we would have to admit that all the gifts that God has given to us are not always used as they should be. As a result, the church does not always fulfill its calling.

This is precisely why we need each other. Again, because each of us has gifts, we need each other because none of us has all the gifts. But we also need each other to help us grow in the use of the gifts and strengths that we have. A stubborn person needs others around them to encourage them when the are stalwart and challenge them when they are digging in their heels. A creative person can make our church more beautiful but may need to be encouraged to keep working at the task at hand. We all have gifts, but we don’t always use those gifts as best we could, so we need others to help us grow.

It can be our tendency to notice others more when they use their gifts and strengths inappropriately and criticize them for their failings. We would do well if we could see how someone’s weaknesses can also become their greatest strengths and appreciate each other for how God made us. Further, we should always expect that as time passes, if we continue to rely on the Lord, we will grow in our strengths and our weaknesses will become less and less obvious. After all, the Holy Spirit not only gives us gifts that we can use, but he also causes us to grow in faithfulness. So, let’s be thankful for stubborn people, not because they’re stubborn but because we can be sure that as they grow in Christ, they will be the stalwart people our church needs.

In a few weeks, God willing, we will celebrate public Profession of Faith. A number of people have been taking the Profession of Faith class and most, if not all, will be standing before the congregation and they will be professing their faith. Profession of Faith is celebrated as an important step in the faith journey of baptized members of our congregation.

But what is Profession of Faith, and where does it come from? A formal profession of faith before the congregation is not commanded by Scripture, nor do we see any examples of professions of faith in the Bible itself. The closest biblical references we have to professions of faith are the adult baptisms of those who had not grown up in the church but had come to faith in Jesus Christ when they heard the gospel preached. The Ethiopian eunuch of Acts 8 is one such example of someone who came to faith in Jesus Christ and, upon his profession, was baptized by Philip. In churches where infants are not baptized, adult baptism takes the place of profession of faith. In churches which do baptize infants, profession of faith, or something similar, has become standard practice.

As is often the case with the practices of Protestant churches such as the CRC, much of what we do has its roots in the older church which gave rise to ours, the church we now call the Roman Catholic Church (RCC). At the time of the Protestant Reformation, the European church which was centred in Rome had seven sacraments, baptism and confirmation among them. Confirmation arises out of baptism.

Roman Catholics teach that it is nearly impossible for someone to be saved if they are not baptized. Their logic is as follows: to be saved, one must believe the gospel, namely that Jesus died to forgive us our sins. The church has been entrusted with the message of the gospel and calls people to believe. Baptism is the means by which one enters the church and so can hear the gospel. Thus, we have this progression: baptism gives one entry into the church where the gospel is preached and it is through the preaching of the gospel that one comes to faith and so are saved. Thus, Roman Catholics would say that without baptism there cannot be salvation. Baptism is a gracious act God administered by the church by which it is conferred upon the individual the ability to hear the gospel and so believe.

In the Roman Catholic tradition, confirmation, also a sacrament in the RCC, follows naturally upon baptism. As the church, with the help of the parents, teaches baptized children to put their trust in Jesus, it is expected that the children will come to faith. When that child (who must be at least 7 years old) is able to say that he/she is ready to renounce the world and follow Jesus, believing that his death on the cross is God’s gracious act of salvation, that child is confirmed. In the ceremony the bishop (very occasionally the local priest), after hearing a profession of faith, confirms that the one before him has been granted eternal life and then confers upon that person the gifts of the Holy Spirit. According to the liturgy of confirmation, the Holy Spirit is given to the individual to be their Helper and Guide so that they can live with wisdom, courage, and reverence.

To summarize, in the RCC at baptism the church confers upon a child the ability and opportunity to believe and at confirmation, the church confers upon the ones who believe the ability to live their lives as faithful followers of Jesus Christ. Both baptism and confirmation, thus, are acts of the church through which God graciously brings his people to faith and faithfulness.

There is much that is right and good in the Roman Catholic teaching, but the Reformers did not agree with these teachings entirely. We who adhere to the teachings of the Reformers (Calvin, in particular) understand things a little differently.

First, baptism is not a means by which God brings us into his church. Rather, to use the language of both the Heidelberg Catechism and the Belgic Confession, through baptism we are received into Christ’s church, meaning that the church recognizes and welcomes the person being baptized as being part of God’s church either through faith in Jesus Christ or because they are born into a family of believers for, as Paul says, children of believers are holy. Thus, baptism recognizes what God has already done. It is God who confers upon individuals a place in his church, and the church recognizes what God has done. While the Roman Catholic teaching says that it is the church which has been given the right to confer upon a person the ability and opportunity to be saved, Reformation churches attribute this work to God.

Like the RCC, Reformation churches teach that we all need to believe in Jesus to be saved. When a person comes to faith (be they young or old), they are affirming and accepting that not only has Jesus died for sinners, but he has also died for “me” as a sinner. In other words, as we grow older, we are all required to believe in Jesus in order to be saved. We also believe that at the moment one becomes part of God’s family, the Holy Spirit is already living in them, giving them the ability to live faithfully. The gifts of the Holy Spirit are given to all God’s covenant children, young and old, and they do not need to be conferred upon an individual by the church. Again, while the RCC sees itself as being called to confer upon the believer God’s gracious gifts, the Reformation churches teach that it is God who acts directly in the lives of people, without the necessity of the medial role of the church. Thus, instead of practicing confirmation which is an act of the church, Reformation churches have adopted the practice of Profession of Faith.

In Profession of Faith an individual is given the opportunity to express publicly that they affirm and accept God’s gracious promises made to them in baptism. Profession of Faith is an opportunity to testify to what has already happened and should not be viewed as a life-changing experience. Profession of Faith is simply a public announcement that “This is what God has done in my life through Jesus Christ.” Further, it is an opportunity for an individual to say, “And I am publicly announcing that with the help of the Holy Spirt, I will live for Jesus.” And, importantly, in Profession of Faith, those professing their faith also make a formal commitment to the church to which they already belong, asking that the church hold them accountable in life and faith.

Reformation churches have abandoned the rite of confirmation and have, instead, adopted the practice of public Profession of Faith. We have also abandoned the idea that something “happens” to the individual at their Profession of Faith. We don’t look for a change in a person’s life, but, rather, we celebrate the change that has already taken place. When we hear the profession of God’s children, we should be filled with a spirit of wonder and awe that God has again been faithful to fulfill his promises. The Faith Formation Committee of the CRC has said that perhaps one public Profession of Faith is not enough. The committee suggests that our professions should happen often and regularly. But perhaps they already do, as we profess our faith using the words of the Apostles’ Creed. Should we not be filled with a spirit of wonder and awe when we again testify that our Triune God has saved us into the covenant community.

In 1934 the Christian Reformed Church made a radical departure from what it had been doing for centuries: it gave permission for churches to sing hymns in public worship. Let me give a brief history:

• 1957 – The Christian Reformed Church was established in North America when several hundred people separated themselves form the Reformed Church of America. The CRC, at that time, consisted of almost entirely Dutch-speaking people, and they used the Dutch Psalter (containing versions of the Psalms set to Genevan tunes). A few other songs found in Scripture were also included in the psalter, for example, The Song of Mary.
• 1914 – As English became more common in the CRC congregations, the denomination adopted an English Psalter which had been developed by the United Presbyterian Churches. For the first time in North America, singing in public worship was heard in English. Outside of the worship service, hymns were sung regularly, but in church only psalms were permitted.
• 1934 – The CRC developed its own songbook, and for the first time, hymns were included. Hymns were not based on the psalms but, rather, were written by Christians praising God using their own words. The argument was made that these hymns were suitable expressions of our praise for God and they gave opportunity for believers to express their faith in contemporary ways. Hymns celebrating the Christian year were also included, and thus Christmas and Easter hymns became part of the worship services in the CRC. This first Psalter Hymnal is known as “The Old Red Psalter Hymnal.”
• 1959 – Two years after the CRC 100^th anniversary, a new Psalter Hymnal, a blue book, was produced, expanding the number of hymns available for churches to sing.
• 1987 – Another new Psalter Hymnal was produced, the Grey Psalter Hymnal, and it made some more changes. Unlike the previous red and blue Psalter Hymnals which contained several renditions of many of the Psalms, the Grey Psalter Hymnal included one rendition of each psalm and, if there was more, it included them, not in the psalter section of the book but later, scattered among the hymns.
• 2013 – Together with the Reformed Church of America, the CRC produced a new songbook which contains renditions of all 150 psalms, but they are scattered throughout the book. Unlike the previous songbooks, this one is not called a Psalter Hymnal but, rather, is given its name: Lift Up Your Hearts: Psalms, Hymns and Spiritual Songs. It is the longest of all the songbooks, and it includes a number of more contemporary songs.

This latest songbook may be the last produced by the CRC. Today, almost all churches project the words of the song onto a screen and few pick up the songbook with the exception, perhaps, of those who read music and enjoy singing in harmony. Many churches in the CRC today select their Sunday worship music from websites such as Song Select which contains thousands of Christian songs both old and new. More are added each week. A new songbook is unlikely to be perceived as necessary or desirable by many congregations.

There are advantages to being able to choose songs from the Internet. There are many beautiful songs which express biblical truths very well, and they have become a blessing to many. Singing only from a songbook, as was done in the past, limits the options for congregational singing, and may prevent believers from expressing their praise to God in ways that are meaningful to them.

But there are concerns as well. When the CRC published a songbook, it did so under the guidance of theologians who carefully evaluated the lyrics of each song to ensure that they were true to Scripture. Sometimes they would change a few words to make them more appropriate. One example of such a change can be found in the beautiful song, Amazing Love. The chorus originally contained the words, “That you, my God, should die for me,” but that is theologically incorrect, for God did not die. One word was changed, and now the line reads, “That you, my Lord, should die for me,” making it biblically sound.

Not so long ago, when musicians chose songs for public worship, if they were not included in one of the official denominational songbooks, before they were sung in church, the elders would evaluate the song to ensure that it was theologically correct. Usually this work was passed off to the pastor, but eventually that requirement was dropped altogether. Today, in most churches, songs are chosen by musicians who may or may not be theologically trained.

This concern was raised already in 1934 in the Foreword of the Old Red Psalter Hymnal, and I quote:

We were aware of the unsound or unsatisfactory character of many current hymns, and we feared that in an environment where the Psalms are seldom sung, the introduction of hymns in public worship would lead to the neglect of these deeply spiritual songs of the Old Testament which the Church should never fail to use in its service of praise.

Nevertheless, in spite of this concern, the denomination proceeded to produce a songbook which included songs not found in Scripture, but it was careful to ensure that those songs were biblically rooted.

We rarely sing psalms in church anymore and when we do, we are probably not aware that we are doing so. The old Genevan tunes don’t connect with us, and we find them difficult and even a little boring. Our experience and attitude is not unique, for others feel the same. And some are doing something about it. There has been a resurgence of the desire to sing psalms again, and some talented young musicians are setting the old psalms to new music. Interestingly, they have discovered that some of the old Genevan tunes had their roots in famous composers like Beethoven and Bach, and they are going back to those old tunes and reworking them to give them a modern feel. There is a lot of work to be done, but we can look forward to singing the beautiful biblical songs again but in ways that are new and vibrant and edifying.

In the meantime, we have many songs by which we can express our praise to God. Psalms, hymns and spiritual songs give us an opportunity to praise God for all that he has done.

I have had a few experiences that I will not forget. About a year ago, I had one of them, and it has become a fond memory. It involves four people: Ken, Cliff, and a guy of about 30 whose name I cannot remember. I’ll call him Craig.

Ken had invited me to go with him to look at a new pulpit, baptismal font and communion table at a church in another town, the town where I had grown up. He had supplied the wood from a maple tree he had cut down and sawn into boards. My brother had built the furniture, and I wanted to see the finished produce. Ken is in his early 70s, a farmer whose family has been in Canada for a couple of hundred years. He was a member of my former church. Ken lives with his wife in a small cabin in the woods, a beautiful spot if you like that kind of thing. They have four children and a bunch of grandchildren but no great grandchildren, yet.

Ken had invited Cliff to join us for the excursion. I knew Cliff from years back when he as an English teacher at the high school I attended. While I would classify Ken as being a big guy, Cliff was the opposite. Cliff is quite short, compared to Ken and me. Cliff lives in an old farmhouse in the country and, as far as I know, never married. Cliff had the unique ability to gather people together to display their various talents, and how he found people in the community who could sing, play instruments, and generally entertain the rest of us, I don’t know, but he knew them and gave them an opportunity to share their gifts with others. He used just about any excuse to hold a talent show – a random birthday, anniversary of his retirement, etc. – and he would pack the hall with people from the community. When I knew him as a teacher, I did not know that he was a Christian, but he is. Cliff joined us for the excursion because he simply enjoys that kind of thing, and since he cannot drive anymore, he depends on others to get out and about.

The third individual to join us was Craig. I knew Craig’s parents from years back, but I didn’t know him. Craig had grown up in a Christian home, but he had a bit of a rough patch. He lived on the street for a time, but he had since found a permanent residence in the town we were visiting. Craig had tattoos and body piercings, reminders of his former days. They remained an expression of his identity. Craig did not join us for the excursion, but we picked him up at the local Walmart. From the way he looked, I would not have identified him as Cliff’s friend, but they were obviously close.

And then there was me, a pastor of Dutch descent, living a fairly conservative life in rural Ontario. I was along for the ride. More accurately, I acted as the driver, so perhaps the others were along for the ride.

After we picked Craig up, we went to a local restaurant for supper. After we ordered, I was about to suggest that we pray before the food arrived, but before I could get to it, Cliff said to Craig, “Why don’t you ask for a blessing on the food?” We bowed our heads together and this tattooed, pierced, 30-year old man who had lived rough, prayed the most beautiful prayer, thanking God for his provision, and asking for his blessings on our lives. I should note that I expected that I would be praying for the meal, being I was the pastor and people seem to expect that of me. Cliff was wiser and he chose the right person to lead us in prayer, and I was blessed, and God was glorified.

As we ate, we talked among ourselves, and I learned something about what living on the street means. I also gained some insight into the graffiti that we find on train cars that are loaded with grain and fertilizer. Craig was familiar with some of the artists who take it upon themselves to paint these cars. He himself was also an artist and perhaps his art has crossed the Lethbridge tressel at one time or another. During our meal, a woman approached our table and she acted like she knew us. We talked with her for a while, and all of us assumed that she knew one of us. She didn’t, and we don’t know why she picked us to have a conversation with, but she did, and it was pleasant.

As we spent time together, I could not help but marvel at the picture we must have presented to those around us. We sat together, an 80-year old retired teacher, a 70-year old retired farmer, a 55-year old pastor and a 30-year old tattooed and pierced former street person. Anyone seeing us would have wondered what brought us together.

Of all the meals I have shared over the years, this is one I will not forget. The food was no more than average, and the restaurant is not memorable. But the company was excellent. And what brought us together was an opportunity to view a newly built pulpit, communion table and baptismal font in a church none of us attended. But you would not know that from looking at us.

Circumstances brought us together, but what made the meal great was our common faith. All of us believed that it is by God’s grace that we are saved through Jesus Christ. Our life journeys were radically different, but our common faith made us brothers in the Lord. And while we may have all started in different places and had very different experiences, our destination is the same. I don’t expect I’ll sit at the table with the four of us again while here on this earth, but perhaps in heaven, we’ll share a meal together once more. And just as Jesus was present among us then, so he will be present among us on that day as well.

My advice: if you are invited to look at some newly built church furniture (or some other seemingly random reason to take an excursion), take a few hours out of your day and do so. Maybe God will give you an experience you will be stamped into your memory.

Some years ago, I attended a church service in which the speaker spent about half an hour refuting the “L” or TULIP, “Limited Atonement.” (In case you are unfamiliar with them, TULIP is an acronym which makes it easier to remember the five points of Calvinism. If you don’t know what they are, I encourage you to look it up.) Without going into any detail, what the speaker did was give a rather distorted version of what “Limited Atonement” is and then went on to say what it wasn’t biblical. I agreed with him that his version of Limited Atonement wasn’t biblical because what he had said Limited Atonement was is not what it is. He would have had a much more difficult time refuting Limited Atonement had he actually defined it correctly.

A few decades ago, several well-respected theologians in the Christian Reformed Church engaged in a conversation with some Roman Catholic theologians to talk about Lord’s Day 80 of the Heidelberg Catechism, the one that calls the Roman Catholic mass a “condemnable idolatry.” In their conversations, the Roman Catholics stated quite clearly that the way the Heidelberg Catechism describes the Roman Catholic mass is incorrect. The Roman Catholic theologians said that if what the catechism said was what the Roman Catholic Church taught, they too could agree that the mass is a condemnable idolatry. “But that is not what we believe or teach,” they said. As a result, the Christian Reformed Church, while not removing the suspect statements in the Catechism, did bracket them and place a footnote under them saying what they are incorrect and we should make ourselves aware that they have misrepresented Roman Catholic teaching.

What I have just described are two examples of a “straw man argument.” A “straw man argument” is one in which we distort or weaken another’s position so that we can argue against it. By misrepresenting someone else’s beliefs or teachings, we can easily refute them and quickly condemn them. Arguing against someone after first distorting their belief is called “attacking a straw man.”

It’s a fairly apt description. If we take a bunch of straw and pack it into Samuel’s clothing and we put Samuel’s face on our creation, we are building a straw man. We might name that straw man “Samuel,” and we might then proceed to attack it with bayonets, saying that we are “killing Samuel.” Of course, we aren’t killing Samuel, for the straw man is not Samuel. We are making ourselves look foolish if we continue to say that we are attacking Samuel.

When we do this is a debate situation, the same thing happens. Instead of accurately representing Samuel’s position, we create one that looks a lot like Samuel’s position but is missing some significant components. It is easy to attack Samuel’s position because it is not what Samuel said. The problem is this: while it is easy to see the difference between a straw man and the real Samuel, it is often harder to see that the argument presented is not Samuel’s but, rather, a misrepresentation of Samuel’s argument. We might be inclined to join in the attack against Samuel’s argument and so attack Samuel himself. Unless someone points out that what we are attacking is not Samuel’s argument but a fictitious misrepresentation, Samuel’s credibility will be destroyed.

Sometimes within the Christian church, we cannot be bothered to spend the time to develop a misrepresentation of another’s argument so that we can more easily refute them, so we simply use a short cut and label them as “liberal.” In many circles, that label is enough to destroy someone’s credibility immediately. In calling someone a “liberal” without having taken the time to hear what they have to say, we have created a straw man, and we feel that we can attack that individual without hesitation because, after all, we don’t want liberals to ruin the church. Naming someone as a liberal without ever really engaging them in conversation is the most egregious form of a straw man argument, at least in our circles.

As Christians who seek truth, we should recoil in horror at the very idea of setting up and attacking a straw man. Not only will we eventually look foolish, but we may even destroy the reputation and integrity of one of God’s children. That goes against the very core of who we are.

It is true that there will be people we disagree with and sometimes we disagree on very important points. However, before we write them off a “liberal,” the most egregious straw man argument or misrepresent them by distorting their argument, we must first listen carefully so that we understand. In fact, we have not listened well enough if we cannot accurately reproduce their argument. It is only then that we can give answer to what they believe, carefully using Scripture to guide us in our refutation of their argument. This whole process can be rather frightening, for we might find that when we truly understand someone’s position, we might find that we have to change our own. None of us does that easily. But, if we are going to be people of integrity and honesty, we cannot set up straw men and attack them so that we are never challenged in our beliefs. There is also the real possibility that when we engage people in their beliefs, and if their beliefs do not align with Scripture, we can bring them around. But that will only work if we have honest discussions and are willing to listen first.

It was difficult for me to listen to the speaker who attacked Limited Atonement by first misrepresenting it. As someone who holds to the five points of Calvinism, I wanted him to represent what I believe fairly so that I could hear his argument against it. Because he built a straw man first, I found that I could not engage him in conversation. I found myself frustrated and even a little angry because what I believe was misrepresented, and if I had announced that I believed in the doctrine of Limited Atonement, I would have been condemned as believing a non-biblical teaching.

The CRC was right in listening to the Roman Catholic theologians. And it is good that a few lines are bracketed and noted that they do not inaccurately describe someone else’s supposed position. While the CRC might not agree with the Roman Catholic position on other things, at least on this one, we are being honest.

Being honest does not weaken our position; it strengthens it. If we have integrity, we will be able to have good discussions with others, and, most likely, we will all become more aligned with the teachings of Scripture. If we set up straw men and attack them, we will never help those who we perceive are straying, and we will look foolish in the process.

A couple of years ago a friend was building a house, and before he started framing, he ordered his windows and doors because he was told that it would take about four months for them to arrive. The lag between demand and supply has increased significantly over the past few years, and what we normally could buy off the shelf or wait a few days to obtain it now takes weeks or even months. Thankfully, things are beginning to become “normal” again and we find that supply is not lagging as long behind demand as it used to.

We might call this delay a gap between expectations and actions. We have certain expectations (how long it takes to obtain windows for our house, how long we have to wait in line to get the hamburger we ordered, etc.), and if the length of time exceeds our expectation, we can become irritated. When another’s actions fail to meet our expectations, our frustration level grows. We may even lose faith in them.

In the Bible there is sometimes a gap between our expectations and God’s actions. One story that has puzzled me is the story of the Saul and David. In 1 Samuel 15 the prophet Samuel, tells Saul that God has rejected him as king. In the next chapter, Samuel anoints David to be the next king of Israel. What is puzzling and even a little troubling is that it takes another 20 years for Saul’s reign to end (he was 72 years old) and David’s to begin. If God had told Saul that he had rejected him as king, why did he let him reign for another 20 years? Our expectation is that when God says he is going to do something, he should do it, and he shouldn’t procrastinate.

Another example of God’s seemingly delayed activity could be seen in Psalm 13, a psalm of David. There David laments: “How long will you forget me forever? How long will you hide your face from me? . . . How long will my enemy triumph over me?” We don’t know when David writes this psalm, but it could well have been in those years between his anointing and his coronation, for it was during those years that Saul tried to kill him. Clearly David is frustrated by God’s seemingly slow action, for he feels that the oppression will never end. If God doesn’t act, the psalm continues, David feels that he might be killed. We can understand his frustration at God’s seeming inactivity.

The most obvious example of God’s seemingly slow action can be seen in the delayed return of Jesus. There is strong indication that the early church was also a little confused about Jesus’ return, for when he ascended into heaven, it did seem that his return would be imminent. True, during those early years the church grew rapidly, but so did its suffering. During times of severe persecution, it is not hard to believe that our brothers and sisters felt very much in tune with David’s sentiments in Psalm 13: “How long, Lord, will you forget us forever?” If the early church had known that this world would still be carrying on 2000 years later, they might have been quite surprised. There truly is a very large gap between their expectations and God’s actions. The gap is so large that today we scarcely give thought to Jesus’ return. It’s almost as if it won’t happen. (We know Jesus will return, but we don’t think about it that much.)

We may feel that gap between our expectations and God’s actions in our own lives. We pray for the salvation of a loved one, but it doesn’t happen as quickly as we might expect. We ask God for healing, but instead of being healed overnight, it takes years. We pray for God to open doors, but no doors open, and we remain feeling trapped in our current lives.

These gaps between our expectations and God’s action can leave us feeling frustrated, and we might even lose some faith in God. Our cry may also be, “How long, Lord, before you do something?” but God doesn’t seem to answer or even give us a reason.

It would be helpful to know the reason for the delay. When we order windows and the lead time doesn’t meet our expectations, we can usually discover why. Perhaps the supply of raw product (plastic for the injection molding machines) has been delayed, and we discover that they reason for the delay is that a ship has turned sideways in the Suez Canal (as happened a couple of years ago). Or we might learn that the plant that makes the windows we ordered had a fire and production had been paused for a couple of months as repairs were made. When we discover the reasons behind the delay, we might retain our trust and not become quite so frustrated.

God, however, does not always reveal to us the reasons he does not act immediately. We are never told why Saul reigned another 20 years before he was removed from the throne. We don’t know why Jesus hasn’t returned. We don’t know why God doesn’t heal us or turn a loved one back to himself. We can speculate, but we have to remember that any guess we have might be wrong. We cannot know.

In Psalm 13 David doesn’t receive any answers. He frets about his situation, and he cries out to God, but it does not seem as if there is any answer forthcoming. Yet, in verse 5, David says this, “But I trust in your unfailing love; my heart rejoices in your salvation.” The word that is translated as “unfailing love” is often understood as “committed love” or “covenantal love.” What David trusts is that God’s love for him is not based on emotion or circumstance. God had made a commitment to David, and God would keep it. Of this David was absolutely sure. And that allows him to end the psalm with praise as he says that God has been good to him even though he hasn’t received what he asked for.

David doesn’t receive reprieve from his enemies. He doesn’t receive an explanation from God as to why there was a delay. He doesn’t even get a timeline, telling him when things would change for the better. But what he does have is the assurance that God loved him and would give him what he needed. How that would happen and when it would happen, he did not know. But God still loved him.

When God’s actions don’t meet our expectations, it is frustrating. But David instructs us by his example that in spite of what we experience and know, God’s love remains steadfast, and he will take care of things in his way and in his own time. Our response is simple: trust God that he will do what he will and leave it in his hands.