THE
CHURCH’S DUTY OF REMEMBERING
Few
of us would ever think of remembering as being a duty. This is especially so
since forgetting seems to be so human. After all, when one fails to keep a
promise or to do a duty, the excuse of forgetfulness seems to be so easily
acceptable. However, the fact that remembering is indeed a biblical duty can be
easily shown. We are, for example, commanded to (1) remember the Sabbath Day,
to keep it Holy (Ex 20:8); (2) remember our Creator in the days of our youth
(Ecc 12:1); (3) remember the Lord—of how He delivered His people (Neh 4:14);
(4) remember the Lord Jesus Christ (cf. 2 Tim 2:8); (5) remember the Lord’s
death (cf. Lk 22:19); (6) remember Lot’s wife (Lk 17:32); (7) remember those in
prison (Heb 13:3; Col 4:18); (8) remember those who have rule over us (Heb
13:7); (9) remember the poor (Gal 2:10); and (10) remember how we had received
the Word of God (Rev 3:3; cf. 2:5).
It is true that there is a great number of nuances
surrounding the verb ‘remember,’ whether in English, Greek or Hebrew. However,
every nuance that we may consider will have the element, more or less, of
recollecting or keeping in mind some important facts. In other words, there are
some things which, as believers, we should not forget and which we should be
reminded of often. We must, for example, not forget the Lord’s suffering and
death on our behalf, and we must especially be reminded of these gracious acts
of God whenever we observe the Lord’s Supper. But, apart from remembering the
redemptive work of God, and specific persons or classes of persons, it is
important for us, too, to remember the Lord’s providential dealings with us
corporately as a church.
Standing at the threshold of the Promised Land, Moses
called to the people of God, of old, to remembrance. He called them to remember
God’s faithfulness and deliverance (cf. Deut 2:30; 3:3; etc.). He called them
also to remember their past sin and rebellion against God (Deut 9:7). And he
called them to remember God’s acts of temporal judgements against them (Deut
24:9). In so far as Moses’ instructions were for the Church under-age, we may
conclude that it is a right and proper duty for the church today to also
remember the providential work of God. This is especially so since this duty of
remembering God’s dealing with His people has entered into the Psalter as a
subject matter for corporate praise in every age: “Remember his marvellous
works that he hath done; his wonders, and the judgments of his mouth; O ye seed
of Abraham his servant, ye children of Jacob his chosen” (Ps 105:5–6).
How should we exercise this corporate duty of
remembrance today? Let me suggest three ways:
Recounting the Past Year
Firstly, it is right and proper for a local church on
her anniversary to remember and recount how the Lord has blessed the work.
However, she must bear in mind that the church is no ordinary organisation. A
business organisation may measure itself by its productivity, profit margin,
share price, staff turnover, etc., etc. A fraternal or special interest society
may assess itself by how many new members joined in the year, or how much it
has achieved by way of contribution to the field of interest, or how much it
donated to a particular cause. But, in the case of the church, her development
must be measured rather differently. She must measure herself against the
normative standard of the Word of God. This being the case, she should not use
membership growth as a measure of her success because it is God that gives the
increase (1 Cor 3:6). She may indeed look back and praise God for the increase,
but any display of figures will tend to pride and self-exaltation, and must be
avoided. In the same way she should not publish how much she has contributed to
missions, and use it as a measure of success, for the Lord teaches us: “But
when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth” (Mt
6:3). Again, she should not boast about how many evangelistic tracts were given
out or how many missionaries were sent out, for slaves cannot boast of what
they did for their master (cf. Lk 17:10).
What remains for the church, by which she may measure
herself, is whether she had been faithful to the Word of God and the duty
required of her as a church. It is true that faithfulness cannot really be
absolutely quantified. Nevertheless, the church may assess if she had acted
biblically in particular issues or crisis situations. She may also compare her
zeal with previous years, in particular areas. Some fitting statements of
assessment could be: “We thank God that there has been an increase in
attendance at evening service”; “We need to work harder at bringing our
unbelieving friends to hear the Gospel”; or, “We need to work at punctuality
and attendance at prayer meetings”; or “We need to repent of our general lack of
concern and love one for another”; etc.
Whatever may be the case, any recounting of the church
in the year past must be made with the goal of praising God for His marvellous
work and also to spur the church to greater faithfulness unto Christ. No report
presented ought to give any occasion for self-glorification, whether
corporately or individually. Never are we called to remember our achievements
or how great we are. We are called to remember God. We are called also to
repentance when we have fallen into sin (cf. Rev 2:5, 16).
Learning from History
Secondly, the duty of remembering should be exercised
with the aim of learning from the past. We live in a day of individualism in
the church (cf. 2 Tim 3:1–5), in which many are interpreting the Scriptures or
introducing new practices without regards for earlier accepted interpretations
and restrictions.
This may be the case because the average believer
today have no idea at all of, nor is concerned with, the fact that Christianity
was quite different in earlier days. But experience has shown us that this
disdain and contempt of historical theology is not confined only to the
“average lay person,” it is true also of those who ought to know.
Yes, it is indeed a virtue to be Berean Christians,
seeking always to see if what is taught is in line with the Scriptures.
However, there is a tendency among modern believers to take the
attitude,—whenever their own interpretation of a text of Scripture differs from
the earlier accepted interpretation,—that the older interpretation is wrong
until proven right. The same goes for church practices. What is being done in
the church must be right, and any attempt to introduce restrictions based on
past practices would be considered with suspicion. J.C. Ryle made a similar
observation more than a century ago:
There is an Athenian love for novelty abroad, and a
morbid distaste for anything old and regular, and in the beaten paths of our
forefathers. … The tendency of modern thought is to reject dogmas, creeds, and
every kind of bounds in religion. It is thought grand and wise to condemn no
opinion whatsoever, and to pronounce all earnest and clever teachers to be
trustworthy…. Stand up for these great verities [of Christian orthodoxy] and
you are called narrow, illiberal, old-fashioned, and a theological fossil!
(cited in David W. Hall, The
Arrogance of the Modern: Historical Theology Held in Contempt [Oak Ridge: Calvin Institute, 1997],
19).
Modern Christians would do well to remember that in
general most of the notable earlier theologians, especially from the time of
the 16th century Reformation on, spent much more time in the Scriptures, knew
more of the original languages, were more pious, and had read and meditated on
more theology than the vast majority of us. It would do well, therefore, to
give much weight and preference to these earlier interpretations and practices.
This is especially if the practices or interpretations were agreed in
confessional consensus.
Finding our Roots
The third way in which we must apply the duty of
remembering has to do with finding our roots. We must remember that a local
church, unlike any secular organisation, must not be viewed as beginning only a
year before its first anniversary. The church must look further back. Even if
she refuses to acknowledge that the Church began really with our first parents,
Adam and Eve, she must trace her history back to the Early Church during the
days of the Apostles. In other words, every local church ought to remember that
she has at least about 2,000 years of history behind her. This, however, poses
a problem, for it is a well-known fact that the history of the Church has
developed along numerous paths. And it must be confessed that, since
Christianity must be normatively founded on the Scripture, some of the paths have
veered from the truth.
Thus, when a local church seeks to find her roots, she
should not simply trace backward chronologically. That has only a very limited
use. It would be much more helpful for the church to find her roots
theologically. That is, she should seek to be fitted into a branch of the
history of the Church, which she believes to be faithfully on the old path.
Someone of note has well said: “Knowledge of history means choice of
ancestors.” This is quite true, especially for a church. But our purpose for
finding our roots must be more than a mere choosing of who we want to be our
ancestors; it must involve, rather, an understanding of the development of
theology and a discernment of which path of theological and ecclesiastical
development is most true to the Scripture. For example, in the area of
Christology, all Protestant churches would happily trace to the council of
Chalcedon of AD 451. On the other hand, Jehovah Witnesses would claim Arius to
be their father in this area.
The
availability of Creeds and Confessions in the Reformed tradition makes it much
easier for us to identify our theological roots. For example, as a church, we
would adhere to the Westminster Confession of Faith of 1646. This would mean
that we would largely agree with the theological development that converged in
the Westminster Confession of Faith. Thus, for example, we would agree to the
theology of sovereign grace propounded by John Calvin, and the five points of
Calvinism systematised at the Synod of Dort in 1618. On the other hand, in
identifying with the 1646 version of the Confession, we are also saying that we
disagree with later amendments and revisions to the Confession, such as was
done by the Bible Presbyterian Church of America. And again, since
Dispensationalism and the Covenant Theology of our Confession are at variance
in important areas, then, by affirming our Confession, we are in effect saying
that Dispensationalism has veered off the old path.
Why is it important for us to find our theological
roots? It is important because we believe that theology must be self-consistent
since it is derived from the Scriptures, which is the Word of the holy and
immutable God. True theological developments are not additions to, or evolution
of, the theology in Scripture, but the clarification and systematisation of
theology. Thus, though we can expect minor correctives in any tradition of
theological development, we should generally find some consistency within each
system. Let me put it this way: doing theology is in some sense like assembling
a large jigsaw puzzle. The pieces are the theological elements that may be
derived from the Scripture by proper rules of interpretation. In the ideal
situation, the pieces fit in very well and a beautiful and logical picture
emerges, by which we may know what we must believe concerning God and what duty
He requires of us. However, it is also possible to derive, through erroneous
interpretation, spurious pieces of puzzle which may appear to fit into the
assembled fragment. The only problem is: the exposed edges produced by the
specious piece will not allow other true pieces to be fitted in nicely. It
would only allow other specious pieces to be fitted in. So more specious pieces
have to be added. The result is obvious: a picture that is part true and part
false which can give a very wrong impression to the beholder.
Today, through the different developments in the
history of the Church, there are many pieces of incomplete puzzles which
churches and theologians are working on. None of these puzzles can claim to be
already completed, though, I believe: the family of puzzles which calls itself
Calvinistic and Reformed is more complete, has much fewer specious pieces and
produces the most glorious view of God.
In finding our roots, we are, as it were, seeking to
find which incomplete puzzle we want to identify ourselves with. Some may be
trying to reconcile a part from one puzzle with parts from other puzzles, such
as those who are trying to marry Calvinism with Arminianism, or Covenant
Theology with Dispensationalism. But we do not think it wise, though
occasionally some points from other puzzles may help us to understand better
the difficulties in our own.
Conclusion
A year has passed since PCC started. But more than
five years have passed since the formation of this church begun in the hearts
and lips of a few individuals—in the form of prayer. Some of what is embodied
in this church was not in the expectation of those who first begun praying. It
is as if the Lord is saying: “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither
are your ways my ways, saith the LORD” (Isa 55:8).
As we remember the struggles many of us faced, we must
thank and praise the Lord for His providence in leading us together to
constitute as a branch of the Body of Christ. As we reflect on the year past,
we must thank the Lord for His blessings and helps in sustaining and preserving
us despite our many shortfalls. But we must not stop here, for we must also
thank the Lord for His sovereign governance of His Church so that a faithful
witness may be traced from the Early
Church to the 16th
Century Reformation to the Westminster Assembly, unto which we can safely
attach ourselves historically and theologically. And we must thank the Lord too
that, through the printed pages, we may sit under the instructions of His
servants whom He had raised in ages past.
—JJ Lim