THECHURCH’S DUTY OF REMEMBERING

Fewof us would ever think of remembering as being a duty. This is especially sosince forgetting seems to be so human. After all, when one fails to keep apromise or to do a duty, the excuse of forgetfulness seems to be so easilyacceptable. However, the fact that remembering is indeed a biblical duty can beeasily 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’sdeath (cf. Lk 22:19); (6) remember Lot’s wife (Lk 17:32); (7) remember those inprison (Heb 13:3; Col 4:18); (8) remember those who have rule over us (Heb13:7); (9) remember the poor (Gal 2:10); and (10) remember how we had receivedthe Word of God (Rev 3:3; cf. 2:5).

It is true that there is a great number of nuancessurrounding the verb ‘remember,’ whether in English, Greek or Hebrew. However,every nuance that we may consider will have the element, more or less, ofrecollecting or keeping in mind some important facts. In other words, there aresome things which, as believers, we should not forget and which we should bereminded of often. We must, for example, not forget the Lord’s suffering anddeath on our behalf, and we must especially be reminded of these gracious actsof God whenever we observe the Lord’s Supper. But, apart from remembering theredemptive work of God, and specific persons or classes of persons, it isimportant for us, too, to remember the Lord’s providential dealings with uscorporately as a church.  

Standing at the threshold of the Promised Land, Mosescalled to the people of God, of old, to remembrance. He called them to rememberGod’s faithfulness and deliverance (cf. Deut 2:30; 3:3; etc.). He called themalso to remember their past sin and rebellion against God (Deut 9:7). And hecalled them to remember God’s acts of temporal judgements against them (Deut24:9). In so far as Moses’ instructions were for the Church under-age, we mayconclude that it is a right and proper duty for the church today to alsoremember the providential work of God. This is especially so since this duty ofremembering God’s dealing with His people has entered into the Psalter as asubject matter for corporate praise in every age: “Remember his marvellousworks that he hath done; his wonders, and the judgments of his mouth; O ye seedof Abraham his servant, ye children of Jacob his chosen” (Ps 105:5–6).

How should we exercise this corporate duty ofremembrance today? Let me suggest three ways:

Recounting the Past Year

Firstly, it is right and proper for a local church onher 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. Abusiness organisation may measure itself by its productivity, profit margin,share price, staff turnover, etc., etc. A fraternal or special interest societymay assess itself by how many new members joined in the year, or how much ithas achieved by way of contribution to the field of interest, or how much itdonated to a particular cause. But, in the case of the church, her developmentmust be measured rather differently. She must measure herself against thenormative standard of the Word of God. This being the case, she should not usemembership growth as a measure of her success because it is God that gives theincrease (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 beavoided. In the same way she should not publish how much she has contributed tomissions, and use it as a measure of success, for the Lord teaches us: “Butwhen thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth” (Mt6:3). Again, she should not boast about how many evangelistic tracts were givenout or how many missionaries were sent out, for slaves cannot boast of whatthey did for their master (cf. Lk 17:10).

What remains for the church, by which she may measureherself, is whether she had been faithful to the Word of God and the dutyrequired of her as a church. It is true that faithfulness cannot really beabsolutely quantified. Nevertheless, the church may assess if she had actedbiblically in particular issues or crisis situations. She may also compare herzeal with previous years, in particular areas. Some fitting statements ofassessment could be: “We thank God that there has been an increase inattendance at evening service”; “We need to work harder at bringing ourunbelieving friends to hear the Gospel”; or, “We need to work at punctualityand attendance at prayer meetings”; or “We need to repent of our general lack ofconcern and love one for another”; etc.

Whatever may be the case, any recounting of the churchin the year past must be made with the goal of praising God for His marvellouswork and also to spur the church to greater faithfulness unto Christ. No reportpresented ought to give any occasion for self-glorification, whethercorporately or individually. Never are we called to remember our achievementsor how great we are. We are called to remember God. We are called also torepentance when we have fallen into sin (cf. Rev 2:5, 16).

Learning from History

Secondly, the duty of remembering should be exercisedwith the aim of learning from the past. We live in a day of individualism inthe church (cf. 2 Tim 3:1–5), in which many are interpreting the Scriptures orintroducing new practices without regards for earlier accepted interpretationsand restrictions.

This may be the case because the average believertoday have no idea at all of, nor is concerned with, the fact that Christianitywas quite different in earlier days. But experience has shown us that thisdisdain 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 theattitude,—whenever their own interpretation of a text of Scripture differs fromthe earlier accepted interpretation,—that the older interpretation is wronguntil proven right. The same goes for church practices. What is being done inthe church must be right, and any attempt to introduce restrictions based onpast practices would be considered with suspicion. J.C. Ryle made a similarobservation more than a century ago:

There is an Athenian love for novelty abroad, and amorbid distaste for anything old and regular, and in the beaten paths of ourforefathers. … The tendency of modern thought is to reject dogmas, creeds, andevery kind of bounds in religion. It is thought grand and wise to condemn noopinion whatsoever, and to pronounce all earnest and clever teachers to betrustworthy…. Stand up for these great verities [of Christian orthodoxy] andyou are called narrow, illiberal, old-fashioned, and a theological fossil!(cited in David W. Hall, TheArrogance of the Modern: Historical Theology Held in Contempt [Oak Ridge: Calvin Institute, 1997],19).

Modern Christians would do well to remember that ingeneral most of the notable earlier theologians, especially from the time ofthe 16th century Reformation on, spent much more time in the Scriptures, knewmore of the original languages, were more pious, and had read and meditated onmore theology than the vast majority of us. It would do well, therefore, togive much weight and preference to these earlier interpretations and practices.This is especially if the practices or interpretations were agreed inconfessional consensus.

Finding our Roots

The third way in which we must apply the duty ofremembering has to do with finding our roots. We must remember that a localchurch, unlike any secular organisation, must not be viewed as beginning only ayear before its first anniversary. The church must look further back. Even ifshe 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 thedays of the Apostles. In other words, every local church ought to remember thatshe has at least about 2,000 years of history behind her. This, however, posesa problem, for it is a well-known fact that the history of the Church hasdeveloped along numerous paths. And it must be confessed that, sinceChristianity must be normatively founded on the Scripture, some of the paths haveveered from the truth.

Thus, when a local church seeks to find her roots, sheshould not simply trace backward chronologically. That has only a very limiteduse. It would be much more helpful for the church to find her rootstheologically. That is, she should seek to be fitted into a branch of thehistory of the Church, which she believes to be faithfully on the old path.Someone of note has well said: “Knowledge of history means choice ofancestors.” This is quite true, especially for a church. But our purpose forfinding our roots must be more than a mere choosing of who we want to be ourancestors; it must involve, rather, an understanding of the development oftheology and a discernment of which path of theological and ecclesiasticaldevelopment is most true to the Scripture. For example, in the area ofChristology, all Protestant churches would happily trace to the council ofChalcedon of AD 451. On the other hand, Jehovah Witnesses would claim Arius tobe their father in this area.

Theavailability of Creeds and Confessions in the Reformed tradition makes it mucheasier for us to identify our theological roots. For example, as a church, wewould adhere to the Westminster Confession of Faith of 1646. This would meanthat we would largely agree with the theological development that converged inthe Westminster Confession of Faith. Thus, for example, we would agree to thetheology of sovereign grace propounded by John Calvin, and the five points ofCalvinism systematised at the Synod of Dort in 1618. On the other hand, inidentifying with the 1646 version of the Confession, we are also saying that wedisagree with later amendments and revisions to the Confession, such as wasdone by the Bible Presbyterian Church of America. And again, sinceDispensationalism and the Covenant Theology of our Confession are at variancein important areas, then, by affirming our Confession, we are in effect sayingthat Dispensationalism has veered off the old path.

Why is it important for us to find our theologicalroots? It is important because we believe that theology must be self-consistentsince it is derived from the Scriptures, which is the Word of the holy andimmutable God. True theological developments are not additions to, or evolutionof, the theology in Scripture, but the clarification and systematisation oftheology. Thus, though we can expect minor correctives in any tradition oftheological development, we should generally find some consistency within eachsystem. Let me put it this way: doing theology is in some sense like assemblinga large jigsaw puzzle. The pieces are the theological elements that may bederived from the Scripture by proper rules of interpretation. In the idealsituation, the pieces fit in very well and a beautiful and logical pictureemerges, by which we may know what we must believe concerning God and what dutyHe requires of us. However, it is also possible to derive, through erroneousinterpretation, spurious pieces of puzzle which may appear to fit into theassembled fragment. The only problem is: the exposed edges produced by thespecious piece will not allow other true pieces to be fitted in nicely. Itwould only allow other specious pieces to be fitted in. So more specious pieceshave to be added. The result is obvious: a picture that is part true and partfalse which can give a very wrong impression to the beholder.

Today, through the different developments in thehistory of the Church, there are many pieces of incomplete puzzles whichchurches and theologians are working on. None of these puzzles can claim to bealready completed, though, I believe: the family of puzzles which calls itselfCalvinistic and Reformed is more complete, has much fewer specious pieces andproduces the most glorious view of God.

In finding our roots, we are, as it were, seeking tofind which incomplete puzzle we want to identify ourselves with. Some may betrying to reconcile a part from one puzzle with parts from other puzzles, suchas those who are trying to marry Calvinism with Arminianism, or CovenantTheology with Dispensationalism. But we do not think it wise, thoughoccasionally some points from other puzzles may help us to understand betterthe difficulties in our own.

Conclusion

A year has passed since PCC started. But more thanfive years have passed since the formation of this church begun in the heartsand lips of a few individuals—in the form of prayer. Some of what is embodiedin this church was not in the expectation of those who first begun praying. Itis as if the Lord is saying: “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neitherare your ways my ways, saith the LORD” (Isa 55:8).

As we remember the struggles many of us faced, we mustthank and praise the Lord for His providence in leading us together toconstitute 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 preservingus despite our many shortfalls. But we must not stop here, for we must alsothank the Lord for His sovereign governance of His Church so that a faithfulwitness may be traced from the Early Church to the 16thCentury Reformation to the Westminster Assembly, unto which we can safelyattach ourselves historically and theologically. And we must thank the Lord toothat, through the printed pages, we may sit under the instructions of Hisservants whom He had raised in ages past.

—JJ Lim