1973. 8 pages. Translated by Wim Kanis. Edited by Jeff Dykstra.

Spectators at the Brokenness of Life? The place of Christian Social work

Introduction🔗

“It is important for the ministers of the church that they do not only know the way toward responsible social work, but also that they are aware of its nature and spiritual orientation within the framework of the government’s advanced social policy.

Only then, in my opinion, will practice show to what extent it will be necessary for the sake of our own congregations to develop or expand their own forms of social work.1

Professor C. Trimp spoke these words at the Central Diaconal Conference in Leeuwarden in 1966. I believe that these words are in line with the title of my subject, namely: Are we only spectators to the broken life, or do we know the way to those who offer help in that broken life?

May this contribution lead us further in this latter direction. In this presentation, therefore, we would like to try to bring social work a little closer to you. In order to do this, we will first need to show the necessity and the legitimacy of social work.

The origins of social work🔗

We all know that with sin (Genesis 3), the brokenness of life became a fact. When we now try to make a rough assessment of what has come about in recent decades–counting from the end of World War II–see the following picture emerging. Man has attempted to detach himself from God, and strives to sit on the throne himself. He thinks he can do everything himself:

  • in economic terms: never again a crisis and unemployment
    However, are you able to count the number of strikes or to keep track of unemployment figures?
  • in social respect: a paradise on earth (“social security from the cradle to the grave”); behind this ideal there is often a notion of revolution.
  • in cultural terms: new expressions of art: pop music is in, modern painting is in demand, and literary authors such as Van het Reve and Cremer are highly regarded. Prizes are even made available for such profanity.
  • in scientific terms: space travel – lunar exploration – but also… the atomic bomb.

We can and may be grateful for many good things, and I am thinking in particular of the advances in medical science, which allow a human age to be doubled compared to the previous century. However, instead of all these developments having provided certainty to man, he has now ended up in much uncertainty. The forces that have been developed and released (for example, atomic energy) are almost impossible to control, and people become afraid of their own inventions. We no longer need God, and yet without God we still feel insecure.

Partly through the developments in technology, mechanization, industrialization, increases in scale and mergers, this has led to a sense of alienation and loneliness: fear, psychological tension, neuroses of various types, and anxiety. Leisure becomes a timely topic, while sacrifices and service are pushed to the background; comfort, pleasure and security in life have become primary demands and goals of human action.

Women continue to work after their marriage, often at the expense of family life. Recently a comparison with Russia occurred to me when I saw how every morning babies and toddlers were delivered to a nursery, and Mom and Dad went to work together in the car. In Russia, people are forced to give up their children; in the Netherlands, they do so voluntarily. These children lack so much love and nurture. The family is precisely the primary environment in which the spiritual and social norms for society must be taught to children. When a family fails in this through actual negligence or through the inability of the parents in their task to raise their children, the consequences can be catastrophic and we should not be surprised when youth crime is on the increase. Adult offenders are often found to have lacked proper direction in their youth. When we add to this the many external influences, parents should not complain about today’s youth, but ask themselves whether they themselves are not to blame. Insufficient leadership in parenting can result in family breakdowns, in a life of many disconnects. Therefore, it cannot be stressed sufficiently that attention needs to be paid to well-functioning families as the basis for a healthy society.

When there is no love to nurture the baby and the toddler in the first years of life, and parents only seek their own pleasure and wealth, can we expect these children to have love for their parents later? Or respect for the authority and the norms of society? When so many families have become places where love and norms are lacking, and where the seams are at the breaking point with all their criticism, aggression and selfishness–and when in just as many marriages (and outside of these), the fountains of life are being tampered with by means of abortion – then we are only touching on a fraction of the overall balance sheet that we could draw up. Certainties were pursued – yet uncertainties were reaped, because people abandoned God and thought they could do without him. People preferred the uncertainty, fear and confusion of a life without God more than the security found in the church of Christ, a church in which pastoral care is extended to those in danger of losing all security. Instead, our society itself is organizing all kinds of forces to counter the negative aspects of modern life. It does this by means of all kinds of social work, which seeks to help people in the complications of life where they are so often and so easily caught up in all its stress points.

In the past, help was provided through relief – charity and care for the poor–which only alleviated material needs. Today, however, social work aims to help people in all their needs (and certainly not just financially). The question arises as to what our attitude should be toward this social work. In this connection, a quote from Prof. Trimp is appropriate:

“Of course this work as an extension of help for modern man touches the work of the office-bearers of the church in more than one respect, and it is the deacons in particular who ask themselves what their relationship should be to this help and activity which has come about from within society itself. Can the deacons ignore this social work, or make it superfluous? Should an alliance be sought with it, or should the deaconry transform itself into some kind of ecclesiastical social service?” (see footnote 1)

Before answering these questions let us first examine from God’s Word what we are taught regarding our relationship to the neighbour and the diaconal office.

The communion of the saints and the deaconry🔗

We do not need to look far or long in God’s Word to discover what our task and calling is toward our neighbour.

Christ was anointed prophet, priest and king, and he served his Father in all these mediatorial offices as the Lord’s Servant. According to God’s will, he came to earth not to be served but to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many (Matthew 20:28; Acts 10:38). He lived in the midst of his disciples as One who serves (Luke 22:27; Philippians 2:7), and gave them an example of his serving love in the washing of their feet (John 13:15).

This ministering love of Christ exemplifies the work to which the church with all its members has been called. Christ also served the Father in serving others, and so also the church is called to glorify God through this, that it may bear much fruit (Matthew 5:16; John 15:16). Already in the Old Testament we find the basis for the communion of saints. In the books of Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy, the laws and measures were given to the Israelites and they were commanded to open their hand graciously to any poor and oppressed brothers (Deuteronomy 15:7-11). This legislation not only gave provisions by which poverty could be prevented, such as the Sabbatical year, the year of Jubilee and the well-known reaping of ears of wheat, but also measures concerning health and welfare, including regulations for food and clothing, washing and anointing, the slaughter of animals, and the treatment of lepers (Deuteronomy 15:7-11). In the same spirit, the prophets also urge the practice of mercy, doing justice to the oppressed, providing assistance in case of infirmity, and the like.

More than once the people also turned to them for counsel and assistance in cases of infirmity and death (2 Samuel 12:14; 1 Kings 14:2; 1 Kings 17:18; 2 Kings 4:22; 2 Kings 20:7). Christ himself not only preached and taught; he also went through the land, doing good, showing compassion to the poor and the sick. He also had mercy on the starving multitude (Matthew 14:16; Matthew 15:32). He warned against the hoarding of earthly treasures (Matthew 6:19) and against the dangers of riches (Matthew 19:23’ Luke 16:19). He also taught us to pray for daily bread (Matthew 6:11). He commands that we show love, not only to friends, but also to our enemies (Matthew 5:42-45). Christ sums up all these admonitions in the requirement to be merciful, as the Father in heaven is merciful (Luke 6:30-36).

We could mention more, such as inviting people for meals, caring for the poor, the lame and the blind, providing food and drink to the hungry and thirsty, and harbouring the stranger (Matt. 25:35-36, 42-43).

While in the foregoing we have seen the calling to the church and to everyone to practice the fellowship of the saints, we turn next to the office of the deacons.

We are all familiar with the contents of chapters 5 and 6 in the book of Acts. The wonderful growth of the first Christian congregation, being one in heart and soul and sharing everything as common possessions, the story of Ananias and Sapphira, and finally the appointment of the seven (deacons). Surely the church of Christ is a community; its members are not only to serve God as individuals, each one for himself in the work of mercy, they also are to do so communally.

The body for the common ministry of mercy is the diaconate. The mercy shown through the church is supported by its very own principles, in other words, by a divine rule. Therefore, diaconal mercy has nothing in common with private charity, but on the contrary is sharply differentiated from it. It has a spiritual centre from which it operates. That centre is the mercy of Jesus Christ, and therefore it is a holy task of the saints on this earth, which may never be turned into a common or shared practice with the world. It is so particular in its origin, belonging only to Christ and therefore exercised only by his church on earth; but it is as general as possible in its revelation and operation, for beginning with the household of faith it spreads the wings of mercy over all that is included in human misery. Christ has gone into heaven, but he has left to his Church the poor who belong to him who is a merciful High Priest.

For this reason the diaconate never acts otherwise than on behalf of Christ, whether in collecting alms, or in preventing poverty, or in the distribution of aid. Anyone who gives to the deacons gives to Christ, and therefore never has a claim to thanks from people. Whoever receives help from the church receives help from Christ, and therefore never has to look up to a human being on earth. It is laid on the Lord’s table as an offering; it is given from the Lord’s table as a heavenly gift. Why then in Christ’s church should the giver exalt himself and the poor feel ashamed? So when the work of the deacons is the work of Christ himself, then one understands at once that any and all competition with this mercy is not only sinful, but actually non-tolerable. It allows nothing beside itself. After all, who or what can replace Christ as the loving Comforter and Dispenser? He is no stranger to misery. He knows all our misery. Would we then complain about our distress to strangers or to the government, while he is waiting for us as a loving Provider of his mercy? May the church of Christ not ever forget, but may she live from this high self-confidence of being called by the Lord to extend the mercies of Christ from heaven to earth in all the streambeds of our deep-rooted life, so that all may confess that it is Christ alone who has shown his goodness.

With this overview we have also come to the answer of the question at the end of our previous section. For the sake of clarity I would like to reiterate Prof. Trimp’s questions:

  1. Can the deaconry ignore social work or make it superfluous?
  2. Should the deaconry make some alliance with social work?
  3. Or should the diaconate convert itself into some kind of ecclesiastical social work?

To begin with the last question, we just saw in our overview of the diaconal task that it has its own principle through a divine rule, and a spiritual focus. There is therefore nothing to convert into: no ecclesiastical social work instead of the diaconate, which could lead to a so-called (pseudo-) fourth office. Prof. Trimp speaks in the same vein when he says: “In order to preserve the identity of the diaconal office, a ministry which will nevertheless have to remain recognizable as an ecclesiastical ministry, we believe that the deacons should not move too far from their ‘home-base’. The outpost has to remain connected to the headquarters. The basis is and remains the concrete congregation, which meets around the pulpit and the Lord’s Table.”

As for the first question, namely whether the deaconry can ignore or make this social work unnecessary, our answer must also be negative. Many office-bearers in our community, as well as many church members, have not yet come to the point where the necessity of social work is fully understood: After all, there is pastoral care, isn’t there? I can go along with such people for quite some distance when they claim that much can be taken care of ministerially through pastors, elders and deacons. However, given the many specific difficulties, we will definitely not be able to do without social work. Moreover, there are also differences between churches. In one local church the minister may be good friends with a lawyer, a social worker, a psychiatrist, or he himself has much insight into the matter; in another church an elder or deacon will be somewhat more knowledgeable; a third church, however, may be completely devoid of anyone who dares to tackle any problem.

Let me give the example of a mother of a large family who passes away. Supervised guardianship will then need to be provided for the children. If there are no family members who can or wish to take on this task, an appeal is made to the Reformed Child Protection Service, which provides expert guidance in this matter. Will the children be able to stay at home, or do they have to be placed elsewhere? What about the husband and father? Can he cope, considering the fact that permanent care for his family is generally neither possible nor desired? In the church there may of course be initial and temporary care within the communion of the saints, but the question arises whether this is also possible for a period of many years.

A second example: a father shows deviant behaviour and has left his family. Office-bearers can and should of course provide spiritual and financial support, but there is more that needs to be done. Expert help will be needed in such matters as suspension or dismissal of parental rights, arrangement of maintenance payments, child support, and the like. Many other examples could be mentioned, such as marital difficulties, mischievous older children running away, or the disabled,.

We are now left to answer Prof. Trimp’s second question, namely, whether deacons should enter into an ‘alliance’ with work. Such an ‘alliance’ already exists, namely the organization known in our country as the Reformed Child Protection Service. However, rather than an ‘alliance’ I prefer to speak of a form of cooperation between the deacons and this agency.

How should the cooperation be envisioned between the Reformed Children’s Protection Service (or in a broader sense, its own social work) and the diaconate?

Without pretending to be complete or to give a conclusive, definitive answer to this question, I would like to put forward some considerations:

1. Social work cannot do without the help of the office, and vice versa.🔗

I believe that this is the right attitude, for both office-bearers and social workers. Ministers, elders and deacons should not say of social workers, “Oh, those are the only people who know, they are the experts or specialists.” And the social workers should not attribute to the office-bearers the title of “ merely amateurs, spiritual do-gooders." It is true of the people in office that God often gives them wisdom along with the calling. There is a basis for proper cooperation only when it is recognized that office-bearers and social workers cannot do without each other in building up Christ’s church. In this connection I am reminded of what Paul writes in Philippians 2:2-3: “Therefore complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind. Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves."

If this disposition is in our hearts, then we will guard against absolutizing the issues and proclaiming that social work is the only solution. And the office-bearers will then recognize that in addition to a spiritual side there may also be a more ‘technical’ side to the issue. So, then… move forward together in faith.

2. When do we need to seek the assistance of a social worker?🔗

We do so in the event of specific challenges where expert help is lacking. The following comparison may serve as an illustration. When do we go to the doctor? When there are specific complaints, and preferably not too late. When does a general practitioner refer people to a specialist? When he feels that a certain condition requires further investigation. In a similar way, social work can provide assistance to the pastoral care, insofar as it is confronted with cases where advice from specialized individuals is needed.

In connection with this, we often hear the complaint from office-bearers that brothers or sisters have called the doctor and not the pastor. Sometimes we learn after 14 days that sister A has been ill for a long time and brother B is in the hospital. Here I need to emphasize once again, the deacons need to make house calls. And in this matter I find myself in good company, namely with Prof. Trimp, Rev. Blok, Rev. Hendriks and Rev. Kooy, who have all repeatedly stressed the necessity of home visits by the deacons.2

The deacons need to know the congregation. After all, aren’t we one large family, all members of the head, Christ? Shall we then not know anything of each other? Should we not bear everything together? Rev. Hendriks put it this way: “It holds true for all the ministerial service of the office-bearers in the church that one has to equip, to stimulate and to prepare the saints for this diaconal task.”

When the congregation works together in this way in the communion of saints and receives its impulses from the deacons, then needs and difficulties will be recognized more quickly and it will also be possible for the office-bearers to determine the right moment when other help would be called for.

3. A cordial form of cooperation is required between the diaconate and social work.🔗

By this I mean that the office-bearers may not simply pass on potential problems to the social workers; rather, they need to maintain contact.

The office-bearers encounter difficulties and call upon, e.g., the Reformed Child Protection Service. In my opinion, the social worker should not want to handle the case on his own, but should seek contact with the minister or other office-bearers beforehand, who can then provide information and maintain contact in close cooperation during the procedure. I deem that this is the only way to work fruitfully in the interests of those who need help and are in need.

In this connection, it is also necessary to warn against the dangers of so-called ‘general’ or ‘neutral’ social work. Corporate social work, which has strong economic aspects, can infiltrate into our families and thus indirectly into the church. This can likewise be the case through medical social work, which is more socially minded, and finally by the social worker of Social Services. In these cases, much can be achieved through immaterial care, which is why we call on the deacons to “go on home visits” and be ahead of the corporate or medical social worker. And as far as Social Services are concerned, you yourself can keep them at a distance by not referring your brothers and sisters to the ABW.3

I trust that I have contributed something to our understanding of the issue of the relationship between the diaconate and social work. In case you are of the opinion that with the examples of corporate, medical and governmental social work, I spoke to the detriment of all social work, then I hope I may be able to clear up such a misunderstanding for you with the sigh, “Oh, that all social workers were Reformed...!”

What has been demonstrated here as well concerns also the necessity of the existence of a Reformed Social Academy where young, believing adults, are trained in providing Biblical, holistic care.

When now and in the future there were no Reformed social workers at all, and there would be no Reformed Children’s Society and no Reformed training centres, then the church would have to endure even more attacks from the outside. Therefore, we ask for your prayers and your support in these matters.

Who are we that we may undertake this work, that God grants us, sinful creatures, to be able to assist our neighbour in need? Therefore, together as office-bearers and as social workers, let us surrender ourselves to the guidance of the Holy Spirit and pray:

“Grant us that we will faithfully perform our office and duty, O Lord, to your honour. May your Spirit guide and lead us, and crown our work with his blessing. Amen.”

Endnotes🔗

  1. ^ Prof. Dr. C. Trimp, De dienst van de mondige kerk, 1977, p.178.
  2. ^ Trimp, De dienst van de mondige kerk, p. 177; Hendriks, Tot een hand en een voet; Kooy, Eenheid in de ambtelijke en niet-ambtelijke hulpverlening.
  3. ^ The Algemene Bijstands Wet was a Dutch legislation (the General Assistance Act) that regulated social assistance. It was initiated in 1965; revised in later years.

Add new comment

(If you're a human, don't change the following field)
Your first name.
(If you're a human, don't change the following field)
Your first name.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.