Since its founding in 1857, the Christian Reformed Church has maintained the position that lodge membership and church membership are incompatible. Synod has repeatedly reiterated this position. It is obvious that you cannot be a member of the Church which teaches that salvation is only possible through faith in Jesus Christ, the incarnate Son of God, who shed his blood on Calvary, and at the same time be a member of an organization which denies this fundamental truth. Christ is the rock upon which the Church is built.

The stand of the Church with regard to lodge membership has been a bulwark of strength from its very beginning. But there are those within the Church who persist in trying to effect a change in this historic stand. They always see to it that the door is left open a wee bit.

NO PRICE TOO GREAT – A decision was made in 1968 that should have dosed the door on the lodge issue. I quote that decision:

(It is moved) That Synod declare that fear of persecution or of disadvantage to self or our institutions arising out of obedience to Christ does not warrant denial to anyone, for reasons of race or color, of full fellowship and privilege in the Church or in related organizations, such as Christian colleges and schools, institutions of mercy and recreational associations: and that if members of the Christian Reformed Church advocate such denial, by whatever means, they must be reckoned as disobedient to Christ and be dealt with according to the provisions of the Church Order regarding Admonition and Discipline.

Grounds: The teachings of the Word of God and the examples found therein: e.g. Jer. 26:12–15; Dan. 3:16–18; Matt. 10:16–39; Luke 6:22, 23; John 12:25; Acts 4:19–20; 5:29, 40–42; Rom. 8:35–39; Phil. 1:14, 28, 29; II Thess. 1:4; II Tim. 1:8; 2:12; Heb. 10:32–34; 12:3,4; James 5:10, 11; I Peter. 3:14, 17; 4:12-19; Rev. 2:3 ,10, 13; 12:11. (Acts of Synod – 1968, Page 19, Art. 36, IV, B,6)

The thrust of this decision is that Christ demands unqualified obedience. Fear of persecution must never move or influence us to disobey. It is obvious that to deny anyone, for reasons of race or color, full Christian fellowship and privilege in the Church is, in effect, disobedience to Christ. To discriminate against someone because of race or color is to disobey a command of Christ. It is the command to love our neighbor that is involved. And to disobey a command of Christ is tantamount to disobeying Christ himself (Matt. 25:31–46). On one occasion Peter ate with Gentiles. Later, when Jews arrived on the scene with James, Peter withdrew from the Gentiles (Gal. 2:12). Paul reprimanded Peter because he, for fear of persecution or disadvantage, withdrew from the fellowship of these Gentiles. It is very obvious that there must be no race or color discrimination in the Church.

Throughout the centuries, Christians have suffered persecution or disadvantage for the sake of Christ. Today, students are barred from universities, men lose their jobs, others suffer privations in Siberian prison camps because of their commitment to Christ. It’s not just denying people of another race or color full Christian fellowship and privilege in the Church or in related organizations, that precipitates persecution or disadvantage. It was refusal to bow before a false god and the denial that Jesus is the Christ that resulted in persecution and disadvantage for Christians.

A study of the texts given as grounds for the 1968 decision indicates that persecution and disadvantage arose because believers refused to deny the one true God. Daniel’s three friends refused to bow down before the golden image because it would impinge upon their loyalty and their commitment to Jehovah (Daniel 3:16–18). Peter and John persisted in their determination to preach Jesus as the Christ, who was crucified and rose again. Hence they were persecuted (Acts 4:19, 20). They were beaten and yet they continued to preach and to teach Jesus Christ. They counted it worthy to suffer shame for his name (Acts 5:40–42). Persecutions always arise because of the Christian‘s insistence upon absolute loyalty to Christ, and commitment to the truth that there is no other name under heaven whereby we can be saved.

It has been the position of the church that membership be denied those who compromise the truth that salvation is secured only through the atoning work of Jesus Christ, and who walk contrary to His will. He who walks amid the seven golden lampstands insists on purity of doctrine and life. On penalty of extinction, the teachings and practices of Balaam, Jezebel, and the Nicolaitans must be rooted out (Rev. 2 and 3).

Studies by Synod have proven beyond doubt that the Christ of the lodge is not the Christ of Scripture and that the religion of the lodge is a religion of salvation by good works. Church membership and lodge membership arc not compatible –that is the verdict of the Church. And yet there are those who persist in their efforts to effect a change in the stand of the Church! It could be that some who initiated the decision of 1968 that fear of persecution or disadvantage is no ground for race or color discrimination, now take the opposite position with regard to the lodge issue.

Renouncing the false religion of the lodge may result in persecution or disadvantage. Although it has been said that the lodge doesn’t mean anything to some of these prospective church members. This gives rise to a ridiculous situation. Why not summarily drop the lodge membership? In other cases it may mean loss of friends, prestige, business connections, or insurance benefits. What of it? Obedience to Christ invariably results in persecution or disadvantage. “If we suffer, we shall also reign with him: if we deny him, he also will deny us” (II Tim. 2:12).

AN UNDERLYING HOSTILITY – The impression is often given that there is no essential conflict between the lodge and the Church. Examples are given of lodge members who were faithful supporters of the Church. But the lodge is far from any innocuous organization alongside of the Church. It is actually opposed to the Church because the latter, without equivocation, espouses the Christ of Scripture as the only way of salvation and repudiates the false doctrine of salvation by works.

This was brought to thc attention of Classis Minnesota North in 1972. The instance involved the Plymouth Presbyterian Church (PPC) of Sauk Rapids, Minnesota. For some time this church had no pastor. Attendance was low. The home missionary of Classis worked with a nucleus of this church, doing personal work and conducting worship services. It appeared for a time that this congregation might be incorporated into the Christian Reformed denomination. What happened can best be set forth by quoting from the home missionary’s report:

“As you recall the PPC (Plymouth Presbyterian Church) had no leadership at the time that we came to Sauk Rapids and arrangements were made so that I would be their interim pastor. During this period I began various activities with the church and took care of the pastoral duties. I also held two formal meetings in which I explained certain facets of the CRC such as its history, doctrines, and practices of church order. It was at one of these meetings that the CRC’s position on the lodge was discussed. This was a crucial point at the meeting. 

“On June 13, 1972, the congregation voted to remain Presbyterian. At that meeting there were many more people than had ever been in the church at any given time. One man had not been in church for two years but was there to cast his vote. He along with others who were lodge members were there in force.

“It was apparent to me that the position our church has taken regarding the lodge and secret societies was the determining factor in the vote. Evident at the meeting was a degree of hostility that I had not sensed before. I was aware of high feelings regarding the lodge and honest evaluations of it; but the degree of hostility to us as a church for this position was surprising. It was because of this that I felt we would serve no constructive purpose by remaining with the PPC and that our relations should be severed.”

This was a heartrending experience for our home missionary and for Classis Minnesota North. But it was also a revelation of the true character of the lodge and of the basic antithesis between the lodge and the Church. We lost an opportunity to increase church membership. The Lord doesn‘t look first at the size of the church but at her purity and faithfulness. Smyrna was a small church. She suffered tribulation and poverty. Let us forego increase in membership, rather than admit those who arc not willing to suffer persecution or disadvantage for Christ. Let us be consistent in the application of the decision of 1968. We must continue to say NO to those who seek to waive obedience to Christ as a condition for membership into the Church. Let’s keep the nose of the camel out of the tent.