The Banner of April 25, 1980 contained an excellent and informative guest editorial by Rev. W. Haverkamp entitled: “The Dutch Decisions Regarding Homosexuals.” The writer speaks of “appalling decisions” which the Gereformeerde Kerken of the Netherlands have taken concerning the matter of homosexuals and the failure of this denomination to consult with others, with whom they stand in close ecclesiastical fellowship, about this matter. He concludes that “the time has come to take steps to sever the existing relationship with the Gereformeerde Kerken in the Netherlands.” He does not advocate this severing of relations without a deep sense of grief. His roots were there. It was the church in which he was baptized. One gets the feeling that his proposal was wrung from his heart. But, the “appalling decisions” taken by this church permit no other conclusion.

A Church – No Longer Reformed

The decisions of the GKN regarding homosexuals is, however, only one instance in a long list of difficulties which we have in our relation to them. There is the view of Scripture held by many of their scholars. There are the questions regarding creation, the resurrection and the atonement. There has been a lack of discipline of those who contradict the confessions we hold in common. There is the membership in the World Council, etc. One can indeed weep when he sees how this church has lost its Reformed character and that it is no longer a vital force in the lives of many of its members.

Consider the History

It is high time that we consider the history which lies behind the present state of affairs in this church so that we will also be able to understand why we cannot persuade the Vrijgemaakte Kerken in the Netherlands and the Canadian Reformed Churches to enter into closer fellowship with us unless we terminate our fellowship with the GKN. These churches left the GKN in 1944. This happened, therefore, while the second World War was still raging in Europe and Holland was still conquered territory. We did not know what had taken place until after the war was ended. In 1946 the First Reformed Ecumenical Synod met in Grand Rapids. Prof. Aalders, of the Free University, informed the RES of the things which had happened in the years 1942–1944 which led to the split in the church. The other side was not heard! The Christian Reformed Church simply continued its former relations with the GKN while those who had left the GKN maintained that they were the true continuation of the Gereformeerde Kerken in Nederland.

New Leaders After 1920

For the understanding of the situation in the GKN of recent years, it may be well to follow the events which have taken place since 1920. In that year Dr. A. Kuyper died. In 1921 the great dogmatician, Dr. H. Bavinck, died. These had been two of the greatest lights in the Reformed firmament. Upon their death a new generation of leaders were called upon to give direction to the church and the Reformed community. There was a tremendous output of theological works during the 20s and 30s of this century. Yet, there was something lacking. Bavinck had written his dogmatics, and even he did not write further in this field but restricted himself almost entirely to subjects dealing with psychology and education. His successor at the Free University, Dr. V. Hepp, produced little in the field of systematic theology. Prof. Honig, at Kampen, wrote a handbook on dogmatics. There almost seemed to be the feeling that the last word had been said when Bavinck’s great work had been published. This led to a certain amount of scholasticism in the church.

During the 1920s there were two notable heresy trials in the church. The first one was the case of Dr. Netelenbos and dealt with the historicity of the events recorded in Genesis, etc. The second dealt with the view of Dr. Geelkerken who was not assured of the historicity of the events recorded in Genesis 3. In both of these cases the Synod took a very firm stand and both these brethren were deposed.

Enter Dr. Schilder

Dr. Geelkerken had been deposed in 1926. Dr. V. Hepp was the editor–in-chief of De Reformatie and Dr. K. Schilder was one of the associate editors. In 1929 Dr. Hepp began to work on a “Calvinisten bond.” This was to be an organization for Calvinists from various countries. Dr. Geelkerken was asked to join and to take a leading part in this organization. Schilder objected that a person whose Reformed position had been condemned by the Synod could not be recognized as a Calvinist. By far the larger part of the religious press sided with Schilder. The debate became so heated that Dr. Hepp resigned as editor of “De Reformatie.”

In 1930 the opportunity opened for Schilder to pursue post–graduate study. He was interested in studying systematic theology and went to the University of Erlangen in Germany because he did not feel comfortable in studying under Dr. Hepp with whom he was in principal disagreement. Schilder obtained his degree “summa cum laude” and was unanimously elected to the chair of Dogmatic Theology at Kampen by the Synod of 1933.

On the 17th of January, 1934, Prof. Schilder assumed his task as professor at the Theological School at Kampen. Less than a month later Dr. Hepp wrote an article in an almanac of the Free University in which he attacked the views of Schilder on the doctrine of the church, writing under the caption: “Pluriformiteitsleer-gebruik en epigonisme.” By the latter term he meant one who is not equal to the task of carrying on the work of former generations. One who is not able to deal with a whole concept but looks only at a part. Dr. Schilder replied extensively and sharply! He saw it not, first of all, as a personal attack but an attack on the view of the church which he had developed over the span of several years and which he considered to be of utmost importance to the church. But, it should also be clear that the lines were being drawn sharply—also between persons.

Schilder engaged in polemics. He was editor of De Reformatie with two others for a few years (1930–1935) and in April of 1935 he became sole editor of this influential paper. He wrote many an article against the Barthian Theology which had already made its inroads in Holland and had an able spokesman in Prof. Haitjema of Groningen. Schilder did not cease to warn. He wrote many articles against the mystical strain in De Christelijke Gereformeerde Kerk. Having studied in Germany when Hitler came to power, he warned against the party of theNational Socialists in the Netherlands before anyone else had dared to touch this subject. He wrote about a multitude of subjects and his “Persschouw” revealed that he had read virtually everything which had been written in both the religious and secular press.

Opposition to Schilder

But, although he had awakened the church as no one had done for many years, the opposition was not lacking. Various writers found fault with the sharpness of his polemics. Envy also was not lacking. Whereas the Free University had played the leading role for many years, some of its leaders were beginning to see that the influence of Kampen, and especially its dogmatician, was being felt throughout the church and that Schilder had many disciples. His students realized the greatness of this man and the preaching gave evidence of more life. The Scriptures were being opened as they had not been for some time. Schilder advocated the right of Kampen to give graduate degrees and the men of the Free University opposed it with all their might.

The Synod of 1936 was a very important one. For one thing, it required the churches to deal disciplinarily with those who belonged to the National Socialist Party. Another matter which came up at this Synod, though it did not come from a minor assembly and was therefore really not legally before Synod, was the matter of polemics and “Differences of Opinion” which became “Doctrinal Differences.” This matter was simply brought up by two delegates to this Synod. Amazingly, the Synod decided to go into the matter and finally appointed a committee to study various doctrinal issues which were under discussion in the press. Both Schilder and Hepp were members of this committee. While the Synod was still in session, Dr. Hepp published the first of a series of brochures dealing with “Dreigende Deformatie” (Threatening Deformation). In these brochures he did not mention names nor cite pages of works he was quoting although everyone knew who were the objects of his attacks. He attacked Vollenhoven and ‘De Graaf and Schilder, among others. This manner of procedure on his part made it virtually impossible for the committee to do its work. Dr. S. Greijdanus resigned from the committee because of Hepp’s action. Drs. Vollenhoven and Schilder did not resign, but they did not meet with the committee the last two years. The unity was broken.

During the years after 1936 Schilder continued to write as he had done earlier. Not only Dr. Hepp, but also Dr. H. H. Kuyper attacked him again and again. Twice he wrote an “open letter” to Dr. Kuyper. He warned against the peril of Nazism and unmasked Dr. Vande Vaart Smit, a minister in the GKN who had become the director of the Press Bureau in Holland. He was untiring in showing the dangers of the Barthian Theology and the glories of the Reformed faith.

In 1938 Dr. M. Bouwman wrote a doctoral dissertation under the guidance of Prof. H. H. Kuyper in which he advocated a disciplinary power to the major assemblies which they had never had before in Reformed Church Government. Prof. S. Greijdanus wrote several articles against this position. This dissertation is important because it would be used a few years later.

Late in the year 1938 Schilder was invited to come to the United States and lecture and preach in various places. The then editor of The Banner wrote that he thought it would be better if he did not come! This was printed in several papers in the Netherlands, e.g., De Heraut, the paper of H. H. Kuyper. The tensions in the Netherlands were becoming very strong. Nevertheless, Schilder came and received a marvelous welcome throughout t his country and people stood in awe of his brilliance.

When the Synod of 1938 met the war had broken out in Europe. In May, 1940, the Netherlands was conquered within the space of five days. The editorials written by Schilder after the occupation of the country must rank with some of the most courageous articles which have ever been written. In August of 1940 he was arrested and placed in a concentration. camp in the Netherlands. His paper, De Reforrnatie was completely destroyed. De Heraut, under the editorship of H. H. Kuyper was allowed to be published because it was friendly to the Germans. Schilder remained in prison until December 1940 and was then forbidden to write. Several times during the war he was almost arrested but he stayed in hiding.

Mass Depositions

During the war, 1944, while Schilder was not able to defend himself, the Synod of 1944, which was still meeting in 1944, first suspended him and three months later deposed him as a minister and professor of theology. On what grounds? On none of the points of doctrine given to the committee in 1936 for study! Rather, on the ground of his refusal to subscribe to the doctrine of Assumed Regeneration! This was one of the points adopted by the Synod of the GKN in 1905. It belongs to the Conclusions of Utrecht which were a compromise to bring the people of the Afscheiding and Doleantie together. This one point was now elevated to the status of a creedal statement which he had to sign! He, of course, refused stating that he was only called to sign the Confessions. Dr. Berkouwer was president of this Synod. Although Schilder had a great respect for the ability of Berkouwer, he never let him forget that his name was on the notification of Schilder‘s deposition.

Dr. Greijdanus, who had already retired because of age, was also deposed by this Synod. A candidate would not sign and he was refused ordination. When another church called him and ordained him, he, together with t he whole congregation were expelled from the denomination. In one place fifty office bearers were deposed! Hundreds of office bearers, ministers, elders and deacons were deposed. Almost one hundred thousand (100,000) people left to follow those who had liberated themselves from this tyranny. It was a much larger group which left the GKN then the group who had left the State Church in either 1834 or 1886!

The Liberated Churches

A “new” denomination was formed called “De Vrijgemaakte Kerk,” “De Gereformeerde Kerk Onderhoudende Art. 31” and, simply, “De Gereformeerde Kerken” because they considered themselves the continuation of the historic Gereformeerde Kerken. The Theological School at Kampen was continued. Dr. Greijdanus came out of retirement to teach New Testament again. At their first Synod they appointed three new professors, namely, Holwerda, Veenhof and Deddens.

It became clear later that the ground used for deposing Schilder was not so important to the GKN. Two years later much of it was taken back, but it had served the purpose! H. H. Kuyper was restored to honor by a later Synod posthumously even though he had been friendly to the Germans during their oppressive rule in Holland. Schilder, however, had no place in the GKN. Later history has shown that the decline of the GKN can be traced to 1944.

Out Inter-Church Relations: Who Are Our Relatives?

The CRC continued its relationship to the GKN. In fact, when Schilder again came to the U.S. in 1947, the denomination was warned by the “Synodical Committee” not to invite him to preach or speak in our churches! Today the Synodalen (GKN) meet for worship with the Hervormden and Catholics! But Schilder, whose Reformed character was never questioned, had no place in those churches!

Do we wonder why the Vrijgemaakten and the Canadian Reformed Churches ask us to terminate our fellowship with the GKN before they will have fellowship with us? With which church should we stand in ecclesiastical fellowship? “The time has come to take steps to sever the existing relationship with the Gereformeerde Kerken in the Netherlands” (The Banner 4-25-80). These steps should have been taken long ago.

Henry Vander Kam is pastor of the Christian Reformed Church of Doon, Iowa.