Rev. Arent de Graaf, pastor of the Reformed Church of Box Hill, Victoria, Australia, has kindly complied with THE OUTLOOKS request to furnish the information in this article concerning recent developments in the relations of the Reformed Churches in Australia to their mother church in the Netherlands (the GKN or the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands). Rev. de Graaf served as the First Clerk of the 1973 Synod of the Reformed Churches in Australia.

The Reformed Churches of Australia, founded in the early 1950‘s by members of—and with help from—the Gerformeerde Kerken in the Netherlands, were started by people reluctant to do sot Too fresh in the memories of the migrants to this new land were the painful wounds caused by the Schilderschism only ten years before in the Netherlands. Then also a separate church was called into being, and this act had ripped families asunder, torn brother from brother, and caused offense and ridicule in the war-torn world around. And that, while, only a few years afterwards, the very same people began wondering if it all could not have been avoided!

It was the height of the Ecumenical Age, and many migrants to Australia felt that working together with brothers and sisters in Jesus was infinitely better—in spite of a few small differences—than isolating themselves in a cocoon of superior(?) church life. After all: these were not Netherlanders colonizing together in large groups like long ago in Michigan’s fever–infested woods or in Pella’s fruitful plains; these were migrants whose very survival in this new twentieth century community would depend on communication and assimilation: whose language had to be Instant English, and whose children immediately had to go to Australia’s schools.

   

A denomination born of necessity – And yet they said: “Necessity is laid upon us,” and started after a few years of ‘trying it out’ in existing churches, this denomination now some 10,000 strong in the land.

They did this because they had learned too well that not only a local church, but also a denomination, has to agree on the Gospel it preaches. To leave open as individual option, the very preaching or non-preaching of the Resurrection, the Godhead of Christ, His return at the end of the age, His Virgin Birth, or the authority and veracity of the Scriptures that tells us these things, would ipso facto mean to officially declare these truths as relative, unimportant, open to accept or reject.

Dutch Christians’ fathers had been through it all: unlike their brothers and sisters (yes, there are many of them!) who know and believe the Gospel in the large Australian denominations, they had in their history the 1834/1886 He-reformation of the Liberal-tolerating State Church, and the result was that, once over in Australia, they were unable to just drop the notion that not only a local church, but also a denomination, has to bear the marks of the true church (Art. 29 Belgic Confession): preaching of the true Word of God, Biblical fidelity in administering the Sacraments (this ruled out membership in otherwise-biblical Baptist and Brethren Churches) and church discipline.

Support by the GKN – But note now: when this move was made, as late as 1951-53, it was the Gereformeerde Kerken in the Netherlands, which sent men to help assess the situation (Kremer, Cnossen!) and which financed the transport-down-under of the first ministers called there! They subsidized church building to astronomical amounts; and when the young Australian churches decided to be “foolish in faith” and get a Theological College going as early as 1954, again the Reformed Churches of the Netherlands (after some very understandable initial rubbing of the eyes: “. . . they’re going to WHAT???!. . .”) came to the aid with hard-core help. Sure, in that help the Christian Reformed Church of America did not wait long to join (both men and money galore!)

But in the light of what I am writing about, I want you to note how the Netherlands Reformed Churches supported, as recently as 1952, the establishment of a Denomination in Australia, not on social grounds (let these Dutchies cozily flock together and thus be guarded from their migration-culture-shock) but on purely doctrinal grounds: A church had to be Reformed throughout.

Twenty years later! – And now, twenty years after that, the Synod of these Reformed Churches of Australia had to address itself in its meeting at Geelong in May 1973, to the baffling problem: “What has happened to that sister church which in a way is the mother who helped foster liS to li fe and maturity?”

To us especially, even more than to you in North America who have origins a century back, this is a vexing problem. Our children still remember meeting in barns and rented halls! Our second generation had to go through the acid questioning at their schools: “Reformed Church? What sect is that?” Around us here we see large churches rendered powerless by the inner contradiction of allowing liberalism in its very teaching positions. And so our question to our Sister/ Mother in the Netherlands is: Surely, not you! Not you of all people!

Following is what our 1973 Synod said about the theological situation in the Netherlands Churches:

“That Synod goes on record:

a. as being opposed to the ‘new theology’ as it is found in the Gereformeerde Kerken in Nederland (hereinafter abbreviated as GKN) as set forth in the study committee report, and

b. as being of the opinion that the GKN have thus far failed to exercise the necessary disciplinary actions in this matter.

“That Synod recognizes with sadness that it has become necessary to restrict the sister-church relationship with the GKN in this sense, to the effect that 

a. no ministers called from the GKN shall be installed before having sustained a colloquium doctum with Classis—this decision to be subject to review by the next Synod;

b. our Sessions be advised to exercise caution by asking visiting ministers from the GKN questions concerning their attitude to the authority of Scripture and the binding character of our Confessions before admitting them to our pulpits, this restriction also to be subject to review by the next Synod.

“That Synod reminds the Sessions, that even though membership transfers from the GKN to our churches are to be accepted, they should, for pastoral reasons, ask the new members questions concerning their attitude to the authority of Scripture and the binding character of the Confessions.

“That Synod urges our Churches to engage in much prayer for our sister Churches in the Netherlands, that they may be able to solve their difficulties, and that they, as well as we, be faithful to Scripture and the Confessions.

“That Synod appoints a committee to further study the matter of our sister relationship with the CKN, taking note of the developments thus far, especially their adoption of a new Form of Subscription, and of further developments that may take place, and come with recommendations to the next Synod.

“That Synod, in a pastorally-worded letter to the CKN, will inform them of our prayerful concern with their difficulties, notify them of our resolutions . . . , and urge them to do everything in their power to maintain faithfulness to the Word of God and the Confessions of the Church, and restore the peace of Christ in their midst.

“That the advisory Committee‘s Report be included . . . in the . . . Acts as a valuable contribution to the discussion . . . .

“That Sunday, June 17, 1973, be set aside for prayer by all our Churches for the GKN.”

An ardent prayer – The italics of that sentence above are mine, not Synod’s: “. . . and restore the peace of Christ in their midst.” A few months ago I visited Holland for some personal and rather tragic reasons. During that visit, however, I had the opportunity to speak to several friends, colleagues and old classmates (yes, I studied at the Free University, too) and it was this very expression used by our Synod, which hurt and puzzled them: is it not that very thing we try to maintain by being tolerant: the peace of Christ? Are we not one in Him in spite of the difference in thought? Must we not avoid what happened in 1944–‘46?

There it was again: the ‘traumatic experience’ of the Schilder-secession which now makes our brothers bend over backwards to avoid another schism: to reach acceptable agreement on the basis of Scripture and Confession (yes that‘s what the Dutch Synod still maintains it wants!) by way of growing towards a consensus.

Well, at this stage I cannot say that the brethren in the Netherlands should not have more time to work out their complex problems. Some things have already been done with which we as Churches disagree, most notably the joining of the World Council of Churches. But in the present discussion not a sin of commission is at stake (something wrong done); but, a sin of omission: We feel our Dutch brethren have thus far failed to speak clearly enough against a theology which disrupts and contradicts the very Gospel we have to preach in a confused world. There is no peace when in this we are not perfectly one!

Note that in one of the resolutions stated above there is that repeated proviso: “This decision is subject to review by next Synod.”

Because we cannot forget that it was as recently as 1952 that the GKN staked men and money on the establishment in Australia of a new denomination FOR THE SAKE OF DENOMINATIONAL PURITY OF DOCTRINE! Wc arc not quick to believe that this very notion has now been lost within our sister-mother Church. This is also the vein in which we have officially written their Synod. We are still very much a daughter talking with Mother, trying to remember 1 Timothy 5:1 and 2. Therefore we shunned action as taken by the Orthodox Presbyterians, who terminated the sister relationship. As sisters we can talk, as outsiders we lose—if not the right—at least the personal touch and urgency which, when crying out in love, may still be heard . . . and heeded. Oh if our prayers would be heard and the next Synod would withdraw the restrictions! Oh if the church which got us on our feet would rise and gladly proclaim once more unequivocally the great works of  God!