Rev. D. De Jong, writer of this contribution,  is pastor of the Canadian Reformed (Liberated) Church in Edmonton, Alberta.. Professor K.  Schilder was an outstanding leader of those who became known in the Netherlands as the Vrijgemaakte Kerken (Liberated Churches).  Rev. Peter De Jong, pastor of the Christian  Reformed Church of Dutton, Michigan, has  kindly consented to reply to what Rev. De Jong has written.

This is intended as a Canadian Reformed contribution to the discussion about the situation in the Christian Reformed Church.

In the February issue of this magazine attention was twice called to the Canadian Reformed Churches. This fact encouraged me as a Canadian Reformed reader of THE OUTLOOK and as a member of the Reformed Fellowship to join the discussion.

In his editorial, “Secession or Polarization?,” the editor mentions several points which cause him to ponder the question what the Lord wants His believers within the Christian Reformed Church to do at this present time. Under point 11 he mentions: “The failure of the CRC to come to a closer relation with the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and the Canadian Reformed Churches.”

Colleague Jelle Tuininga writes a separate article on this subject, in which he pleads for an official act of repentance by the Christian Reformed Church for her guilt in making wrong decisions in the past. He means those decisions which were instrumental in leading immigrated members from the (Liberated) Reformed Churches in the Netherlands to institute the Canadian Reformed Churches.

First and foremost, I want to express my gladness that in the discussions about what to do in the light of the many changes which have taken place in the Christian Reformed Church, the Canadian Reformed Churches are not left out of the picture.

The Christian Reformed Church and the Canadian Reformed Churches – It is of importance however, when discussing which course of action must be followed, to have the facts straight. Colleague Tuininga wants the Christian Reformed Church to admit guilt about its declaring in 1950 that “it is not in our province to sit in judgment over these churches” (viz. the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands), while in actual act Synod had already judged the case and taken the side of the so-called “Synodale” (Synodical) churches.

The Christian Reformed Synod 1969 has, as a result of the meetings between her Contact Committee and the Canadian Reformed Deputies, acknowledged that the Synods of 1946, 1949, and 1950 did make “judgment by implication.” So this was straightened out indeed. One might ask: was not this an improvement? Is it therefore correct to still ask for a confession of guilt? The answer to this question depends on what happened next. Synod 1969 acknowledged that previous Synods did make a “judgment by implication.” The next thing of course ought to have been an investigation to find out whether this judgment by implication was right or wrong, in accordance with God’s will or not.

Via the Canadian Reformed Deputies (and also from within the CRC itself) Synod 1969 was informed of essential changes in doctrine and church polity which not only in the past had taken place in the Reformed Churches (Synodical) in The Netherlands, but which continued to happen.

For this reason the Canadian Reformed Deputies asked for the full attention of the CRC on the “main” and “remaining obstacle” for union between the CRC and the Canadian Reformed Churches, viz. the continuing “Church correspondence” of the CRC with the Reformed Churches (Syn.) in The Netherlands.

The “main” and “remaining obstacle” – Did Synod 1969 deal with this matter? Yes, it did. But it did exactly the opposite of what was asked.

Synod decided “to urge the Canadian Reformed Churches to consider establishing correspondence with the “Gerefonneerde Kerken” (Synodical).” Synod made this decision “in the light of the changed attitude of the latter,” viz. the Ref. Churches (Syn.) in the Neth.

The Canadian Reformed Deputies felt compelled to write about this in a letter to the CRC Contact Committee: “Synod 1969 . . . , to put it bluntly, gave us a slap in the face and said, in fact, ‘You suggest that we break off the correspondence; but, due to the changes we have noted with gratitude, you had better establish correspondence’.”

The Canadian Reformed Synod of 1971 decided “to continue the Committee on Contact with the CRC with the mandate to discuss the matter of Church correspondence with the (Syn.) Gereformeerde Kerken in Nederland, until the position of the CRC has become clear.”

The “changed attitude” of the Reformed Churches (Synodical) in the Netherlands – What is the “changed attitude” of these churches, mentioned by the CRC Synod 1969?

It is this, that because of their “ecumenism” these churches as a whole are not interested at all anymore in the baptism.doctrine which was declared binding in 1942, and therefore they “repealed” these decisions (I place “repealed” between quotation marks, because at the same time the legitimacy of these “repealed” decisions explicitly was maintained).

It is no wonder that there was no interest for this baptism–doctrine anymore. Other doctrines deviating from the Bible and the Reformed Confessions and Church polity (Kuitert, Wiersinga, Augustijn. mentioning these names may be sufficient). have gained and still are gaining much influence.

What should be done about this? – In the meantime the CRC Contact Committee has been discontinued, because matters of Church correspondence are in the province of the Inter Church Relations Committee. This Committee has come up with the suggestion, instead of honoring the obligations of the accepted rules by judging the doctrinal and church polity changes which have occurred in the Netherlands, to do away with these strict rules for correspondence. Evasion of difficult decisions (of course not a CRC prerogative) is preferred above dealing with them.

What should be done about this?

In discussing the question what is mandatory, secession or polarization, foremost attention should be given to the question: What is confessional? It is my conviction that e.g. Article 32 of our Belgic Confession points the way where it says: “Therefore we admit only of that which tends to nourish and preserve concord and unity, and to keep all men in obedience to God.” The believers in the eRC should approach their Consistories, and faithful Consistories should (directly or via classis) approach the Synod with well–founded protests and proposals. Protests against the continued refusal to act in accordance with the accepted rules for Correspondence as well as with (consequently) the introductory words of Article 29 of the Belgic Confession: “We believe that we ought diligently and Circumspectly to discern from the Word of God which is the true Church.” Proposals to discontinue the Correspondence with the Reformed Churches (Syn.) in The Netherlands, to seek contact with the Reformed Churches (Liberated ) in The Netherlands, and to appoint a Committee for discussions with the Canadian Reformed Churches in order to pave the way for union between them and the CRC. May the Lord grant that many such protests and proposals will be on the Agenda of the next Synod. In this (church-orderly) way the Lord will also provide His answer to the question: what should we seek in the CRC today: secession or polarization? The answer will appear to be: Reformation, in one way or another.

Reformation is return: return of the CRC as a whole as represented in Synod; or, if need be, of those CRC local churches and/or individual believers who keep standing for their protests and proposals by the grace of God, also if these are rejected or evaded by Synod.

Then, those who are really Christian Reformed, and those who are really Canadian Reformed, will find one another, for we confess in Article 27 (Belgic Confession) that the Church, though spread and dispersed over the whole world, is yet joined and united with heart and will, by the power of faith, in one and the same Spirit.

It is not impossible that this would become manifest, for what is impossible with men is possible with God.

A Canadian Reformed Contribution to the discussion about the authority of the Bible – Also in the February issue of THE OUTLOOK there appeared a continued exchange of views between Colleagues Peter De Jong and Jelle Tuininga about the authority of the Bible as set forth in the so-called Report 44. I cannot escape the impression that somehow the brothers do not understand each other because of an underlying misunderstanding of the issue at stake.

It cannot be denied that Reports 36/44 were occasioned by certain teachings in the Reformed Churches (Synodical) in the Netherlands. Colleague Peter De Jong is quite right, when this fact makes him suspicious and critical in his evaluation of these reports.

In short, these teachings come down to this, that we cannot and should not accept as historical facts everything which is presented in the Bible as historical facts, because it is not the intention of the Bible that we should accept them as such. The Bible, they say, witnesses of God’s redemptive or saving revelation, and should be understood as such. I am convinced that both Colleagues Peter De Jong and Jelle Tuininga agree in rejecting these teachings.

The misunderstanding comes, in my opinion, from this, that also among those who reject the above-mentioned teachings (with which the names of Barth, Bultmann, Kuitert, and Baarda can be connected), the contents of the Bible is characterized as redemptive or saving. In this respect the names of some theologians from the (Liberated) Reformed Churches in the Netherlands deserve to be mentioned (e.g. K. Schilder and B. Holwerda).

Their teachings were diametrically apposed to those of Barth and Bultmann (and consequently also to those of Kuitert and Baarda), in that they unequivocally believed the Bible to be the infallible Word of God, trustworthy as a whole and in all its details. Without any doubt, they therefore also believed as historical facts everything which in the Bible is presented as historical facts.

When explaining and proclaiming these historical facts they did not want to forget however, that the Bible relates these facts as revelation and manifestation of God our Creator and Redeemer. In other words, they were convinced that these historical facts should never be taken by themselves, isolated from the purpose for which the Holy Spirit inspired the human authors to record them.

For this reason they emphasized, that in exegesis and preaching these fncts should be shown in their redemptive-historical meaning. If, instead, the historical facts as presented in the Bible arc explained and preached apart from their redemptive-historical meaning, it does not help much when it is emphasized that they are true because they arc undeniable parts of an infallible Bible. In fact, they are deprived of their divine authority in thiS way, because they are not used as serving God‘s purpose with them, viz. the salvation of the hearers. If looked upon in this way, it becomes evident that also the preaching of the judgment and condemnation of the wicked must serve this saving purpose of the Lord.

When e.g. Colleague Peter De Jong asks: “Can Rev. Tuininga show us how hell is nothing but saving?,” he does exactly what Schilder and Holwerda warned against: he takes hell by itself, isolated from the redemptive-historical context. The Bible however, in presenting hell as a real fact indeed, does so exclusively in the context of preaching to the readers or hearers that they must receive Jesus Christ as the only Savior from hell for all those who believe in Him. The Bible does not picture hell as such, in isolation (perhaps we had better turn to Dante’s “Hell” for such a picture), but in order to drive us with its picture of that terrible reality to Him, Who suffered the anguish of hell in order to free us from it. It is well–known that, if any church in Holland is opposed to the ‘new theology’ as found in the Synodical Reformed Churches, it is the Liberated Reformed Churches in the Netherlands.

Dr. C. Trimp, as a student of K. Schilder and as a professor at the Theological College in Kampen, may certainly be looked upon as representative of these Churches. He has shown himself a staunch opponent of Barth’s theology and of the so-called ‘new theology’ of our day.

Yet it was Dr. Trimp who in the magazine, De Refarmatie, expressed his gratitude for the redemptive-historical approach of Reports 36/44 and its rejection of the teachings of Kuitert c.s. (though he rightly criticized some serious weaknesses in Report 36 re Genesis 1–11, which however have been taken away in Report 44).

It is my conviction that, in the struggle against un–Reformed influences in the CRC, the truly Christian Reformed and the truly Liberated and/or Canadian Reformed believers can be of great help to each other, and therefore should carefully listen to each other.

I would like, in closing, to avoid the impression that I write in order to boast of the Liberated and Canadian Reformed Churches, as if there alone the right approach to Scripture and preaching is found, and that they are faithful in everything. Many weaknesses and failures can be found there also, about which I do not have to elaborate however. Perhaps the readers know them very well.

If only the believers in the CRC and in the Canadian Reformed Churches are going to recognize each other by the marks of Christians (as described in that often neglected part of Article 29 of the Belgic Confession), then, by God’s blessing and grace, this will certainly unite them together in furthering the cause of Christ’s Church and of the preaching of the Word entrusted to the Church.