By November 13, 1968, three hundred fifty years will have passed since the first “ecumenical” Reformed synod was convened.1 Meeting in the venerable Dutch city of Dordrecht, it aimed at resolving the unhappy conflict between Arminians and Calvinists which rent the Reformed churches. No one should express surprise that the mention of “Dort” brings at once to the minds of most people “The five points of the Reformed faith, commonly called Calvinism.” The doctrinal deliverances formulated in the Canons of Dort have since that time constituted one of the three reformational creeds which function as Forms of Unity in those churches and their ecclesiastical sisters throughout the world.

Yet Dort should be remembered for more than the Canons.

That synod had a full agenda; one to which it addressed itself with great thoroughness and competence even though “unfinished” business was bequeathed to the churches and church leaders of that day.

On this agenda was one matter dealing directly with the spread of the Christian faith in the non-Christian world. By the consistory of Amsterdam it had been presented in the form of a “gravamen,” a weighty matter worthy of synodical discussion and decision.2 For several reasons this little-known action of Dort deserves our attention. It set in sharp relief the missionary concerns of the churches in those days. It dealt in some depth with matters of missionary policy and practice. It helped to shape the mission endeavors of the Dutch churches for the next two centuries. It demonstrated that a church genuinely interested in sound doctrine can and will ordinarily address itself also to the spread of the Christian faith. Preservation of the faith which is according to godliness -always a necessary and legitimate concern of Christ’s church—by no means excludes zeal for its propagation.

The issue raised at Dort, however, cannot be assessed in isolation from the eventful circumstances out of which it arose. In a consideration of them we may find some guidelines for Christian missions even in our vastly different age, as well as evidence that much criticism hurled against the doctrines which Dort defended is slanderous.

Dort and missions—an incompatible combination?

In his Christian History in the Making J. MacLeod Campbell uncritically passes on a widely-held misrepresentation of the Reformed faith. As so many before him, he tends to see Calvin only as champion of the doctrine of divine predestination. This teaching, according to him, not only set its stamp on all that the reformer taught but also influenced for ill those who followed him. Calvin’s theology, so it is opined, must be seen as “a theology which cuts the nerve of evangelistic impulse.”3

This judgment is common coin in many ecclesiastical and theological market-places. Calvin’s predestinarianism has served as a convenient “whipping boy” for all that is wrong in the Reformed churches. No one, so it is argued, can consistently endorse the Reformed understanding of unconditional election, definite atonement, total depravity, efficacious grace and the preservation (perseverance) of the saints and at the same time enthusiastically engage in world-wide evangelism. In so far as Reformed individuals and churches have preached with some measure of success among the heathen, this is a “happy inconsistency” on their part.

Already the Arminians and those sympathizing with them raised this objection against the officially endorsed doctrine of the churches. Before and during the days of Dort they urged that these uniquely Calvinistic doctrines:

– lead the minds of men away from all piety and religion;

– are an opiate which dulls the conscience;

– make God the author of sin, as well as unjust and tyrannical and even hypocritical in sending a gospel which he is not pleased to fulfill in their lives;

– render men carnally secure so that, while believing themselves to be elect, they live as they please;

– maintain that even if the reprobate performed all the works of the “saints,” they could not be saved;

– teach that many children of believers are cruelly torn from their mothers’ breasts to be plunged into perdition, so that neither baptism nor the prayers of the church on their behalf are of any profit.4

Such arguments, perhaps not quite so blatantly and bluntly in our day of doctrinal indifferentism, are still being heard. All spring from the same root: the conviction that unless man contributes something to his salvation over which God has no direct, sovereign and decisive control, the preaching of the gospel is a sham, a futile and frustrating activity.

Even within Reformed churches the question is raised whether perhaps Dort has done more to stymie than to stimulate missionary zeal. And, as such doubts arise, we find men urging that some formulations of its doctrine need revamping. Some, when considering missions, prefer to avoid all reference to this “perspicuous, simple, and ingenuous declaration of the orthodox doctrine…drawn from the Word of God.” Even morc frequently others, urging a deep personal concern for missions, forsake the fellowship of the Reformed churches to unite with groups which espouse Arminian, Semi-Pelagian and even Pelagian views. To all such, be it in differing degrees, to speak of Dort and missions in one breath is incongruous. Any genuine combination of these two is held to be incompatible. At best the relationship should be judged inconsistent, purely incidental and accidental, and therefore unworthy of more than a passing thought.

Dort and missions—an undeniable combination

Facts are stubborn things; somehow they demand explanation. And that there was an undeniable connection between Dort and missions cannot be controverted.

Here the facts in the case should be stated; their significance will be alluded to later.

Shortly before Dort assembled the Amsterdam consistory, having received a long letter from the Rev. Hulsebos of Batavia in which several questions concerning proper mission practice had been presented in the hope of a speedy answer, decided to forward two questions for synodical consideration. These were to be handed in by the two Amsterdam pastors chosen to represent the Synod of North Holland, Rolandus and Triglandius. The first asked for decision on “Whether baptism administered by merchants, clerks (assistants), or other persons unauthorized by the church may be regarded as proper.” Holandus in a letter to his consistory, dated December 20, 1618, stated that he had not forwarded this question “as being unworthy (i.e., of synodical consideration), since it is beyond dispute that such a baptism cannot be considered a baptism.”

To us, heirs of more than a century of far greater missionary activity and far deeper missionary insight, the issue presented to Dort may first seem insignificant. Weren’t there other questions of a more incisive and comprehensive sort to which the synod should have addressed itself? Isn’t it pressing the point to the absurd to use this as evidence that Dort was genuinely involved in spreading the gospel throughout the world of its day?

Instead of dismissing the matter so casually, we do well to reflect on three factors why this specific case and not broad mission policy was considered by that synod.

Firstly, and this concerns Reformed church government, nothing might be deliberated and decided by such a synod, except matters which could not be resolved in the minor assemblies (consistories, classes, and provincial synods) or which concerned all the churches. Only so could a synodical agenda remain manageable, so that justice would be done to issues properly presented. Secondly, by this time several minor assemblies were deeply involved in mission expansion yet without sufficient awareness of the magnitude of the task. Christian missions had only been begun by the Reformed churches in the Netherlands. Less than fifty years before these churches had been organized in days of persecution, economic distress, and war against the mightiest empire of that age. Only twenty years before Dort had the first Dutch ships successfully reached the non-Christian world of the East Indies. Within such a short span the churches could hardly be expected to face in their broadest assembly the deeper issues in missions. Thirdly, Dort must be evaluated in the light of the relationships of the church to both the government and the commercial enterprises which controlled its access to foreign lands. Only by permission of the States General could a synod be convened. And at that time the chief concern of the government was the resolution of the conflict between Arminians and Calvinists. Meanwhile, no contact with any land in which the East Indies Company conducted business was possible without its express approval. The surprising thing is not that Dort did so little in this area of ecclesiastical concern; rather, that amid other pressing business it did anything at all.

Nor should we ignore other dimensions of Dart’s mission concern. Synod took decisions which had far-reaching consequences for the spread of the gospel in the Netherlands itself. Large areas of the country were still destitute of any real acquaintance with the Christian gospel. Decisions regarding the instruction of children and adults by the church, more adequate training of candidates for the ministry, and better regulations for the life of churches already established helped to permeate the life of the Dutch nation with the leaven of the faith which is unto godliness. And although the Canons nowhere address themselves explicitly to Christian missions, the clear delineation of the nature, function and efficacy of gospel proclamation has profound missionary implications.

In spite of criticism which may justly be levelled against Dort and what it accomplished, the conclusion is inescapable that Dort and missions go together. It sought to address itself, in accordance with rules established earlier by these Reformed churches, to the calling of Christ’s church to the world which it knew and in which it lived.

Dort and missions—an harmonious combination

But why, so the reader may ask, should a commemoration of Dort including the mission work of the churches in that time occupy our attention?

Perhaps the simplest and most straightforward answer is the best. Dort was attempting to manifest what it meant to be true church in the situation which confronted and challenged it. And this can he understood only when we acquaint ourselves somewhat with that world of which it was aware.

To tell the full story of the mission involvement of the Reformed churches at that time would require several sizeable volumes. Thus it is regrettable, even inexcusable, that so little of this is known even by many who call themselves Reformed. In his dissertation on the relation between Church and Mission Dr. C. W. T. van Boetzelaer van Dubbeldam reminds us that in the days before and after Dort these:

…Reformed churches stood alone in the Protestant world with the feeling of calling and responsibility for missions. At that time they were the only Protestant churches which concerned themselves with missions.2

In reflecting on what they did and why they did what they did we may not be stirred by a desire to praise them unduly and, thereupon, to bask vicariously in such praise by applying it to ourselves. Too many commemorations come perilously close to committing idolatry. As far as praise for the churches represented at Dort is concerned, any student of them and their activities will discover milch for which to fault them. Those engaged in the work, whether administratively at home or actively on the foreign field, made grave mistakes and often came with too little too late. Besides, multitudes in the churches of that period remained ignorant of or indifferent to the mission responsibility which God in his providence had thrust upon them. Any investigation into this area should prompt us to profit from it, so that with clearer insight and better methods and greater commitment we may prosecute this task in joyful obedience to our Lord. And this is possible also when we are willing to learn from the past experiences of the Reformed churches.

In his valuable and fascinating study, Constrained by Jesus’ Love, Dr. Johannes vanden Berg makes some pointed observations on the need for historical perspective. While agreeing with such comments made also at Willingen (1952) that in these crucial years of missions. It will not do to say the same old things in the same old way, he insists:

At the same time, however, we have to avoid the danger of a missionary thinking which is so much determined by the present situation that it loses the sense of continuity with the work of foregoing generations. Some degree of discontinuity is unavoidable; the Church can only live up to the high requirements of its missionary calling if it bravely accepts the challenge of the present day. But across the breach runs the bridge of an abiding continuity, which makes historical study an essential part of missiology.6

With such bridge-building we would busy ourselves here, in the hope that seeing Dart in clearer perspective we may to God’s praise rejoice in its heritage and fill up in mission commitment that which was lacking in it.

(1) Reformed mission activity prior to Dort

What had the Dutch churches been doing in missions, so that it could and did receive a place on Dort’s agenda?

By 1571 the Reformed churches had held their first synod. The Dutch nation, however, had not finalized its break with Philip II of Spain until 1581. While war still raged in 1585, the first Dutch ships attempted to reach the Spice Islands. Not until 1592 did accurate navigational charts fall into their hands. These reached the ship-owners and captains through the good offices of the Rev. Pieter Plancius, pastor in Amsterdam who deserves to be remembered as the father of Dutch Reformed missions. Of him we read,

He was not ashamed to descend from the pulpit, in order to occupy a teacher’s chair in geography and the art of navigation for steersmen and sailors.7

Until his death in 1622 he stirred church and nation for the lands touched by Dutch commerce. In 1598 shipmasters urged the magistrates of Amsterdam to provide two theological students who would accompany the ships ready to sail for the Orient. These men were to bring God’s Word to the sailors and thereupon to preach to the inhabitants of the East Indies. Plancius presented this request to the consistory, in order that it might persuade such young men to undertake this arduous journey. Since among the ordained clergy none were found willing to sail for the East Indies, Classis Amsterdam the next year instituted a new ecclesiastical office, that of “exhorter.” Such men were licensed by the churches to preach the Word and administer baptism hut not the Lord’s Supper, since Classis judged.

…that it was absolutely imperative, that such a large company of Christians might not remain without instruction on their journey, that at the time it was impossible to find anyone who would go as preacher, (and) that it was hoped that he ( i.e., the exhorter) would receive opportunity to instruct the people still sitting there in darkness in the true Christian religion.8

This decision was taken on November 21, 1599, which date is usually regarded as the birthday of Reformed foreign missions. At least a year earlier, however, the first convert was baptized on the island of Mauritius by Philippus Pieterszoon of Delft, a “comforter of the sick” who had accompanied the first fleet.9

In 1602 the Dutch East Indies Company received its first charter from the government. Now the wOrk of missions became far more complicated for the churches. Without the approval of both government and Company officials no one might live and labor on the islands. To be sure, the Company, composed largely of people who belonged to the Reformed churches, interested themselves also in missions and even salaried those sent out to do spiritual work. Yet this worked to the disadvantage of both church and mission. Repeatedly the Company with full government approval interfered with what was properly ecclesiastical work, and the churches were powerless to effect any change.

It becomes therefore the more surprising that so much was accomplished. From the beginning the Amsterdam church was deeply involved in the work, as F. L. Rutgers has indicated by lengthy quotations from the “Minutes” in his Het Kerkverband der Nederlandsche Gereformeerde Kerken…in den aarwong der 17de Eeuw and Boetzelaer van Dubbeldam has supplemented in his work.10

Meanwhile Amsterdam was not alone in showing mission activity. Also the churches of Hoorn and Enkhuizen, of Delft and Rotterdam, and especially of Middelburg shared in this. In each of these cities the Company maintained offices and frequently asked for help in furnishing ministers and others who would accompany their ships and preach to non-Christians on the islands. Especially the Middelburg consistory with the churches of Zeeland was concerned to send out preachers, in order that those who received the gospel might be properly instructed, baptized and thereupon gathered into congregations. As early as 1615 the Classis Delft and Delfland proposed in its Consideratien that all the Dutch churches should share in responsibility for and regulation of missions. This was the 6rst step towards “centralizing” this task. In that same proposal a missions seminary was suggested, since those interested in the work realized that a specialized training was highly desirable. Not until 1623, however, was this school opened to continue in a modest way for only ten years at Leiden under the leadership of Antonius Walaeus. But even through its comparatively few graduates it exercised a wide and wholesome influence.

Meanwhile many were sent out—it in the absence of ordained men—as exhorters, comforters of the sick, catechists, and candidates for the ministry. From among the native population some were also trained for this work, since several in the Dutch churches realized that the best way to evangelize the islands was through those drawn from its own population.

During this period congregations were organized, which in turn were supplied with Christian literature in the native tongues, especially Malay which was the “lingua franca” of the archipelago. No one less than Governor Houtman prepared translations of the Apostles’ Creed, the Ten Commandments, the Lord’s Prayer, and the Compendium of Philip Marnix van St. Aldegonde. Caspar Wiltens, who had arrived in 1614 as one of the few ordained ministers, soon preached in Malay and left behind published sermons in that language which were used for years. Already before 1616 Albertus Corn. Ruyll, a subordinate in the Company, translated the Heidelberg Catechism in another Malay dialect used on the island of Amboina. And by 1618 the Rev. Hulsebos with full cooperation of Governor Danckaerts prepared a basic Church Order for congregations in that part of the world. Thus before the synod of Dort much had been accomplished in laying foundations for an extensive missionary work.

(2) Early writings on missions

Many questions of mission policy and practice arose as the Dutch churches undertook the great work of spreading the Christian faith in those lands with which they had contact. The development of a theory of missions, however, was not seriously considered until after Dort. Among those who influenced missionary thinking in the homeland a few deserve special mention.

The first is Adrianus Saravia (1531–1613). Born in the southern Netherlands and trained in the Reformed faith, he shepherded congregations i.n Brussels and the Channel Islands until in 1585 he became professor of theology at the University of Leiden. By 1588, however, he left for England and united with the Anglican church. In 1590 he wrote his De Diversis Ministrorum Evangelii Gradibus, sicut a Domini fue runt institutie…One chapter was devoted to the necessity of world-wide missions, generally recognized as the 6rst Protestant plea for thjs task. His concern for missions, however, was subordinate to a defense of the episcopal system of church government, arguing not only that the churches according to Matthew 28: 19 were mandated by Christ to continue this task in every age but also that the proper agents for this work were the bishops who now were clothed with apostolic authority. Beza vigorously attacked the argumentation, while agreeing that the church did have a missionary calling. Undoubtedly the combination of missions with episcopacy explains why the Reformed churches, among whom Saravia had lived so long, did not appeal to him. There is no evidence that he directly influenced such men as Heurnius, Voetius and others interested in missions.

Justus Heurnius deserves mention as the author of De Legatione Evangelica ad Indos capessenda Admonitio which appeared in the very year when Dort convened. Born in 1587 and trained in medicine, Heurnius enrolled in the study of theology with a view to becoming a missionary. Although he had completed his course of study, he felt the need of further preparation and did not leave for the East Indies until 1623. At the close of his academic preparation, how ever, he penned the warm and impassioned plea for missions for which he is remembered. In it he urged that the gospel be preached in the languages of the peoples, that schools be established for the nurture of children and young people, and that converts be trained as evangelists.

Without doubt Adriaan Hulsebos, pastor in and around Batavia (then still called Jacarta), should be mentioned. His detailed reports provided the churches, especially in Amsterdam, with much necessary information. He also supplied the questions which the consistory faced in seeking to guide him in his work, including the one discussed at Dort.

(3) The baptism of children of heathen parents

In this mission climate the synod of Dort met, even though not specifically to determine mission principles and practices.

A few comments on the one issue decided should be made.

The official Acta create the impression that this question, proposed by Hulsebos and forwarded to synod by the Amsterdam consistory, was settled quickly and without dissent. Such was not, however, the case. The several “delegations”—from the provincial synods, the foreign delegates, and the professors of theology—presented their opinions in writing. What becomes plain from perusing these is that Dort recognized at once that mission practice compels the churches to face profound theological issues. The question concerned the baptism of children born of heathen parents but “adopted” (as servants or household slaves) by the Dutch who professed Christianity.11 The Company was eager to have such baptized, since this would indicate also a kind of incorporation into the Dutch Christian social and political community. The churches, however, despite the contrary arguments by the English and Bremen delegates, decided that this could not be allowed. At stake were such issues as the nature of membership in God’s covenant and church, the significance of baptism, the relation between faith and baptism, the kind of discipline which is proper in Christ’s church, and several others. To be sure, synod did not officially decide on all these issues, yet the convictions of the overwhelming majority of delegates are reflected in the brief decision. Voetius, who later as professor at the University of Utrecht (1634–1676), developed a Reformed theory of missions,12 prepared for the synod the “advice” rendered by the South Holland delegation. Also in this way Dort exerted a formative influence on the continuation of Reformed missions during the next two centuries. By means of its discussion of a pressing practical problem it opened the eyes of the churches to the need for a sound Biblical pattern for this work.

(5) The doctrinal deliverances of Dort and missions

It would take us too far afield to reflect in depth on those sections of the Canons of Dort which bear, either directly or indirectly, on the mission calling of Christ’s church. Yet some comment on the more salient statements is in order.

According to Dort preaching, although performed in and by the church, is completely under the sovereign direction of God who…

…mercifully sends the messengers of these most joyful tidings to whom He will and at what time He pleases; (1,3),13

supporting this position by an appeal to Romans 10:14,15. From several confessional statements it is evident that Dort had regard not only for preaching in established congregations but also among all nations. Thus it held that God…

…has out of mere grace,…chosen from the whole human race,…a certain number of persons to redemption in Christ, (I, 7),

adding that these will certainly and infallibly be brought to the complete experience and enjoyment of salvation by God in Christ Jesus.

Although divine election “is still to be published in due time and place in the Church of God,” and that always “with reverence, in the spirit of discretion and piety” (I, 14), this doctrine according to the Canons in no wise casts a threatening shadow across the gospel.

This promise (i.e., of full salvation in Christ), together with the command to repent and believe, ought to be declared and published to all nations, and to all persons promiscuously and without distinction,… (11,5).

Thus the church’s mandate to preach must be taken seriously and prosecuted vigorously, since…

…it was the will of God that Christ by the blood of the cross, whereby He confirmed the new covenant, should effectually redeem out of every people, tribe, nation, and language, all those, and those only, who were from eternity chosen to salvation…(II, 8).

Indeed, the focus at this point is on the efficacy of the Savior’s death in sharp contrast to the Arminians who held that Christ merely made salvation possible. Yet the detailed mention of peoples and tribes should not be regarded as empty verbiage. By this time the Reformed were busily engaged in bringing the gospel to many tribes with different languages.

Much more than the Arminians were the Reformed convinced of the indispensability and therefore urgency of gospel preaching. None could be saved apart from repentance and faith in Christ. The “light of nature” was judged insufficient to bring anyone “to a saving knowledge of God and to true conversion” (III–IV, 4). Thus they repudiated the notion advanced by some…

Who teach: That the corrupt and natural man can so well use the common grace (by which they understand the light of nature), or the gifts still left him after the fall, that he can gradually gain by their good use a greater, that is, the evangelical or saving grace, and salvation itself; and that in this way God on His part shows Himself ready to reveal Christ unto all men, since He applies to all sufficiently and efficiently the means necessary to conversion (III–IV, Rej. of Errors, par. 5).

Faith in Christ is a free gift of God; therefore the cause why God sends his word to some and not to others…

…of one nation above another, nor ‘to their better use of the light of nature…(III–IV, 7).

But so far is this confession of salvation by sovereign grace from obscuring or minimizing man’s responsibility, that the Canons in unambiguous terms affirm the glory and power of God exercised through preaching.

As many as are called by the gospel are unfeignedly called. For God has most earnestly and truly declared in His Word what is acceptable to Him, namely, that those who are called should come unto Him (III–IV, 8).

While acknowledging wholeheartedly in obedience to Scripture that God “produces both the will to believe and the act of believing itself,” this creed-with the same clear and uncompromising vigor asserted man’s responsibility in the preaching situation.

But as man by the fall did not cease to be a creature endowed with understanding and will, nor did sin which pervaded the whole human race of mankind deprive him of the human nature, but brought upon him depravity and spiritual death; so also this grace of regeneration does not treat men as senseless stocks and blocks, nor take away their will and its properties, or do violence thereto;…(III–IV, 16).

Dort, perhaps, may be charged with intellectual inconsistency in asserting what men’s minds cannot blend into a perspicuous and harmonious system of thought with respect to both divine sovereignty and human responsibility in God’s grand work of man’s salvation. It can never be accused of obscuring the responsibility of every man who hears the gracious gospel. Rather than striving for rational consistency, it desired above all else to speak Biblically.

Many other implications of the Canons for Christian missions can be adduced. These, however, may be regarded as sufficient grounds for the evaluation of Dr. Vanden Berg on the relation between Calvin’s and the Calvinistic doctrine of election and the mission enterprise.

It must quite emphatically be stated that his (i.e., Calvin’s) doctrine of election is not the culprit (i.e., for lack of mission enthusiasm and activity). Calvin himself is explicit enough in his Institutes. Only a hyper-Calvinism in which Christ is not seen as the speculum electionis and in which a static doctrine of predestination gets a tyrannical power, is anti-or at least non-missionary.14

And with such “hyper-Calvinism” Dort plainly had no patience.

Dort and missions—a balance-sheet

We have attempted to show not so much that Dort was also interested in Christian missions; rather, that this synod naturally and necessarily in its historical context faced this ecclesiastical responsibility in greater depth and detail than is commonly acknowledged.

Its direct contributions, to be sure, were not so great and far-reaching as we today would wish.

While Christian missions in the East Indies, conducted under the combined aegis of the Dutch government and a flourishing commercial Company and the Reformed churches, were reaping a rich harvest and facing new problems and perplexities with every passing year, Dort itself did little. Only one “gravamen,” despite requests from both the North Holland and the Zeeland synods, received official attention. Even in the doctrinal deliverances Christian missions comes into focus only obliquely and therefore in general terms. Yet it is there.

And it is there, because the delegates represented churches which within the space of less than twenty years had deeply concerned themselves with this work. Dort by at least recognizing the work as distinctly ecclesiastical opened the way for the advances made shortly after its sessions.

1. Soon a better method for directing this work was effected by the appointment of several “Deputati ad Res Indicas.” In this way the work received systematic attention and reports were prepared for the churches at their official assemblies. 2. In 1623 the “Seminarium Indicum” was established under the guidance of the highly-esteemed Walaeus. Although during its ten years of existence it supplied only twelve ordained men for the work, the professor might rejoice that his contemporaries with one consent acknowledged that by their learning, piety, and industry these recruits rendered invaluable service.

3. By Voetius, himself a delegate to Dort, a massive and respectable theory of missions was presented to the Reformed churches. Many issues which still agitate the churches in our day—the task of the church, the nature and content of the gospel, the place of medical and educational facilities on the field, the problem of personal versus mass-conversions, etc.—are discussed by him.

4. Even the revised Church Order adopted by Dort, be it indirectly, influenced the work of missions. Both in Netherlands and the East Indies those interested in spread of the gospel were made increasingly aware of the need for a well-regulated ecclesiastical life for those converted to the Christian faith. When early in the nineteenth century the Dutch churches, after more than a century of growing indifference and neglect, again undertook missions with zeal, large groups of Christians were still found in the East Indies. And without doubt one reason for this was the emphasis of the early missionaries and their calling churches on the need for church organization on the field.

5. A confessional statement was adopted by Dort which in the next centuries stood as a reminder that the Lord of the church was gathering unto himself a people out of all peoples and nations and languages. Not the official position of the Reformed churches but the growing unspirituality and secularization of the Dutch people who belonged to the churches must be held largely responsible for the sad history of Reformed missions subsequent to Dort.

We may not obscure the presence of serious, even quite fatal, weaknesses in the mission enterprises conducted by these Reformed churches. Much of the early enthusiasm for the work seemed to wane not only among the officials of the Dutch East Indies Company but fully as much within the churches. Although nearly two hundred ministers besides innumerable assistants were sent out within a century and a half, the number of those was never even minimally adequate for the work. Much of the blame for this must be shouldered by the Dutch ministers who were loath to leave the comforts of the homeland for the unpleasantnesses and uncertainties of the foreign fields. Nor did the barriers raised by the Company from time to time make calling by the churches easier. Yet the leaders and their churches cannot be exonerated. Golden opportunities to spread Christ’s gospel were wasted because of indifference, indolence and increasing worldliness among the Dutch. Repeated cries for help from governors and Company officials as well as missionaries fell too frequently on deaf ears. What, from the human perspective, could have been a most glorious chapter in Reformed mission history between 1620 and 1795 turned into a tale of tears and travail. But this was in spite of Dort; not because of it.

In this story are sobering lessons for those who would commemorate that synod and its accomplishments. Today we are free from the interference of the government and the alliance with an economic cartel which plagued the Dutch churches in their attempt to preach the gospel. Yet too often we still drag our feet, while shutting ears and hearts and purses to the spiritual destitution of those who live and die without Christ. We point too much to what we are already doing; too little to that which must still be done.

Perhaps we argue that the political configuration of our time is not propitious for the spread of the message of salvation in Christ.

Perhaps with tongue-in-cheek we mouth Reformed truths while half-convinced that the Arminian objections to the Reformed faith contain a modicum of truth. Perhaps we are hyper-Calvinists who, because we don’t understand Dorl and its teachings at all, champion a view of election in Christ which is alien to the doctrinal deliverances of that synod.

Perhaps—and this may well be the deepest cause of our sloth—we have become so grossly unspiritual and conformed to this agc that, like many a Dutch preacher in those times, we want neither ourselves nor our children to “go…and make disciples of all the nations.”

Commemoration of an event like Dort should be a sobering experience.

It reminds us of the treasures which the God of all grace has given. It awakens our mind to the stance and struggle of the true church of Christ in every age. It urges to an awareness that Cod has not relieved us of our calling to proclaim the gospel of grace in Christ Jesus to all men everywhere. No Reformed church or individual should commemorate Dort without an eagerness to face up to the needs of church and world today in the presence of the Lord. Are we who claim to be thankful for and loyal to the voice of Dort ready for such a commemoration? 1. A preparatory session of national delegates and political commissioner!l was held on November 12, but synod was not officially convened until the next day. Cf. H. Kaajan: De Pro-Acta der Dordtsche Synode (Rotterdam, 1914), p. 17.

2. For this “gravamen,” cf. Kaapan, op. cit., p. 224. The manner in which synod dealt with this is discussed at great length in pp. 221–259, which also indicate the positions taken by the several “delegations.” On the manner in which the Amsterdam consistory received and subsequently dealt with the matter (delaying unduly) cf. F. L. Rutgers: Her Kerkvernbad der Nederlandsche Gereformeerde Kerken….in den aanvang der 17de Eeuw (Amsterdam, 1882), pp. 185, 187, 189 and 190.

3. J. MacLeod Campbell: Christian History in the Making (London, 1946), p. 29.

4. To these and similar objections Dort responded in the “Conclusion” to the Canons, cf. Psalter Hymnal of the Christian Reformed Church (Grand Rapids, 1959), pp. 65,66.

5. C. W. T. van Boetzelaer van Dubbeldam: De Gereformeerde Kerken en de Zending In. Oost lndie in de dagen der Oost lndische Compagnie ( Utrecht, 1906), p. 2. This is also the position taken by the German scholar Gustaf Warnock: “Am ersten von den protestantischen Kolonialmachten kam es zur praktischen Missionstat in den Niederlanden,” quoted by H . A. Van Andel: De Zendingsleer von Gisbertus Voetius (Kampen, 1912), p. 13.

6. Johannes vanden Berg: Constrained by Jesus’ Love (Kampen, 1956), p. 1.

7. Boetzelaer van Dubbeldam, or. cit., p. 19.

8. Ibid, p. 22. Cf. also H. D. J. Boissevain: De Zending in Oort en West, Verleden en Heden (The Hague, 1934), vol. I, p. 26.

9. Ibid, p. 23, note 1.

10. F. L. Rutgers, op. cit., pp. 173–190 (Bijlage J.); Boetzelaer van Dubbeldam, op. cit., pp. 241–251.

11. On which kind of children in the East Indies the discussions centered has been a matter of dispute. Boelzelaer takes the position that these were illegitimate offspring (usually of Dutch fathers and native mothers) who through baptism would also receive social status, and that synod forbade baptizing them because of the moral conditions irrevalent there; op. cit., p. 36. Kaajan, (1). cit., p. 253 f., argues cogently that this misrepresents the situation since Dort concerned itself with the “covcnantal relation” of such children of God, something which on the basis of I Cor. 7: 14 could not be denied if these children had at least one “Christian” parent. Cf. also Van Andel, op. cit., p. 176 f.

12. For an analysis and evaluation of Voetius’ convictions on mission principle and practice cf. Van Andel, or. cit. A translation of the section “De Plantatione Eccltesiarum” was provided by D. Pol under the title De Planting en de Planters der Kerken (Groningen, 1910).

13. All quotations from the Canons are taken from the official translation in use in the Christian Reformed Church, cf Psalter Hymnal, pp. 44–68. In Calvin Theological Journal (April, 1968) Dr. A. A. Hoekema urges the need for a new translation which “could serve not only to correct the deficiencies noted above, but also to eliminate obsolete and outdated expressions which no longer speak to the modern reader.” pp. 41–47. Italics in the quotations are those of the author of this article.

14. Vanden Berg. op. cit., p. 12.