INTRODUCTION

In the February and March issues of THE OUTLOOK I called attention to and took issue with certain points made by Dr. John H. Kromminga, President of Calvin Seminary, in an article on “Church Discipline as a Pastoral Exercise” in The Reformed Journal of November 1974. Following are statements by Dr. K. in his article, upon which I felt called to make comments:

1. Dr. K. wrote: “According to the popular caricature, the focus of discipline lies in the removal of the offense by the removal of the offender. Some of the language we have cited from the Belgic Confession and Church Order lends support to this. Perhaps that is careless language; perhaps we are reading too much into it; perhaps it is simply wrong. However that may be, it remains true that the removal of offense out of the church by the removal of the offender is not a mark of success of church discipline at all, but a mark of its failure” (Italics added).

My Comment: How can Dr. K. be so nonchalant or casual at this point in taking issue with a position concerning which he concedes that it is supported “by some of the language . . . cited from the Belgic Confession and Church Order” and simply dismiss that position as a “popular caricature”?

2. Dr. K. wrote: “. . . . it remains true that the removal of offense out of the church by the removal of the offender is not a mark of the success of church discipline at all, but a mark of its failure” (Italics added).

My comment: How can anyone find it possible to say this, least of all the President of Calvin Seminary, in view of the fact that this removal of the offender, when necessary, is so clearly prescribed in the Church Order, the Belgic Confession, the Heidelberg Catechism, and in Scripture?

Dr. K. wrote: “The bad theology and bad practice to which we referred earlier reflect a sort of pharisaism. Somehow a great deal of work-righteousness has become far too common in our theology. We act as if our congregations were assemblies of men and women who have met certain standards of behavior to qualify a.s members. Those who do not measure up must be vigorously repudiated, for they represent a threat to the rest. By contrast, those are considered the most spiritual people who are the most rigorous in shunning sinners und refusing to let down the bars . . . . Knowing the rules of discipline in order to be able to play the game of excommunication is not good enough. What is at stake is not a game. It is the removal of offense out of the Bride of Christ—but if that means removing all sinners—may God have mercy on our souls!” ( Italics added.)

My comment: Dr. K., who among us ever said that exercising discipline is playing a game? And who ever said that church discipline calls for removing all sinners out of the Bride of Christ? This is not a dny and age of stem and unllinching discipline but rather one of indulgence and permissiveness in almost every area of life. Dr. K. himself belongs to Classis Grand Rapids East, the largest Classis in the CRC, with a total membership of about 16,000. How many were excommunicated in 1973? Not one. And how many in 1974? Again, not one.

4. Dr. K. wrote: “Do these three objectives [to maintain the honor of God, to restore the sinner, and to remove offense from the Church of Christ] have a focus? If so, where is it? The pious, hyper-Calvinist answer to this question is—that discipline fin(ls its focus in the honor of God [italics added]. Now we do well to keep Cod in mind with respect to discipline, lest it be neglected or distorted. But if this were the center of the consideration, what is called for might be wiping out entire congregations. The God for whose honor we must be concerned is Himself concerned with sinners. How can He be better honored than by our seeking that very concern of His?”

My comment: Scripture is so very plain in making the honor of God to be our foremost, central, and ultimate purpose for everything in the lives of His people. Why should it be called a “pious, hyper-Calvinist answer” if we hold that this is true also in the exercise of church discipline?

DR. KROMMINGA’S RESPONSE

Dear Editor:

1. I wish to respond to your editorial in THE OUTLOOK for February, 1975. I hope many of your readers will accept your suggestion that they read my article in the Reformed Journal of November, 1974, because the context of the statements you quoted is indeed important to understanding them.

2. A careful reading of that article will show that I am not pleading for less discipline, but more. Discipline should not be viewed negatively, but positively. It includes much more than the formal steps laid out in the Church Order. Private admonitions and the preaching of the Word are also steps in the same direction. I plead for a greater concern of the entire congregation for the correction of one another, in the understanding that the intent of discipline is in the interests of God and His community, but also in the interests and for the welfare of the sinner himself.

Now let me addrcss myself to your three points.

3. First, you assert that I take too much liberty with the language of the Confession and Church Order, that I dismiss the position of the Confession as a “popular caricature,” and that this is inconsistent with my subscription to the Confessions.

There is a difference between finding support for a position in “some of the language” of the Confession and saying that this position is what the Confession teaches. Your objection carries weight if, and only if, the Confession means to teach that “the focus of discipline lies in removing the offense by removing the offender.” I did not say, and I do not believe. that this is what the Confession teaches. I think that this would indeed be “reading too much into” the language of the Confession.

4. Second, you take issue with my statement that “the removal of offense out of the church by the removal of the offender is not a mark of the success of church discipline at all, but a mark of its failure.”

Note that I have not contended that excommunication should never result from discipline. What I have sought to emphasize is that the conversion of the sinner is the primary focus. It is through his restoration “to right thinking and right practice, to the confidence and fellowship of the congregation . . . to the fellowship of the God of grace and glory” that discipline achieves its objective.

This note is present in the passage you cite from Matthew 18. The purpose of the repeated admonitions to the sinner by an individual, by two or three witnesses, and by the church is that he shall repent. If he does not, excommunication must follow. If he does repent, there is joy in heaven.

5. Third, you relate the impression that I suggest that the Christian Reformed Church is very intolerant, severe, and rigid in the exercise of church discipline.

1 am sorry if you or anyone else gained that impression. It was not what I intended to convey. I was concerned rather with a seeming hesitation to apply discipline—whether in personal contacts or in formal steps—because we misunderstand its intent. When we admonish or discipline, the intent is not to start getting a person out of the fellowship of God and His congregation, but to start getting him restored to that fellowship. The sin committed has broken or threatens to break that fellowship. Discipline seeks to restore it. The formal steps of discipline, as my article points out, are an escalation of the pressure on him to see the error of his ways and the excommunication which awaits him if he does not repent. Even after excommunication has seemed to end the matter, restoration may take place. This result is the object of the church‘s hopes, prayers, and even continued admonitions. The reader will find this reflected in both the Form of Excommunication and the Form of Readmission.

There will always be a difficult clement in the exercise of church discipline. But no elder need add to his problems by thinking that in exercising discipline he is doing anything contrary to the best interests of the sinner himself. His concern is a truly pastoral one, and in pursuing it he is a representative of the loving authority of God Himself.

After reading an advance copy of the March editorial on the same subject, I wish to expand my reply as indicated below. I regret that the reply cannot be placed with the editorial in the March issue, but I understand the technical difficulties involved in this.

6. I am concerned particularly with the latter half of the March editorial, where the Editor breaks new ground. In this editorial he concentrates on the first-stated purpose of discipline, “to maintain the honor of God.” He says it makes sense to assume that this “would be first in importance, that it is the focus, the center, or the ultimate aim of church discipline, even as it is in all of life.” In the course of his comments on this subject he implies that I have some kind of criticism of Van Dellen and Monsma in The Revised Church Order Commentary; that 1 do injustice to certain distinctively Calvinistic slogans; that I engage in a horizontalism which leads to humanism; and that I have turned church discipline into something outside of the Scriptural emphasis on the glory of God.

The burden of my remarks below is to agree that the honor of God is “first in importance” and “the ultimate aim of church discipline,” but that “focus” or “center” are another matter. Granting that the honor of God is first in importance and the primary aim, how is this to be sought in the context of church discipline?

I have not set aside Van Dellen and Monsma as “pious and hyper-Calvinistic.” Their commentary does not say that discipline has its focus in the first objective. It does not, in fact, say anything about focus. They speak of Calvin‘s “first–mentioned purpose.” I do not quarrel with the hierarchy of purposes (although I observe that the Church Order, which Prof. Monsma helped in revising, reverses the order of Calvin‘s second and third purposes).

What I do argue for is that these three purposes be seen as a unity. They do not and must not he seen to work at cross-purposes with each other. The God who speaks in Ezekiel 18:31, 32; Ezekiel 33:11; and Galatians 6:1 is most directly glorified by the conversion of the sinner. When ecclesiastical discipline is exercised. the elders are busy with the glory of God and the health of the church; but the focus of their work is with the erring person.

The three purposes are indeed a unity. Leaving out of the picture for a moment the second stated purpose of discipline, the honor of God is maintained by removal of offense out of the church. This is what Calvin has in view when he writes, “The first is that  they who lead a filthy and infamous life may not be called Christians, to the dishonor of God, as if his holy church were a conspiracy of wicked and abandoned men” (Inst. IV, 11, 5). This brings together what our Church Order calls the first and third purposes of discipline and what Calvin calls the first and second.

What I wish to do is to bring the second purpose (according to the Church Order listing) into this unity where it belongs. It is interesting that Van Dellen and Monsma cite the experience of David with Nathan in connection with the “first–mentioned purpose.” In that very example, David, who had caused the name of God to be blasphemed. was restored to God‘s fellowship through repentance, after admonition by Nathan.

I have no quarrel whatsoever with the Calvinistic slogans cited. I believe with the Westminster Shorter Catechism that man‘s chief end is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever. But God is glorified in various ways. In the context of discipline, He is indeed glorified if the church ultimately expresses His judgment, as the church is authorized to do, on an unrepentant sinner. But this is a last resort—as the Form for Excommunication puts it, the final remedy. The first resort, to which the admonition and discipline of the church is specifically directed, is His glorification by the restoration of the sinner, and thus the restoration of the wholeness and health of the Body of Christ.

7. Finally, concern for our fellow-member and his spiritual health is not horizontalism which leads to humanism. Perhaps it may be altruism, but that is not necessarily bad. It is not a substitute for the honor of God. It is what God commands, and God is honored by our doing what He commands.

J. H. KROMMINGA

NOTE: The numbering setting off the various items in the above Response have been added to assist in making a reply. JVP.

REPLY

Dear Dr. Kromminga: Thank you for your response to my editorial. To assist in making the following reply, point by point, I have taken the liberty of adding the numbers in what you have written, to which I trust you will have no objection.

1. Let me repeat my suggestion, in which you concur, that interested readers avail themselves of the full text of your article on “Church Discipline as a Pastoral Exercise” by ordering a copy of The Reformed Journal, November 1974 (50¢), from The Reformed Journal, 255 Jefferson, S. E., Grand Rapids, Michigan 49502. The matter of church discipline is important enough and your responsible position as President of Calvin Seminary is such that all concerned members of the CRC, especially ministers and elders, should fully acquaint themselves with this matter. Then too, if there is any doubt about this, they should also determine for themselves whether or not there has been any injustice in quoting any of your statements out of context.

2. Your plea at this point “for a greater concern of the entire congregation for the correction of one another” is not an issue between us but an emphasis that I heartily endorse. It should be very clear that our differences are not to be found here but rather elsewhere in what you have written. 3. Please note the difference here between what you wrote in your article and what you now write in your response. This is what you said in your article: “According to the popular caricature, the focus of discipline lies in the removal of the offense by the removal of the offender. Some of the language we have cited from the Belgic Confession and Church Order lends support to this . . .” (italics added). Now you write in your response: “I did not say, and I do not believe that this is what the Confession teaches . . .” (italics added). You did not say that “some of the language of the Belgic Confession and Church Order seems or appears to lend support” to what you dismiss as “a popular caricature.” What you actually did say is “Some of the language we have cited from the Belgic Confession and Church Order lends support for this” (italics added). How can you be consistent when you now write: “I did not say, and I do not believe, that this is what the Confession teaches”? If even only “some of the language” of the Confession “lends support” to a position how can you now say that the Confession does not teach it? You can’t have it both ways, can you?

But, Dr. K., what I really did object to at this point was the nonchalant, casual, or cavalier fashion in which you dismissed as “a popular caricature” a position concerning which you conceded that support for it is lent by “some of the language” in the Belgic Confession and Church Order. Having made that concession in your article you simply went on to say about this language cited from the Confession and the Church Order: “Perhaps that is careless language; perhaps we arc reading too much into it; perhaps it is simply wrong. However . . .” and then you proceeded to give your own view of the matter. I question the propriety of dealing with same or with any of the language of the Belgic Confession or Church Order in that fashion.

4. Exception was taken here concerning what you write about success or failure in the exercise of church discipline. My objection is to your assertion that “the removal of offense out of the church by the removal of the offender is not a mark of the success of church discipline at all, but a mark of its failure” (italics added). How can anyone, least of all the President of Calvin Seminary, find it possible to say this in view of the fact that also “the removal of the offender” is something so clearly prescribed in the Church Order, the Heidelberg Catechism, the Belgic Confession, and in Scripture?

Commenting on this you respond by saying that you “have not contended that excommunication should never result from discipline.” No one ever said you did. That’s not the point. Neither do you reply to the criticism of what you have called the “failure” in church discipline by emphasizing the conversion of the sinner as “the primary focus.” My questions is: What ground have you for saying that “the removal of the offender is not a mark of the success of church discipline at all, but a mark of its failure”? (Italics added.) It should be clear to all that this by no means unimportant question still goes begging for an answer.

5. It was also stated in my editorial that one easily receives the impression that the CRC is very intolerant, severe, and rigid in the exercise of church discipline. The quote from your article as cited above (No.3 in my Introduction) gave me reasons for coming to this conclusion. However, you now write: “I am sorry if you or anyone else gained that impression. It was not what I intended to convey. I was concerned rather with a seeming hesitation to apply discipline, etc.” I am altogether satisfied at this point not to belabor the matter further but to leave it to the readers‘ judgment as to what impression you conveyed by what you wrote as quoted above.

6. The final matter in question deals with your following statement in The Reformed Journal article: “The pious, hyper-Calvinistic answer to this question is that discipline finds its focus in the honor of God” (see No. 4 in Introduction above). Notwithstanding the length to which you go in seeking to justify the derogatory way in which you dismiss the answer that “discipline finds its focus in the honor of God” I do not find it to be convincing.

In responding to my criticism at this point you tell us that you were writing as you did, not about the first or ultimate purpose of church discipline, but rather about the focus of discipline and that these are not the same. However, the dictionaries I have consulted agree with Webster in defining focus as “a center of activity, attraction, or attention.” Now, who is to be the center of activity, attraction, and attention in the exercise of church discipline—God or the offender?

It is gratifying that you now make very clear that we arc of one mind that the honor of God must be the first and ultimate purpose of all things, church discipline included. However, allow me to suggest that, this being so, that it might be the part of wisdom for you to request that your reference to “the pious, hyper-Calvinistic answer” be expunged or stricken from the record as being infelicitous, to say the least.

7. “Finally,” you say in conclusion, “concern for our fellow–member and his spiritual health is not horizontalism which leads to humanism,” Now, Dr. K., if you will only reread my editorial, then you must recognize and admit that I said nothing of the kind. What I did say (and please note the italics now added to make the matter clear beyond a doubt) is the following; “To make the salvation, the reformation, the rehabilitation of man our first purpose is horizontalism which leads to humanism.” It is indeed unfortunate and regrettable that at this point in your response you leave the impression that I wrote something altogether different from what I actually did say.

Years ago when men accepted the Ptolemaic teaching about the earth being the center of our solar system, their view was all askew. It was not until Copernicus convinced those who were willing to learn that the sun is at the center that men got their view of the solar system into proper focus. Even so, our view of church discipline, and all of life as well, is wrong until we see God at the center of it all and His honor and glory as its central purpose –first, last and all the time.

A final suggestion: Dr. K., allow me to respectfully request and even to urge you to write another article on church discipline in which you clear up the doubts and problems to which your first article gave rise. Surely, the matter is of sufficient importance to warrant your doing so.