Editors TORCH AND TRUMPET
Dear Sirs:
My commendations to T. AN D T. for printing Rev. Girod’s cogent and straightforward article “What About CRC-RCA Merger?” (Oct., 1969 ) It is a clear and charitable presentation of the current situation in the RCA, and it also points precisely to several serious Haws in the Christian Reformed Church.
Especially interesting is the impassioned reply of my good friend Rev. Peter De Jong (of Calvin Seminary), which ironically (but inadvertently) demonstrates the truth of Rev. Girod’s observations. Notably, also, the reply by Rev. Piersma is not a rebuttal, as some might expect, but rather, an amplification and proliferation of the evils demanding indictment in the Christian Reformed Church.
It is surely well known—is it not?—that the conservative voice of the Christian Reformed Church is gradually and effectively being stifled. For example, Rev. Vander Ploeg wrote me on October 29, 1968, with no great enthusiasm, that the Publication Committee of The Banner had ruled that “no further articles from you (Merle Meeter) are to be placed without first submitting them to them for a decision with respect to their publication. Some persons have wondered why I no longer have letters or articles or book reviews published in The Banner. Perhaps this explains it. I am certain that other conservative Christians have been Similarly suppressed in our denomination. Rev. Vander Ploeg fights a lonely and courageous battle against the encroachments of liberalism in the CRC. The Lord bless his testimony. That T. AND T. still has the character to let the orthodox viewpoint be heard on these issues is a blessing for which we thank our Sovereign God.
In the name of Jesus Christ our Lord,
MERLE MEETER
Editor of TORCH AND TRUMPET
Dear Sir:
In the October issue of T. AND T., Dr. Peter Y. De Jong, in responding to the article of Rev. Cordon Girod, writes, “Brother, your statements are not true; you misrepresent the CRC and its official synodical decisions.” As proof Dr. De Jong elaborates on (among other things) the case of “several laymen from Classis Zeeland.” As one of the “several laymen” involved, I would also like to make some observations and comments.
Dr. De Jong’s comments are an excellent exhibit of what Rev. Girod in his article called looking upon each other with “rose-colored glasses.” De Jong attempts to completely white wash synod’s handling of these cases and does so in violation of his own ground rule, i.e., “unless we get down to specifics, we cannot make any headway in the interest of truth and love and peace which the Lord of the Church requires of us all,” Dr. De Jong replies to what he calls Rev. Girod’s “wild” charges, by simply asking a series of questions, but without really saying a thing. Further Dr. De Jong writes, “In earlier years we often said ‘nasty’ things about each other…” After reading Dr. De Jong’s article I found myself asking, “Is this practice being revived?”
In commenting on the matter of the laymen from Classis Zeeland, Dr. De Jong asks, “What about the hours (how many?) spent by the Advisory Committee of Synod?” It would be very interesting to know just how these hours were spent. I for one was not even allowed to appear before this committee despite my repeated requests to do so. The Stated Clerk of Class is Zeeland was the 6rst to meet with the committee. I believe his influence and involvement (as President of the Consistory which concurred in my suspension) had far reaching consequences. My Consistory also met at length with the committee, but I as appellant was not given even a minute of their “hours.”
Dr. De Jong asks, “(What about) the discussion on the synodical floor?” The discussion on the floor of Synod consumed a maximum of 20 minutes, and did not at all deal with the “validity of their claims,” but merely with the advisory committee’s recommendation to appoint a committee in loco. THE SUBSTANCE OF THESE CASES WAS NOT DISCUSSED.
Next Dr. De Jong asks, “(What about) the decision to appoint a committee to resolve these cases…? It has now been” months since that decision was made, and as yet I have heard nothing from the committee.
Finally De Jong queries, “How could Synod do all this without looking into the validity of their claims?” Dr. De long here implies that Synod did investigate the “validity of their claims.” If this is so, what did Synod find? Were their claims valid? If so, why didn’t Synod sustain their protests? If their claims were not valid why didn’t Synod simply sustain the consistory and Classis Zeeland in their actions?
In conclusion I want to state emphatically that I agree wholeheartedly with Rev. Girod’s article. My experience in the CRC has proven that ministers do look upon each other with “rose-colored glasses,” and that they are a “tightknit little fraternity.” The articles by De Jong and Piersma should be adequate proof for anyone that Rev. Girod is right.
Yours truly,
JAMES VAN LAAR
The Editors TORCH AND TRUMPET
Dear Brothers:
Professor P. Y. De Jong had my article before him as he wrote his reply. Now, with his remarks before me, I trust that you will extend me the same courtesy.
By way of introduction, perhaps I will he permitted a personal word, especially since I have no intention of impugning the integrity of Professor De Jong. Nonetheless, your readers can scarcely understand this discussion without some of the background from which it arises. Professor De Jong has talked with me as much as half a day in my home some months ago. We have talked in his home more than once. We have had innumerable discussions in the days when he was the editor of TORCH AND TRUMPET and I was a member of the Editorial Board. In the light of all these previous discussions 1 found it almost incredible to associate his remarks with the man I thought I had come to know rather well.
That Professor De Jong and should disagree at this point or that should not he thought unusual. The sincerest of men do differ over points of fact and, even more, over the interpretation of facts. I do confess to real sadness, however, over the nature of his reply to me. Had he taken my propositions and said, “Here is the record. This is why Gordon Girod is wrong,” I would be compelled to respect his position even though I might continue to disagree with him. But he offered neither citations nor documentation. Instead, as I see it, his remarks constituted a personal attack. This attack consisted in two allegations. One, he alleged that I failed to define the terms “liberal” and “conservative.” Two, he implied that I had not read the record of the John Kromminga, Harold Dekker and Leonard Sweetman cases or of the five Zeeland Classis laymen, and therefore, that I spoke in ignorance.
Consider the first, the alleged failure to offer definitions. Though I did not use a red pencil in the margin to call attention to my definition of a conservative, 1did offer a definition. I wrote, “Meantime, many of us in the Midwest and West and some even in the East will continue to preach the Gospel of the shed blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. We will continue to believe and teach that the Bible is thoroughly authoritative and without error. We will continue to preach our Savior’s virgin birth, his sinless life, his atoning death, his resurrection in the body on the third day, and his return in power and glory at the end of the age. We will continue to preach the sovereignty of God as it is seen in the unconditional election of a covenant people, the total depravity of man, the irresistible grace of God, limited or particular atonement, and the perseverance of the saints” (T and T, Oct. 1969, p. 5).
The above, Professor De Jong, defines a conservative in Reformed circles. Anyone who preaches something other than this, or something less than this, is a “liberal” or, equally to the point, a heretic.
Let us also bear in mind that while definitions can serve n useful purpose, they can also be used to evade an issue. In various ecclesiastical battles in the Reformed Church in America, some of us learned long ago that some men will say to us, “Define that term. Document that statement,” when they are not really concerned with either definitions or documentations. Someone has well said that if the world were on fire, there is a type of mentality which would say, “You must define that term for me before I will help you put out the blaze.”
Consider the second allegation: failing to read the record. Professor De Jong asks, “Has the writer (Girod) actually read the synodical reports and decisions in these cases?” The implication is left that anyone who has read the record would know better than to take my position. Yes, Professor De Jong, I have read the record. I have both the agendas in which written committee reports appear and the Acts of Synod in which the decisions and other pertinent materials are set forth. I have also talked at length with men who sat on these committees, as recently as two weeks ago with a member of the committee that dealt with Dr. John Kromminga. Precisely because of the record, precisely because of the manner in which these cases were handled, and precisely because of the decisions which were handed down, I will continue to believe that John Kromminga, Harold Dekker and Leonard Sweetman went virtually untouched.
Five years the Dekker case dragged on before it was finally adjudicated. Then your synod refused to declare either that Harold Dekker was right or wrong. When the vote was taken and the decision announced, Henry Stob was heard to exclaim, “It was a miracle!” Since Dr. Stob did not define his term nor amplify his remark, I suppose it is open to various interpretations. My interpretation would be, “It was a miracle that Harold Dekker got out of that situation unscathed.”
But enough. My purpose i .~ not to debate the particulars. I simply want to call attention to the fact that Professor De Jong offered no substantive rebuttal to my propositions, no definitions, no documentation. His remarks open wide the door to the same charges which he made against me, but we aren’t going to solve any problems by that kind of name calling.
Sincerely,
GORDON GIROD
Dear Sirs:
My commendations to T. AN D T. for printing Rev. Girod’s cogent and straightforward article “What About CRC-RCA Merger?” (Oct., 1969 ) It is a clear and charitable presentation of the current situation in the RCA, and it also points precisely to several serious Haws in the Christian Reformed Church.
Especially interesting is the impassioned reply of my good friend Rev. Peter De Jong (of Calvin Seminary), which ironically (but inadvertently) demonstrates the truth of Rev. Girod’s observations. Notably, also, the reply by Rev. Piersma is not a rebuttal, as some might expect, but rather, an amplification and proliferation of the evils demanding indictment in the Christian Reformed Church.
It is surely well known—is it not?—that the conservative voice of the Christian Reformed Church is gradually and effectively being stifled. For example, Rev. Vander Ploeg wrote me on October 29, 1968, with no great enthusiasm, that the Publication Committee of The Banner had ruled that “no further articles from you (Merle Meeter) are to be placed without first submitting them to them for a decision with respect to their publication. Some persons have wondered why I no longer have letters or articles or book reviews published in The Banner. Perhaps this explains it. I am certain that other conservative Christians have been Similarly suppressed in our denomination. Rev. Vander Ploeg fights a lonely and courageous battle against the encroachments of liberalism in the CRC. The Lord bless his testimony. That T. AND T. still has the character to let the orthodox viewpoint be heard on these issues is a blessing for which we thank our Sovereign God.
In the name of Jesus Christ our Lord,
MERLE MEETER
Editor of TORCH AND TRUMPET
Dear Sir:
In the October issue of T. AND T., Dr. Peter Y. De Jong, in responding to the article of Rev. Cordon Girod, writes, “Brother, your statements are not true; you misrepresent the CRC and its official synodical decisions.” As proof Dr. De Jong elaborates on (among other things) the case of “several laymen from Classis Zeeland.” As one of the “several laymen” involved, I would also like to make some observations and comments.
Dr. De Jong’s comments are an excellent exhibit of what Rev. Girod in his article called looking upon each other with “rose-colored glasses.” De Jong attempts to completely white wash synod’s handling of these cases and does so in violation of his own ground rule, i.e., “unless we get down to specifics, we cannot make any headway in the interest of truth and love and peace which the Lord of the Church requires of us all,” Dr. De Jong replies to what he calls Rev. Girod’s “wild” charges, by simply asking a series of questions, but without really saying a thing. Further Dr. De Jong writes, “In earlier years we often said ‘nasty’ things about each other…” After reading Dr. De Jong’s article I found myself asking, “Is this practice being revived?”
In commenting on the matter of the laymen from Classis Zeeland, Dr. De Jong asks, “What about the hours (how many?) spent by the Advisory Committee of Synod?” It would be very interesting to know just how these hours were spent. I for one was not even allowed to appear before this committee despite my repeated requests to do so. The Stated Clerk of Class is Zeeland was the 6rst to meet with the committee. I believe his influence and involvement (as President of the Consistory which concurred in my suspension) had far reaching consequences. My Consistory also met at length with the committee, but I as appellant was not given even a minute of their “hours.”
Dr. De Jong asks, “(What about) the discussion on the synodical floor?” The discussion on the floor of Synod consumed a maximum of 20 minutes, and did not at all deal with the “validity of their claims,” but merely with the advisory committee’s recommendation to appoint a committee in loco. THE SUBSTANCE OF THESE CASES WAS NOT DISCUSSED.
Next Dr. De Jong asks, “(What about) the decision to appoint a committee to resolve these cases…? It has now been” months since that decision was made, and as yet I have heard nothing from the committee.
Finally De Jong queries, “How could Synod do all this without looking into the validity of their claims?” Dr. De long here implies that Synod did investigate the “validity of their claims.” If this is so, what did Synod find? Were their claims valid? If so, why didn’t Synod sustain their protests? If their claims were not valid why didn’t Synod simply sustain the consistory and Classis Zeeland in their actions?
In conclusion I want to state emphatically that I agree wholeheartedly with Rev. Girod’s article. My experience in the CRC has proven that ministers do look upon each other with “rose-colored glasses,” and that they are a “tightknit little fraternity.” The articles by De Jong and Piersma should be adequate proof for anyone that Rev. Girod is right.
Yours truly,
JAMES VAN LAAR
The Editors TORCH AND TRUMPET
Dear Brothers:
Professor P. Y. De Jong had my article before him as he wrote his reply. Now, with his remarks before me, I trust that you will extend me the same courtesy.
By way of introduction, perhaps I will he permitted a personal word, especially since I have no intention of impugning the integrity of Professor De Jong. Nonetheless, your readers can scarcely understand this discussion without some of the background from which it arises. Professor De Jong has talked with me as much as half a day in my home some months ago. We have talked in his home more than once. We have had innumerable discussions in the days when he was the editor of TORCH AND TRUMPET and I was a member of the Editorial Board. In the light of all these previous discussions 1 found it almost incredible to associate his remarks with the man I thought I had come to know rather well.
That Professor De Jong and should disagree at this point or that should not he thought unusual. The sincerest of men do differ over points of fact and, even more, over the interpretation of facts. I do confess to real sadness, however, over the nature of his reply to me. Had he taken my propositions and said, “Here is the record. This is why Gordon Girod is wrong,” I would be compelled to respect his position even though I might continue to disagree with him. But he offered neither citations nor documentation. Instead, as I see it, his remarks constituted a personal attack. This attack consisted in two allegations. One, he alleged that I failed to define the terms “liberal” and “conservative.” Two, he implied that I had not read the record of the John Kromminga, Harold Dekker and Leonard Sweetman cases or of the five Zeeland Classis laymen, and therefore, that I spoke in ignorance.
Consider the first, the alleged failure to offer definitions. Though I did not use a red pencil in the margin to call attention to my definition of a conservative, 1did offer a definition. I wrote, “Meantime, many of us in the Midwest and West and some even in the East will continue to preach the Gospel of the shed blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. We will continue to believe and teach that the Bible is thoroughly authoritative and without error. We will continue to preach our Savior’s virgin birth, his sinless life, his atoning death, his resurrection in the body on the third day, and his return in power and glory at the end of the age. We will continue to preach the sovereignty of God as it is seen in the unconditional election of a covenant people, the total depravity of man, the irresistible grace of God, limited or particular atonement, and the perseverance of the saints” (T and T, Oct. 1969, p. 5).
The above, Professor De Jong, defines a conservative in Reformed circles. Anyone who preaches something other than this, or something less than this, is a “liberal” or, equally to the point, a heretic.
Let us also bear in mind that while definitions can serve n useful purpose, they can also be used to evade an issue. In various ecclesiastical battles in the Reformed Church in America, some of us learned long ago that some men will say to us, “Define that term. Document that statement,” when they are not really concerned with either definitions or documentations. Someone has well said that if the world were on fire, there is a type of mentality which would say, “You must define that term for me before I will help you put out the blaze.”
Consider the second allegation: failing to read the record. Professor De Jong asks, “Has the writer (Girod) actually read the synodical reports and decisions in these cases?” The implication is left that anyone who has read the record would know better than to take my position. Yes, Professor De Jong, I have read the record. I have both the agendas in which written committee reports appear and the Acts of Synod in which the decisions and other pertinent materials are set forth. I have also talked at length with men who sat on these committees, as recently as two weeks ago with a member of the committee that dealt with Dr. John Kromminga. Precisely because of the record, precisely because of the manner in which these cases were handled, and precisely because of the decisions which were handed down, I will continue to believe that John Kromminga, Harold Dekker and Leonard Sweetman went virtually untouched.
Five years the Dekker case dragged on before it was finally adjudicated. Then your synod refused to declare either that Harold Dekker was right or wrong. When the vote was taken and the decision announced, Henry Stob was heard to exclaim, “It was a miracle!” Since Dr. Stob did not define his term nor amplify his remark, I suppose it is open to various interpretations. My interpretation would be, “It was a miracle that Harold Dekker got out of that situation unscathed.”
But enough. My purpose i .~ not to debate the particulars. I simply want to call attention to the fact that Professor De Jong offered no substantive rebuttal to my propositions, no definitions, no documentation. His remarks open wide the door to the same charges which he made against me, but we aren’t going to solve any problems by that kind of name calling.
Sincerely,
GORDON GIROD