Dear Editor:

The interesting article “A Break Overdue” by H. VanderKam, July 1980, evoked memories as well as insights re the Schilder controversy in the Netherlands.

There are several parallels which I feel should have been made since, although the issues may have been different, the mode of procedure is almost identical to the past history of the Christian Reformed Church in the U.S.

The author notes that Dr. Schilder was deemed a persona–non–grata to the Christian Reformed Churches when he visited this country and indicated this attitude by an announcement in The Banner. Why not, to complete this observation, tell us that he was welcomed and given opportunities to speak in the Protestant Reformed Churches of America?

Two striking parallels, which are so clear to anyone familiar with church history that they had to be deliberately ignored are these:

1. “The Synod of 1942 . . . first suspended him (Schilder) and three months later deposed him as a minister and professor of theology. On what grounds? On none of the points of doctrine . . . Rather on the ground of his refusal to subscribe to the doctrine of Assumed Regeneration! . . . This one point was now elevated to t he status of a creedal statement which he had to sign! He, of course, refused stating that he was only called to sign the Confessions. Dr. Greijdanus . . . retired . . . also deposed. A candidate would not sign . . . refused ordination . . . another church called him and ordained him, he together with the whole congregation were expellea from the denomination . . . Almost 100,000 people left to follow those who had liberated themselves from this tyranny.” 2. “It became clear later that the ground used for deposing Schilder was not so important to the GKN. Two years later much of it was taken back, but it had served the purpose!”

And now let us transpose the above given quotes:

1. In 1924 the Synod of the Christian Re· formed Church of America deposed from office the Rev. Henry Danhof and Rev. Herman Hoeksema followed by deposition of Rev. G. Ophoff and Rev. N. Yonker. On what grounds? Refusal to sign three points of doctrine formulated not as an interpretation but an appendage to the Confessions. They dealt with the matter of common grace, civic “good works” of unbelievers and the general operation of restrain ing work of the Holy Spirit. These theories were not new but never had they been elevated to the status of a creedal statement. They refused to sign these infamous three points claiming even as Schilder that they were required to sign only the Confessions. They together with their consistories were deposed and the Protestant Reformed denomination was born. Incidentally the Synod of 1924 declared that these men were “Reformed” but added t hat they were inclined to one-sidedness. We found it a bit amusing that someone asked a protestant: “If you are Reformed, what are we?” The reply was: “Your Synod didn’t say!” 2. And for this parallel we can almost quote the former No. 2 verbatim. For it has become clear that the signing of the three points is no longer required for office bearer s. They have served their purpose although their adoption has made a complete explanation of Questions and Answers 8 and 91 of the Catechism rather awkward. Neither can we with comfort read the entire Art. 4 of the 3rd and 4th heads of the Canons of Dort. The Synod of 1924 quoted as “proof” for the “good works” theory, only the first sentence and that for self-evident reasons.

Perhaps some may be asking, “Why pick the scab off this old pustule?” There are several good reasons for exposing this excreta. One of these is another parallel which you may transpose yourself. Quote: “Later history has shown that the decline of the GNK can be traced to 1944.” Your transposition requires changing only the abbreviation and one number in the date.

Someone once said that the reason history repeats itself is because we didn’t learn the first time around.

George TenElshof

   

Editor’s Note:

The parallels to which this letter draws our attention are indeed instructive. Pursuing this instructive history a little farther, we recall that there was an effort to draw the Liberation movement in the Netherlands and the Protestant Reformed movement here together. That effort cont.ributed to a conflict which split the Protestant Reformed churches. Although both movements opposed Liberalism they held to opposite emphases in their views of God’s Covenant of Grace. The issues involved were more complex than simply orthodox opposition to Liberalism.

Dear Editor:

The excellent article by the Rev. John Piersma in the September issue of The Outlook was used as the feature for our first Adult Sunday School meeting in our church. Incidentally, three of our four elders (the fourth one has clerical duties which prevent his attending) are members of this class. It is probably a higher ratio than is usually found in our churches.

In the introduction to this article we find the following: “It is still difficult to under· stand why the youth of conservative churches (including our own denomination) are attracted to these movements.”

Allow me to make the following observations, comments and questions, and perhaps those who are more knowledgeable (and their name is legion) can shoo some light on the subject.

It so happened that on this same Sunday morning we had a Preparatory Sermon and, as is the custom, the first part of the formulary for the Lord’s Supper was read. Our pastor chose to read from Form Number 2.

While turning to this form in the back of our Psalter the thought occurred to me that among the list of gross sins enumerated as reasons for persons abstaining are: “. . . all who seek to raise discord , sects and mutiny in Church or State;”

And so, since the list has over the years become familiar, we glanced a head a bit in Form No. 2 and we do not find this sin enumerated as it is in Form No. 1. Is there any particular reason for this omission?

In light of the increase in cults, mutiny and discord it would seem that its inclusion is need ed even more than in our original form.

Also a little asterisk (*) and footnote advises the reader that the reading of this list of sins may be omitted. Why?

If, as is usual in our circles, this for m is read or listened to once in three months and even then these sins are omitted from that reading, must we wonder why our young people (and older ones too) are deluded by the cults?

Fraternally yours,

George TenEishof