To the editors of TORCH AND TRUMPET
Dear Sirs:
The article of Mr. Henry Hoeksema found in the November ’68 issue of your magazine prompts me to write a few words regarding the matter of protest. Of late, particularly the last couple of years, consistories and!or ministers of the Chr. Ref. Church have been receiving through the mail pamphlets and other written material from individuals within the church whose concern it is to arouse the church to alleged dangers within its walls, and to urge our leaders to take appropriate action to defend “the faith of the fathers.” I have the idea that by and large the initial reaction to such material is often a condescending smile with some remark to the effect that here is another “ultra-conservative” crank who sees enemies of the faith all around him. And with that we dismiss such material. I would suggest, however, that we do not dismiss the matter quite so easily. Let’s at least try to understand the motivation of the authors and the predicament in which they find themselves.
I mean this: What other avenue is open to them by which they can alert the whole church to the dangers which they are certain exist within its walls? Oh yes, I know very well that the proper avenue of protest is always open to them: They can present their case to the consistory, then to c1assis, and finally to synod if need be. That is the proper way of doing things and we are bound to follow the “kerkelijke weg” in such matters. 1 have no quarrel with that. None whatsoever.
But now put yourself in the place of such a person who is deeply concerned about certain matters in the church. He goes to his consistory, but the latter fails to sustain him. Perhaps he then goes to classis, and c1assis upholds the action of the consistory. What is he supposed to do? Go to synod, yes. But what chance does he really have there? Honestly now. The consistory and c1assis have not sustained him. Can he expect synod to do so? Hardly. Can you blame him if he becomes discouraged and looks for other avenues by which to make his views known?
In my opinion, this points up a real problem in the church, any church. What real possibility does an ordinary member of the church have in such cases? Theoretically, yes, he has as great a chance or opportunity as a minister, consistory or classis. But practically, his chances are almost nil.
The case of Mr. Nick Bierema, described by Mr. Hoeksema in his article, is another case in point. He did what he was supposed to do. He followed all the proper channels of protest. But in the end he was not sustained.
Perhaps you say: He did not present adequate grounds far his protest. His case was not strong enough. I would reply: It would be impossible to make the case strong enough so as to effect a different outcome. If Mr. Bierema had been a minister, perhaps his chances would have improved slight1y. If a whole consistory or classis had come with the same protest, the outcome very likely would have been quite different. But being what he is, Mr. Bierema’s protest was not upheld. There you have what Mr. Hoeksema calls the “frustration of protest.”
Under such circumstances it is easy to criticize people who look for other avenues by which to alert the church to the dangers they see, and to advise them that there are “proper channels” for such things (Cf. under VII, p. 52 of Acts of Synod,l968 ), but it is another matter to suggest something better and to ease the consciences of such people.
What is particularly frustrating and annoying in the above-mentioned case is the fact that synod’s advisory committee stated explicitly that “the appellant did have a real basis for his criticism,” and that the sermon of the Rev. Sweetman “contains ambiguities, very unfortunate expressions, questionable exegesis, and is an incomplete presentation of the gospel,” and yet, notwithstanding this, recommends “that synod do not sustain the appeal of Mr. Bierema.” I would like to ask: Why not? Why did the advisory committee not recommend that synod do sustain Mr. Bierema, since his criticism of the sermon was basically correct, and then proceed to inform the Rev. Sweetman that this particular sermon was indeed un-Reformed and therefore he ought to make the proper amends? That would, 1 am convinced, have been the proper and honorable execution of the matter. Having been personally in Grand Rapids at the time the sermon was preached. and also a member of the Fuller Ave. Church at the time, I know that Mr. Bierema was not the only one who objected to the sermon under consideration. There were ample grounds for serious misgivings.
Synod decided, in line with the recommendation of the advisory committee, that “the contents of one sermon are an insufficient basis for a fair judgment of a minister’s total creedal commitment.” That may be so, but that is not what Mr. Bierema was concerned about. He was concerned about that one particular sermon. Moreover, if I am correctly informed, it was on the basis of the protest of one sermon of Dr. Geelkerken, brought in by one wide-awake member of his congregation that Geelkerken was ultimately deposed. But that was in the days of a different theological climate where the church did not speak so readily of “ambiguities” and “unsatisfactory expressions.” Today’s theological climate, also in the Chr. Ref. Church, tends to lull people to sleep. All is well and all is peace—but that can finally end up in the peace of the graveyard.
I am at a loss also to understand why synod decided to delete the above-mentioned observations of the advisory committee regarding the Rev. Sweetman’s sermon. Why was this done? Are our ministers above and beyond criticism? May our people not know these things? Would it have an adverse effect on Calvin College where Mr. Sweetman teaches? Whatever the reason, such action is totally unjustified, in my opinion, and does not foster confidence among the people of the church.
There is one more item I wish to touch on in this regard. That concerns the matter of appointing committees to study and advise on all such matters. I believe there is a real danger here, both at classes and at synod. To make clear what 1 mean I quote from the late J.L. Schaver’s The Polity of the Churches, Vol. I, pp. 102–104:
One of the serious errors of ecclesiastical assemblies, resutling in the miscarriage of justice, originates in the procedure of appointing committees for cases of appeal, instead of disposing of the matter as an assembly. When the committee appointed consists of even fewer persons than the body that appeals or to which there is objection, the appeal in effect Is not to a major assembly but to a minor one. When such a committee has rendered an opinion, that is for all practical purposes final, for from such committee’s decision there is in the ecclesiastical procedure of at least some denominations no effective appeal. The procedure of appointing committees is advocated 011 the assumption that the cases are usually too involved for the whole assembly to consider. But committees also fail woefully to grasp involved cases. Why then entrust It ease of appeal to a committee of a few persons when the Word of God says for our guidance that it is in the multitude of counselors that safety resides? Why not rather in delicate cases, at the time the major assembly meets, require a committee to present to the assembly what is the real issue? Let the committee be careful to say as little as possible what would unnecessarily harm the reputation of the parties at variance. The appointment of a committee to dispose of the case locally should not be the invariable role. And when this procedure is followed, it should take place only on condition that both parties at variance are fully agreed to entrust their case to a committee, for an appellant has the right to require that his case be considered by the entire major assembly to which appeal is made. .. The judicial question before any, ecclesiastical assembly is not “who is right” but “what is right.” Whether the “who” is a committee of any major assembly or the very assembly itself should make no difference.
Those are wise words from a past authority on church order. We do well to take note of his warning.
J. TUlNlNGA Grande Prairie, Alta.
ABOUT CRITICISMS AND PROTESTS: SOME REMARKS
There are always those among us who cannot agree with certain things which are done, or said to be done, for instance, at Calvin College and Seminary or certain consistories or classes or synods. Some of these at times in uttering their protests use methods which are out of line with the usual procedure for such things, such as sending around letters with accusations and general statements which reflect on certain people, cause hard feelings, and at times sincere sadness. Those doing such things have often been told that for the sake of good order and fairness to all they must use the official channels which are open for such matters. Our 1968 synod had its attention called to this matter and once again emphasized the use of these official channels.
The response frequently made is that experience indicates that use of those channels is ineffective, gets one nowhere.
A letter written by Mr. Henry W. Hoeksema, an elder in our Princeton Church in Grand Rapids, Michigan, and appearing in the November 1968 issue of TORCH AND TRUMPET, is a case in point. The brother refers to the decision of the 1968 synod referred to above and then tells of a brother in one of our churches who heard a guest minister preach a sermon, objected to parts of it, saw the minister in question and got nowhere, brought the matter to his consistory, met with long delay and received no satisfaction, appealed to classis, met with more delay and no satisfaction, appealed to our latest synod and saw his protest not sustained! You see, it was no use, the brother didn’t get anywhere. And when this is said the tendency is to generalize and to say, You never get anywhere.
This is a sad situation troubling many of us. I feel prompted to make an effort to say something which might help to overcome it at least to some extent.
1. We all are fallible human beings. We often err in thinking and fail say what we really mean to say. That is one of the most difficult things to do: to say just what you mean so that it cannot be misunderstood. Moreover we are open to all kinds of influences, good and bad. Conditions in this world are confused and confusing, too complex for us to see all in the right light. Just now we are faced with a new theology, a new morality, what is truth in evolution, what is wrong in the presentation of it, what about the proper exegesis of the first chapters of Genesis, etc. it is not easy to sort out the good and the bad. We are open to error. This is true of individuals and groups of individuals such as boards of trustees, consistories, classes and synods.
2. Hence all through life we have controls. In political life we have checks and balances; in the home the parents; in the shop foremen; in the church elders; these are subject to the supervision of the classes; all kinds of boards report to the synod. We all need to be watched. If we are entrusted with an important job we have to report to those over us. That is necessary because we all can go astray. That is part of life and we accept it as such.
3. We all as members of families and of churches have a right and a duty to watch over one another and exhort one another, as the Scripture says. This so that we may be helped in the right way of living and God’s cause may be promoted in our lives. With that in view church members may and must watch ministers, elders, deacons, mission boards and other groups doing a job for the church. If they think that these go wrong they should make their concern known. That is their right and duty.
4. In exercising this right there is one consideration which must stand out above all else: We must seek to know and formulate and uphold and promote truth. This is a big order not easy to carry out. Truth is not necessarily what we have always been taught and have believed. We must allow for the possibility of new light. The Jewish leaders of Jesus’ day refused to listen to Jesus, and thereby became enemies of the truth. Life does not stand still. We cannot stand still. Much that was right in worshipping God before Jesus came was wrong after he had given his life and fulfilled the old ceremonial laws. We must try to judge intelligently new developments and accept whatever of truth they may contain. On the other hand the fact that one is up to date on all new teaching does not necessarily mean that he’s got tho truth. All this means study, careful reflection, prayer for guidance, willingness to let truth guide us. Some people have no patience for this, jump at conclusions. Yet this is the way, and Jesus has promised us the Holy Spirit to lead us into the truth.
5. If you feel constrained to protest some message or article or action, try to say clearly, de6nitely, just what your objection is. Just what do you think is wrong? Why is it wrong? What proof have you that it is wrong? Don’t come with vague accusations. Don’t make sweeping statements, as “This is terrible,” or “Where will this lead us?,” and such. They get you nowhere.
6. It is important to bring your objections to the proper body, the Board of Trustees or consistory or classis or synod. That is part of our rules by which we as church members live. That is good order. That can save the church from unnecessary disturbance, which is important. That is for your own protection too: if people criticise you for protesting you can say that you are following the procedure which the church has agreed upon. Such protesting must not be done from the pulpit or by stirring up a congregation or spreading documents through the denomination.
7. Before protesting consider your motives. Are you really seeking the truth? Could it be that you protest because you don’t like the man? Are you critical of church We in general? of your consistory? The heart is deceitful, you know. Make sure that you come with a good conscience before God.
8. When you bring a protest you must, of course, expect those to whom you bring it to use their own Christian judgment as you try to use yours. You must not expect them just to agree. If they did you could not respect them. If they disagree with you, that docs not necessarily mean that they are wrong, that they have no sense of justice.
9. Protests, if they have any content at all, take time to be studied and evaluated. Some times too much time goes by. That is too bad: those receiving them should aim to be prompt in answering. But consistories meet once a month, have heavy agenda. If they feel the need of advice by a committee these committee members have to do this work in addition to an already heavy load. It all takes time. Our classes generally meet three times a year and then usually only one day. It is just not practical to try to do justice to a sizable protest in addition to the regular program. So the classis probably needs a committee, and that takes four months. We must be reasonable. One can see that quite a bit of time would be needed, even with the best of intentions. This does not mean that these bodies are not interested in doing justice: I believe that our church bodies as a rule try earnestly, prayerfully, to do what is right.
10. The Acts of our 1968 synod tell how in one case the relationship between a protesting brother and the consistory and classis became such that communication practically almost ceased. That happens quite often. I am not excusing or accusing either side. But at times we get so deeply settled in a certain way of looking at a matter, become emotionally involved, get into personal angles, so that reasonable discussion is no more possible. That should not happen. If then we don’t get satisfaction we must bear a part of the responsibility for it.
11. We must not, when we don’t get the answer we want, be too ready to say that protesting is useless. The brother to whom Mr. Hoeksema in his letter refers did not get the reply he wanted. Yet his protest was not in vain. It is plain that the consistory and the classis and the synod gave a lot of attention to his protest. They did not give him the brushoff but considered what he brought before them. The minister whose sermon he criticised took back some things which were one-sided. We mayassume that this minister learned by this experience. He also explained how a certain one-sidedness was due to his method of making sermons. That can happen. One must be reasonable in such things. That’s the spirit of love. The minister once again expressed complete agreement with the Forms of Unity. Considering these things, and the fact that one cannot judge of man’s soundness in doctrine by one such sermon, Synod did not sustain the brother’s protest. And since there was no other protest against the minister there was no cause for action. Honestly, brethren, what else could synod do? And the protesting brother can be satisfied that the helped to bring the matter to a proper conclusion.
12. No, beloved brethren, we must not say that it is useless to go to our church bodies with complaints. If they are brought in the proper manner these bodies will listen and try to do what is right. This same synod of 1968 heard the protest of a brother minister who was burdened about certain decisions of the synod of 1967. This synod went out of its way, made its advisory committee work some more and more, until at last a formulation was found to which all could agree. Instances could be multiplied. Not that our church bodies are without fault; but they will try to do right.
Much more could be said, but I must not presume on the hospitality of the editors of this publication. Thank you, brethren for your kindness. May God bless these simple remarks toward better understanding, harmony, and peace.
JOHN GRITTER
Dear Sirs:
The article of Mr. Henry Hoeksema found in the November ’68 issue of your magazine prompts me to write a few words regarding the matter of protest. Of late, particularly the last couple of years, consistories and!or ministers of the Chr. Ref. Church have been receiving through the mail pamphlets and other written material from individuals within the church whose concern it is to arouse the church to alleged dangers within its walls, and to urge our leaders to take appropriate action to defend “the faith of the fathers.” I have the idea that by and large the initial reaction to such material is often a condescending smile with some remark to the effect that here is another “ultra-conservative” crank who sees enemies of the faith all around him. And with that we dismiss such material. I would suggest, however, that we do not dismiss the matter quite so easily. Let’s at least try to understand the motivation of the authors and the predicament in which they find themselves.
I mean this: What other avenue is open to them by which they can alert the whole church to the dangers which they are certain exist within its walls? Oh yes, I know very well that the proper avenue of protest is always open to them: They can present their case to the consistory, then to c1assis, and finally to synod if need be. That is the proper way of doing things and we are bound to follow the “kerkelijke weg” in such matters. 1 have no quarrel with that. None whatsoever.
But now put yourself in the place of such a person who is deeply concerned about certain matters in the church. He goes to his consistory, but the latter fails to sustain him. Perhaps he then goes to classis, and c1assis upholds the action of the consistory. What is he supposed to do? Go to synod, yes. But what chance does he really have there? Honestly now. The consistory and c1assis have not sustained him. Can he expect synod to do so? Hardly. Can you blame him if he becomes discouraged and looks for other avenues by which to make his views known?
In my opinion, this points up a real problem in the church, any church. What real possibility does an ordinary member of the church have in such cases? Theoretically, yes, he has as great a chance or opportunity as a minister, consistory or classis. But practically, his chances are almost nil.
The case of Mr. Nick Bierema, described by Mr. Hoeksema in his article, is another case in point. He did what he was supposed to do. He followed all the proper channels of protest. But in the end he was not sustained.
Perhaps you say: He did not present adequate grounds far his protest. His case was not strong enough. I would reply: It would be impossible to make the case strong enough so as to effect a different outcome. If Mr. Bierema had been a minister, perhaps his chances would have improved slight1y. If a whole consistory or classis had come with the same protest, the outcome very likely would have been quite different. But being what he is, Mr. Bierema’s protest was not upheld. There you have what Mr. Hoeksema calls the “frustration of protest.”
Under such circumstances it is easy to criticize people who look for other avenues by which to alert the church to the dangers they see, and to advise them that there are “proper channels” for such things (Cf. under VII, p. 52 of Acts of Synod,l968 ), but it is another matter to suggest something better and to ease the consciences of such people.
What is particularly frustrating and annoying in the above-mentioned case is the fact that synod’s advisory committee stated explicitly that “the appellant did have a real basis for his criticism,” and that the sermon of the Rev. Sweetman “contains ambiguities, very unfortunate expressions, questionable exegesis, and is an incomplete presentation of the gospel,” and yet, notwithstanding this, recommends “that synod do not sustain the appeal of Mr. Bierema.” I would like to ask: Why not? Why did the advisory committee not recommend that synod do sustain Mr. Bierema, since his criticism of the sermon was basically correct, and then proceed to inform the Rev. Sweetman that this particular sermon was indeed un-Reformed and therefore he ought to make the proper amends? That would, 1 am convinced, have been the proper and honorable execution of the matter. Having been personally in Grand Rapids at the time the sermon was preached. and also a member of the Fuller Ave. Church at the time, I know that Mr. Bierema was not the only one who objected to the sermon under consideration. There were ample grounds for serious misgivings.
Synod decided, in line with the recommendation of the advisory committee, that “the contents of one sermon are an insufficient basis for a fair judgment of a minister’s total creedal commitment.” That may be so, but that is not what Mr. Bierema was concerned about. He was concerned about that one particular sermon. Moreover, if I am correctly informed, it was on the basis of the protest of one sermon of Dr. Geelkerken, brought in by one wide-awake member of his congregation that Geelkerken was ultimately deposed. But that was in the days of a different theological climate where the church did not speak so readily of “ambiguities” and “unsatisfactory expressions.” Today’s theological climate, also in the Chr. Ref. Church, tends to lull people to sleep. All is well and all is peace—but that can finally end up in the peace of the graveyard.
I am at a loss also to understand why synod decided to delete the above-mentioned observations of the advisory committee regarding the Rev. Sweetman’s sermon. Why was this done? Are our ministers above and beyond criticism? May our people not know these things? Would it have an adverse effect on Calvin College where Mr. Sweetman teaches? Whatever the reason, such action is totally unjustified, in my opinion, and does not foster confidence among the people of the church.
There is one more item I wish to touch on in this regard. That concerns the matter of appointing committees to study and advise on all such matters. I believe there is a real danger here, both at classes and at synod. To make clear what 1 mean I quote from the late J.L. Schaver’s The Polity of the Churches, Vol. I, pp. 102–104:
One of the serious errors of ecclesiastical assemblies, resutling in the miscarriage of justice, originates in the procedure of appointing committees for cases of appeal, instead of disposing of the matter as an assembly. When the committee appointed consists of even fewer persons than the body that appeals or to which there is objection, the appeal in effect Is not to a major assembly but to a minor one. When such a committee has rendered an opinion, that is for all practical purposes final, for from such committee’s decision there is in the ecclesiastical procedure of at least some denominations no effective appeal. The procedure of appointing committees is advocated 011 the assumption that the cases are usually too involved for the whole assembly to consider. But committees also fail woefully to grasp involved cases. Why then entrust It ease of appeal to a committee of a few persons when the Word of God says for our guidance that it is in the multitude of counselors that safety resides? Why not rather in delicate cases, at the time the major assembly meets, require a committee to present to the assembly what is the real issue? Let the committee be careful to say as little as possible what would unnecessarily harm the reputation of the parties at variance. The appointment of a committee to dispose of the case locally should not be the invariable role. And when this procedure is followed, it should take place only on condition that both parties at variance are fully agreed to entrust their case to a committee, for an appellant has the right to require that his case be considered by the entire major assembly to which appeal is made. .. The judicial question before any, ecclesiastical assembly is not “who is right” but “what is right.” Whether the “who” is a committee of any major assembly or the very assembly itself should make no difference.
Those are wise words from a past authority on church order. We do well to take note of his warning.
J. TUlNlNGA Grande Prairie, Alta.
ABOUT CRITICISMS AND PROTESTS: SOME REMARKS
There are always those among us who cannot agree with certain things which are done, or said to be done, for instance, at Calvin College and Seminary or certain consistories or classes or synods. Some of these at times in uttering their protests use methods which are out of line with the usual procedure for such things, such as sending around letters with accusations and general statements which reflect on certain people, cause hard feelings, and at times sincere sadness. Those doing such things have often been told that for the sake of good order and fairness to all they must use the official channels which are open for such matters. Our 1968 synod had its attention called to this matter and once again emphasized the use of these official channels.
The response frequently made is that experience indicates that use of those channels is ineffective, gets one nowhere.
A letter written by Mr. Henry W. Hoeksema, an elder in our Princeton Church in Grand Rapids, Michigan, and appearing in the November 1968 issue of TORCH AND TRUMPET, is a case in point. The brother refers to the decision of the 1968 synod referred to above and then tells of a brother in one of our churches who heard a guest minister preach a sermon, objected to parts of it, saw the minister in question and got nowhere, brought the matter to his consistory, met with long delay and received no satisfaction, appealed to classis, met with more delay and no satisfaction, appealed to our latest synod and saw his protest not sustained! You see, it was no use, the brother didn’t get anywhere. And when this is said the tendency is to generalize and to say, You never get anywhere.
This is a sad situation troubling many of us. I feel prompted to make an effort to say something which might help to overcome it at least to some extent.
1. We all are fallible human beings. We often err in thinking and fail say what we really mean to say. That is one of the most difficult things to do: to say just what you mean so that it cannot be misunderstood. Moreover we are open to all kinds of influences, good and bad. Conditions in this world are confused and confusing, too complex for us to see all in the right light. Just now we are faced with a new theology, a new morality, what is truth in evolution, what is wrong in the presentation of it, what about the proper exegesis of the first chapters of Genesis, etc. it is not easy to sort out the good and the bad. We are open to error. This is true of individuals and groups of individuals such as boards of trustees, consistories, classes and synods.
2. Hence all through life we have controls. In political life we have checks and balances; in the home the parents; in the shop foremen; in the church elders; these are subject to the supervision of the classes; all kinds of boards report to the synod. We all need to be watched. If we are entrusted with an important job we have to report to those over us. That is necessary because we all can go astray. That is part of life and we accept it as such.
3. We all as members of families and of churches have a right and a duty to watch over one another and exhort one another, as the Scripture says. This so that we may be helped in the right way of living and God’s cause may be promoted in our lives. With that in view church members may and must watch ministers, elders, deacons, mission boards and other groups doing a job for the church. If they think that these go wrong they should make their concern known. That is their right and duty.
4. In exercising this right there is one consideration which must stand out above all else: We must seek to know and formulate and uphold and promote truth. This is a big order not easy to carry out. Truth is not necessarily what we have always been taught and have believed. We must allow for the possibility of new light. The Jewish leaders of Jesus’ day refused to listen to Jesus, and thereby became enemies of the truth. Life does not stand still. We cannot stand still. Much that was right in worshipping God before Jesus came was wrong after he had given his life and fulfilled the old ceremonial laws. We must try to judge intelligently new developments and accept whatever of truth they may contain. On the other hand the fact that one is up to date on all new teaching does not necessarily mean that he’s got tho truth. All this means study, careful reflection, prayer for guidance, willingness to let truth guide us. Some people have no patience for this, jump at conclusions. Yet this is the way, and Jesus has promised us the Holy Spirit to lead us into the truth.
5. If you feel constrained to protest some message or article or action, try to say clearly, de6nitely, just what your objection is. Just what do you think is wrong? Why is it wrong? What proof have you that it is wrong? Don’t come with vague accusations. Don’t make sweeping statements, as “This is terrible,” or “Where will this lead us?,” and such. They get you nowhere.
6. It is important to bring your objections to the proper body, the Board of Trustees or consistory or classis or synod. That is part of our rules by which we as church members live. That is good order. That can save the church from unnecessary disturbance, which is important. That is for your own protection too: if people criticise you for protesting you can say that you are following the procedure which the church has agreed upon. Such protesting must not be done from the pulpit or by stirring up a congregation or spreading documents through the denomination.
7. Before protesting consider your motives. Are you really seeking the truth? Could it be that you protest because you don’t like the man? Are you critical of church We in general? of your consistory? The heart is deceitful, you know. Make sure that you come with a good conscience before God.
8. When you bring a protest you must, of course, expect those to whom you bring it to use their own Christian judgment as you try to use yours. You must not expect them just to agree. If they did you could not respect them. If they disagree with you, that docs not necessarily mean that they are wrong, that they have no sense of justice.
9. Protests, if they have any content at all, take time to be studied and evaluated. Some times too much time goes by. That is too bad: those receiving them should aim to be prompt in answering. But consistories meet once a month, have heavy agenda. If they feel the need of advice by a committee these committee members have to do this work in addition to an already heavy load. It all takes time. Our classes generally meet three times a year and then usually only one day. It is just not practical to try to do justice to a sizable protest in addition to the regular program. So the classis probably needs a committee, and that takes four months. We must be reasonable. One can see that quite a bit of time would be needed, even with the best of intentions. This does not mean that these bodies are not interested in doing justice: I believe that our church bodies as a rule try earnestly, prayerfully, to do what is right.
10. The Acts of our 1968 synod tell how in one case the relationship between a protesting brother and the consistory and classis became such that communication practically almost ceased. That happens quite often. I am not excusing or accusing either side. But at times we get so deeply settled in a certain way of looking at a matter, become emotionally involved, get into personal angles, so that reasonable discussion is no more possible. That should not happen. If then we don’t get satisfaction we must bear a part of the responsibility for it.
11. We must not, when we don’t get the answer we want, be too ready to say that protesting is useless. The brother to whom Mr. Hoeksema in his letter refers did not get the reply he wanted. Yet his protest was not in vain. It is plain that the consistory and the classis and the synod gave a lot of attention to his protest. They did not give him the brushoff but considered what he brought before them. The minister whose sermon he criticised took back some things which were one-sided. We mayassume that this minister learned by this experience. He also explained how a certain one-sidedness was due to his method of making sermons. That can happen. One must be reasonable in such things. That’s the spirit of love. The minister once again expressed complete agreement with the Forms of Unity. Considering these things, and the fact that one cannot judge of man’s soundness in doctrine by one such sermon, Synod did not sustain the brother’s protest. And since there was no other protest against the minister there was no cause for action. Honestly, brethren, what else could synod do? And the protesting brother can be satisfied that the helped to bring the matter to a proper conclusion.
12. No, beloved brethren, we must not say that it is useless to go to our church bodies with complaints. If they are brought in the proper manner these bodies will listen and try to do what is right. This same synod of 1968 heard the protest of a brother minister who was burdened about certain decisions of the synod of 1967. This synod went out of its way, made its advisory committee work some more and more, until at last a formulation was found to which all could agree. Instances could be multiplied. Not that our church bodies are without fault; but they will try to do right.
Much more could be said, but I must not presume on the hospitality of the editors of this publication. Thank you, brethren for your kindness. May God bless these simple remarks toward better understanding, harmony, and peace.
JOHN GRITTER