In the November, 1956 issue of Torch and Trumpet (forerunner of THE OUTLOOK) the late Professor Martin Monsma of Calvin Theological Seminary, had an extensive article on “The Believer‘s Office and the Church.” Under the title, “Prophets, Priests, and Kings – One and All” we are herewith reproducing a thought-provoking and interesting section of that article.

The fact that all truo Christians are prophets, priests, and kings, implies the right and the duty of believers to judge as to the Church‘s doctrinal position and as to its ecclesiastical practices.

The members of our churches need not and may not take for granted that everything is always well with the church. One member, in the nature of the case, is much better qualified to pass a responsible judgment on the church’s acts and pronouncements than another. But all members share the anOinting of Christ, so that they are prophets, priests, and kings under him. We should never treat God’s believing people as minors who have no voice in matters spiritual and ecclesiastical, but we should bear in mind that John testified regarding the membership of Christ’s church, “And ye have an anointing from the Holy One, and ye know all things” (I John 2:20).

And. this, of course, includes the right of protest and appeal. Not only do our members have the right to protest against what they consider to be personal injustices, or to appeal decisions involving them personally, or affecting their personal honor, but they have the full right to make use of these avenues regarding any procedure or decision which they consider to be in error. This is true especially when they are convinced that doctrinal errors arc involved, and decisions touching the spiritual welfare of God‘s Church are at stake. This right of protest and appeal is specifically guaranteed to all our members in Article 31 of the Church Order of Dort.

For example, if at any time a professor at our Calvin College or Seminary should begin to teach unbiblieal doctrines, it would surely be the duty of the Board of Trustees to take action. And it would also be the privilege and duty of our consistories, classes and synods to take action, aiming at the correction of the situation suggested.

But not only do we hold that our consistories, classes and synods would have the duty and right to act in such instances; we a1so hold that every member has the right to initiate action regarding a professor who might be teaching erroneous or false doctrines. Of course, such a believer would have to follow the right procedure. But the right of complaint, the right of protest, the right to initiate action against one teaching false doctrines belongs to every member of the Christian Reformed Church.

And if ever one of our ministers becomes unbiblical in his preaching or teaching, his consistory is obligated to take action. But no church member should ever sit and wait complacently for consistorial action, when the minister of his church becomes, let us say, modernistic in his teaching and preaching.

It is the duty of the consistory to act in such instances. But the membership of the church also has solemn rights and duties in such instances. Especially if in the interest of a false peace the office-bearers should neglect to do the things demanded of them. lnasmuch as every believer is God’s prophet, priest, and king, he has the responsibility and the right to help guard the church against error and false doctrine. And office-bearers must give a protestant full opportunity to present his case, and endeavor to give him a fair hearing.

The believer‘s office, as it affects our church membership, implies the right of reformation.

This right also follows from the believer‘s office and his prerogative and duty to weigh in the balance of God‘s Word and the accepted standards that which is being taught and done in the church.

Now if in any instance as suggested, complaints and protests do not help, inasmuch as those in authority refuse to take the necessary action against those guilty, then ultimately those who stand by the Scriptures and the creeds of the church should repudiate the authority of those office-bearers and assemblies which have become unfaithful, and they should reform, that is, reorganize the church or churches.

Tn other words, those who, under circumstances as suggested, remain faithful to Christ and to the Word of God should repudiate the unfaithful officebearers and elect office-bearers from among those who are faithful

The need for reformation may at a given time and in a given instance be rather local and confined, so that only one or but few congregations are involved. But this need may also be general, so that many churches are involved. In extreme cases a whole denomination may be concerned. But whether the departure from God’s Word, the accepted creeds, and the Church Order is confined to one or a few churches or is general in scope, the right of reformation becomes operative in all instances. And this right may be exercised by the believers as individuals, as well as by office-bearers as members of their consistories or as functioning through the major assemblies. In the latter instances whole classes or synods may exercise this right of reformation.

This right of reformation has a counterpart or, rather, a complement, namely the right of secession. If a denomination is under control of those who arc unfaithful, and if petitions or protests remain unheeded or ineffective, and if attempts at reformation are blocked or unsuccessful, then the true welfare of God‘s Church and the spiritual protection of God‘s people may require that the faithful withdraw themselves from the corrupt or false church, and establish a new denomination.

Such secession may be not only advisable, but under certain circumstances it becomes mandatory, and a move, as it were, dictated by the Word of God and the believer‘s Christian conscience guided by God‘s Word and his Spirit.

This right of reformation and secession our fathers exercised in the Netherlands in 1834, when they seceded from the then State Church of Holland, and again in 1886 when others felt compelled to repudiate the authority of the same state-controlled modernistic Hervormde Kerk, and became the Doleerende Kerken—that is, complaining or aggrieved churches.

In modified fonn and in a limited way this same right of reformation and secession was also exercised when in 1857 the organizers of the Christian Reformed Church left the Reformed Church in America and founded the denomination which is ours today. When the majority of the pioneer churches which had settled in western Michigan ten years before, and which had conditionally and rather unofficially affiliated themselves with the Reformed Church in America, desired to remain in this denomination, a few of these churches felt persuaded and in conscience bound to break off this relationship, and to. return to the original independent position which obtained before they as immigrant churches had joined the denomination referred to above.

I do not mean to say that the motives of all the returning leaders were altogether pure and valid. Are they ever that in the present imperfect dispensation of Christ’s Church? Doubtless some of the men of that day can be justly criticized for some of their attitudes and actions.

But this admission having been made, I would also say, and that with emphasis, that the leaders of a century ago were moved by well-founded and just fears. They felt and maintained that there were tendencies and policies in the denomination with which they had affiliated themselves which did not augur well for their immigrant churches. They feared for themselves and their children as far as the truly Reformed character of the denomination was concerned. For these reasons they severed this relationship and formed their own, independent denomination. In my sincere and humble judgment subsequent history has more than vindicated them.

We may be happy that the right of protest and appeal is not merely guaranteed to our churches and people in our Church Order, but that in the actual life of the churches this right is more than a theoretical and half–forgotten rule.

We should discourage all faultfinding and petty bickering. But we should never discourage those of our people who have legitimate grievances from voicing such grievances. And we should always be ready to give a fair and full consideration to complaints and protests. Especially so when the scriptural character of our positions is in question. Let us ever encourage our people to exercise their divinely-given rights regarding the maintenance of the Church’s purity in doctrine and life. Let us teach them that it is both their privilege and their duty to help guard the fort against all attacks. 1t is better to have a few unfounded complaints or protests from time to time than never to have any complaints and protests. A church whose members have lost their sense of duty on this score, and who are no longer aroused to action when neglect becomes common, and false doctrine is tolerated, is on its last stretch as a truly biblical Church of Christ.

God grant that we may all grow in the awareness and appreciation of our creationai Christ–restored three-fold office. May we exercise this office more actively for the century ahead. May we resist and overcome any tendency or attempt to stille its voice and to stymie its activity.

The Christian Reformed Church must expect endeavors on the part of those who are in error and who cherish false doctrines to make covered or open attacks upon its uncompromising confession of God’s blessed and unalterable truth. We have God’s own Word for this.

The forces of darkness will continue to attack the forces of light. The conflict between Christ and the Prince of this world will not cease until the consummation of all things at Christ’s second coming. And the measure of damage which the evil one may succeed in inflicting on our stronghold will in part he determined by the measure of sensitivity and activity which the members of our churches will manifest as to their high calling regarding their glorious threefold office as believers.