The record shows how our church forefathers, facing the problems of immigrant adjustments, language, and personality differences, sought to be guided by the precepts of the Word of God. If we are going to keep a faith and a church that deserve the name Christian, we will have to seek the same guidance.
Why Ask the Question? – This subject, on which I was asked to make some observations, was the title of the two opening addresses of the Christian Reformed and Reformed Church of America Conference held in Holland, Michigan, October 31 to November.
2. Dr. John H. Kromminga of Calvin Theological Seminary and Dr. Elton Bruins of Hope College both took as their main source of information the Classis Holland Minutes 1848–1958 translated and published by a joint committee of the two denominations in 1943. These minutes are of common interest to both churches since they are their official records until the time when one group seceded to form what later came to be called the Christian Reformed Church.
According to a Calvinist Contact report (Nov. 20, 1972) by Rev. John G. Klomps who attended the Holland meeting, Dr. Kromminga traced the decision to separate from the Reformed Church to four factors: “(1) an undeniable element of separatism among some of the colony people; (2) some misinformation about the Reformed Church of America; (3) a fear of Americanization; and (4) some genuine disapproval of the theological way of dealing with issues.” He observed that the RCA, in North America since 1628, was much more America-oriented than the colony people who, having left the Netherlands only ten years previously, remained oriented to the Dutch social and theological situation. In a similar vein, according to the report, Dr. Bruins found a fear of Americanization expressed in the claim of one of the separating churches “that the RCA fraternized with churches which were against the doctrine of our fathers.” He also found personality difficulties apparently playing a part since some referred to Rev. A. C. Van Raalte (the leader of the immigrants in their settlement and in the decision to affiliate with the RCA) as “the little pope.”
Both speakers concluded that “sociological and cultural factors played as large a role as the differences of theological doctrine and practice in the 1857 separation,” and so set the conference off on a course of what a Calvin College Chimes report characterized as “headlong . . . pursuit of fellowship.” That is the course that is now being commended to our churches as one which we should all enthusiastically follow.
What is one to say of this evaluation of the separation of 1857 and the resulting beginning of the CRC church? Was it largely a fruit of narrow cultural and social prejudices and misunderstandings of recent immigrants which we have long outgrown and from which we should after 115 years dissociate ourselves by hastening into all forms of fellowship? What do the sources tell us actually happened in 1857?
The Record – In looking over the Classis Holland minutes, undoubtedly the most extensive source available, we soon observe that they were almost all written by Rev. A. C. Van Raalte. To the extent that personal prejudice may influence the formulation of such records, he as the leader in the union with the RCA can hardly be considered an impartial observer. At some points it almost becomes difficult to deter. mine what is the meeting’s decision and what is the clerk’s editorial comment. While noting, in passing, this characteristic of the records, what do we find them saying?
The 1851 minutes already reveal a Oe Haan (or Haan?) from Vriesland protesting failure to observe the Dordt Church Order in the retirement of elders and the neglect of observing the festival days. This is followed by a rather extensive admonition in the minutes directed against making such “unfair and untimely” accusations. An accusation from another quarter appears in the same minutes directed against Van Raalte for failing to preach the Catechism and it is followed by the latter’s defense.
At the April 28, 1853 meeting, accusations were brought against Rev. R. Smit of Drenthe that he had “tried to make the church secede, under pretext that we were sold to the Old Dutch Church by Rev. Van Raalte for a good purse of money.” On May 15 of the same year he and the Drenthe church announced their secession and the classis responded by deciding to depose Smit for his misconduct and schismatic activity.
In the record of September 1853 and again in the record of the same month of the following year Rev. Van Raalte, on his return from the meetings of the General Synod, gave highly favorable reports of the orthodoxy of the Reformed Church.
At the September 1855 meeting, Elder Haan, now of Grand Rapids, raised questions about the Lord’s Supper celebrated at the General Synod in which “the Christian public” were invited to take part. At the same meeting a slanderous letter against Van Raalte was laid aside without being read. The next year, in April, 1856, Elder Haan explained his complaint about open communion at the General Synod as having based on a report of a student at New Brunswick Seminary and also protested the manner of electing an elder in his congregation. In the ensuing discussion Van Raalte attributed Haan’s action to personal animus against the elder. Van Raalte also defended the Reformed Church against Haan’s charges of practicing open communion and various other members criticized Haan for sowing suspicion against the Re· formed Church. Haan defended himself by saying that he opposed secession but that he “has always been in doubt as to whether the Dutch Reformed Church is the (true) church; because he had heard the most unfavorable testimonies . . . .”
A number of voices, including Van Raalte’s, testi6ed to the purity of the Reformed Church. Haan attempted to support his position by appealing to a booklet published by a group who had previously seceded from the Reformed Church and Van Raalte attempted to brush aside this earlier secession of thirty years before as grounded on purely personal considerations. Some demanded that Haan make a confession of sin, which he refused to do. Thereupon the classis decided to call for a day of prayer regarding this matter. The October 9 meeting took note of the secession of elder Haan and others. It was also confronted by an objection from the Graafschap elders to the Reformed Church’s use of hymns, which Van Raalte defended.
The meeting of April 8, 1857 received notification of the secession of the consistories of Craafschap and Polkton and also of Rev. Klein and Rev. Vanden Bosch. Of these documents, that from Craafschap is the most extensive. It declares that the church was separating itself from the Reformed Church “together with all Protestant denominations, with which we thoughtlessly became connected upon our arrival in America” to unite with “the Afgescheidene Gereformeerde Kerk” in the Netherlands, and gives six reasons for this action:
“(1) The collection of 800 hymns, introduced contrary to the church order. (2) Inviting (men of) all religious views to the Lord’s Supper, excepting Roman Catholics. (3) Neglecting to preach the catechism regularly, (to hold) catechetical classes, and (to do) house visitation. (4) That no religious books are circulated without the consent of other denominations. directing your attention to the Sabbath booklet, with the practice by J. Van Der Meulen, in 1855. (5) And what grieves our hearts most in all of this is that there are members among you who regard our secession in the Netherlands as not strictly necessary, or (think that) it was untimely. (6) In the report of Rev. Wyckoff he gives us liberty to walk in this eclesiastical path.”
The President (Rev. P. J. Oggel) deplored these charges saying that joining the Reformed Church here was not a departure from the principles of the Netherlands secession. Rev. Van Raalte answered at much greater length that this development was “the fruit of a lust for schism already for a long time manifested by a few leaders,” “a mixture of ignorance, sectarianism, and a trampling under foot of the brethren, of which the ministers of Classis Holland have been constantly for years the prey, which trampling under foot now extends itself to the entire Old Dutch Reformed Church and the orthodox denominations (a spirit) which has never been characteristic of the Reformed Church (and) which shall bear the judgment of God.” Van Raalte attempted to refute the claims of the seceders in three more pages which are to a large extent an account of his argument with Rev. Klein about these points. The September 9 minutes record the return and reception of Rev. Klein back into the classis after he had made the required humble apologies for his “suspicion of the brethren and union with us as Dutch Reformed Church in America.”
The Question of Evaluation – To what conclusions does this rereading of the record bring us? Are there indications of misinformation about the Reformed Church and the general American situation, an immigrant fear of Americanization, evidence of personality clashes, etc.? There certainly are. Does not such a recognition demand that we should join the brethren in the Holland meeting in dismissing the separation of 1857 as the product of immigrant psychology and a cultural and social conditioning which we have long outgrown and ought to repudiate in a headlong pursuit of fellowship? Not at all.
As one reads these accounts he cannot evade the impression that these personality clashes were by no means on only one side of the disputes, and that the immigrant naivete about American religious conditions is as apparent in the arguments of the defenders of the RCA union as it is in some of those of the critics of it.
An Earlier Assessment – In a little book entitled The Christian Reformed Tradition published by Rev. D. H. Kromminga (father of the first speaker at the Holland meeting and one of the translators of the Classis Holland.Minutes), in the same year 1943 when those minutes appeared, we find a much more sensitive and discriminating evaluation of this material than the present cavalier treatment of it.
This little book by Rev. D. H. Kromminga pOints out that in 1849 when Rev. Van Raalte encountered fear of this union at Craafschap, according to R. T. Kuiper in his Tijdtvoord “Van Raalte neglected to institute an investigation concerning the factual basis of the objections raised and preferred to quiet the objectors with logic and eloquence.” We might add that this is exactly the impression one also gains from his speeches on the subject as summarized in the minutes.
The older Kromminga goes on to cite the observations of individuals who had had direct contact with particular eastern Reformed Churches. There were Ulberg’s observations about such matters as no catechism preaching in Wyckoff’s church, and baptism outside of the church services. Rev. D. H. Kromminga describes Haan as one who had been well trained as an elder under the leadership of the Dutch secession leader Van Velzen and whose “judgments evinced such a clear grasp of fundamental principles as secured for his word great influence among the settlers.” Kromminga observed further that “Van Velzen and his group were concerned about the preservation of the Reformed character of the Church more than about fellowship with kindred minds outside the organization,” and in this respect contrasted with the group of Brummelkamp who continued close fellowship with some leaders in the State church. “Van Raalte plainly represented the inclusive tendency among the seceders in this country, and now Haan came to represent here the strictly ecclesiastical tendency among them.” We are told of a number of specific observations Haan had made while in the east, of an elder who did not have his children baptized and saw no difference between denominations, a minister whose theology was evidently Arminian, neglect to preach about Predestination, prevalent lodge membership, Reformed leaders joining in a Methodist communion service, hymns displacing psalms, choirs displacing congregational singing, and Sunday School replacing catechism.
And Rev. D. H. Kromminga’s conclusion was: “Haan evidently had a remarkably correct picture of the leveling influence of American inter-denominational fellowship” (pp. 107, 108). Thereupon Kromminga proceeds to trace the development of opposition to the union together with the efforts to defend it, as we have also t:raced these in the minutes, until the decision was reacted on the part of some to break away from this uneasy union with a denomination whose faith and practice seemed to differ so markedly from their own.
How Should W. Evaluate What Happened?
The men of both churches who met in Holland last fall were told that the separation of 1857 was largely the product of narrow cultural and social prejudices and misunderstandings of recent immigrants which we ought now to disregard as we seek unity. The little book of D. H. Kromminga in 1943 demonstrates that it is possible to see the events of 1857 in historical perspective and at the same time to evaluate the secession much more sympathetically and appreciatively than is now being done. D. H. Kromminga. the professor who helped translate the minutes, could hardly be accused of ignorance of their contents; and the history scholar, who taught American church history to a generation of ministers, could hardly be accused of immigrant naivete about the American scene. The older Professor Kromminga gives a favorable account of the seceders’ action while neither of the two accounts given in Holland seem to indicate any sympathy for it. What explains this difference? The difference appears to be not just the result of increased historical knowledge or more mature judgment, but rather of increasing indifference to what were considered principles worth fighting for not long ago. Although in the introductory speech in Holland there is listed along with the social and cultural factors which produced the secession “(4) some genuine disapproval of the theological way of dealing with issues” in the conclusions and further discussions one hears no more of this. It was evidently not considered worthy of further attention.
A comparison of the Holland meeting and the records of 1857 reveals that we are not really facing a difference between Reformed and Christian Reformed so much as a difference between the men of today who no longer seem to care about theological issues and the men of 1857 on both sides of the controversy who did! While it is true that the 1857 seceders tended to emphasize the need to be distinctively Reformed in faith and practice and those who remained with the Reformed Church tended to stress the need for unity (the difference between Van Raalte and Haan) yet even those who remained in and defended the union with the Reformed Church tried to do so on the ground of remaining true to the Reformed Faith. In other decisions in the old minutes they all showed a concern about maintaining church discipline that is rare in either denomination today. When maintaining what the Lord and His Word teach us are distinguishing marks of a real Christian church, (faithful preaching and teaching of the gospel, careful administration of the sacraments, and Christian discipline of doctrine and life) receives so little attention from both Reformed and Christian Reformed leaders, can a unity of fellowship and action based on such indifference to the Lord’s own orders promise any good to either church?
While our Lord indeed prayed that His followers might “be one,” we must not overlook the fact that that unity for which He prayed was to be brought about by their being “sanctified” in God’s truth (John 17:11, 22, 17). His word urges them to “contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered unto the saints” (Jude 3), to “be not unequally yoked with unbelievers” (II Cor. 6:14), to “have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness” (Eph. 5;10). The record shows how our church forefathers, facing the problems of immigrant adjustments, language, and personality differences, sought to be guided by the precepts of the Word of God. If we are going to keep a faith and a church that deserve the name Christian, we will have to seek the same guidance. Rather then turning our backs on our forefathers and our own history, we might much more profitably relearn the lesson they did, that when any church leadership begins to turn from the Lord’s Word and the confessional bonds which bind the churches together, refusal to submit to such leadership is not a sin but a Christian duty. “We must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29). Relearning that lesson instead of joining in an indiscriminate search for union may well be one of the greatest needs of the churches of our time.
Peter De Jong is pastor of the Christian Reformed Church of Dutton, Michigan.
Why Ask the Question? – This subject, on which I was asked to make some observations, was the title of the two opening addresses of the Christian Reformed and Reformed Church of America Conference held in Holland, Michigan, October 31 to November.
2. Dr. John H. Kromminga of Calvin Theological Seminary and Dr. Elton Bruins of Hope College both took as their main source of information the Classis Holland Minutes 1848–1958 translated and published by a joint committee of the two denominations in 1943. These minutes are of common interest to both churches since they are their official records until the time when one group seceded to form what later came to be called the Christian Reformed Church.
According to a Calvinist Contact report (Nov. 20, 1972) by Rev. John G. Klomps who attended the Holland meeting, Dr. Kromminga traced the decision to separate from the Reformed Church to four factors: “(1) an undeniable element of separatism among some of the colony people; (2) some misinformation about the Reformed Church of America; (3) a fear of Americanization; and (4) some genuine disapproval of the theological way of dealing with issues.” He observed that the RCA, in North America since 1628, was much more America-oriented than the colony people who, having left the Netherlands only ten years previously, remained oriented to the Dutch social and theological situation. In a similar vein, according to the report, Dr. Bruins found a fear of Americanization expressed in the claim of one of the separating churches “that the RCA fraternized with churches which were against the doctrine of our fathers.” He also found personality difficulties apparently playing a part since some referred to Rev. A. C. Van Raalte (the leader of the immigrants in their settlement and in the decision to affiliate with the RCA) as “the little pope.”
Both speakers concluded that “sociological and cultural factors played as large a role as the differences of theological doctrine and practice in the 1857 separation,” and so set the conference off on a course of what a Calvin College Chimes report characterized as “headlong . . . pursuit of fellowship.” That is the course that is now being commended to our churches as one which we should all enthusiastically follow.
What is one to say of this evaluation of the separation of 1857 and the resulting beginning of the CRC church? Was it largely a fruit of narrow cultural and social prejudices and misunderstandings of recent immigrants which we have long outgrown and from which we should after 115 years dissociate ourselves by hastening into all forms of fellowship? What do the sources tell us actually happened in 1857?
The Record – In looking over the Classis Holland minutes, undoubtedly the most extensive source available, we soon observe that they were almost all written by Rev. A. C. Van Raalte. To the extent that personal prejudice may influence the formulation of such records, he as the leader in the union with the RCA can hardly be considered an impartial observer. At some points it almost becomes difficult to deter. mine what is the meeting’s decision and what is the clerk’s editorial comment. While noting, in passing, this characteristic of the records, what do we find them saying?
The 1851 minutes already reveal a Oe Haan (or Haan?) from Vriesland protesting failure to observe the Dordt Church Order in the retirement of elders and the neglect of observing the festival days. This is followed by a rather extensive admonition in the minutes directed against making such “unfair and untimely” accusations. An accusation from another quarter appears in the same minutes directed against Van Raalte for failing to preach the Catechism and it is followed by the latter’s defense.
At the April 28, 1853 meeting, accusations were brought against Rev. R. Smit of Drenthe that he had “tried to make the church secede, under pretext that we were sold to the Old Dutch Church by Rev. Van Raalte for a good purse of money.” On May 15 of the same year he and the Drenthe church announced their secession and the classis responded by deciding to depose Smit for his misconduct and schismatic activity.
In the record of September 1853 and again in the record of the same month of the following year Rev. Van Raalte, on his return from the meetings of the General Synod, gave highly favorable reports of the orthodoxy of the Reformed Church.
At the September 1855 meeting, Elder Haan, now of Grand Rapids, raised questions about the Lord’s Supper celebrated at the General Synod in which “the Christian public” were invited to take part. At the same meeting a slanderous letter against Van Raalte was laid aside without being read. The next year, in April, 1856, Elder Haan explained his complaint about open communion at the General Synod as having based on a report of a student at New Brunswick Seminary and also protested the manner of electing an elder in his congregation. In the ensuing discussion Van Raalte attributed Haan’s action to personal animus against the elder. Van Raalte also defended the Reformed Church against Haan’s charges of practicing open communion and various other members criticized Haan for sowing suspicion against the Re· formed Church. Haan defended himself by saying that he opposed secession but that he “has always been in doubt as to whether the Dutch Reformed Church is the (true) church; because he had heard the most unfavorable testimonies . . . .”
A number of voices, including Van Raalte’s, testi6ed to the purity of the Reformed Church. Haan attempted to support his position by appealing to a booklet published by a group who had previously seceded from the Reformed Church and Van Raalte attempted to brush aside this earlier secession of thirty years before as grounded on purely personal considerations. Some demanded that Haan make a confession of sin, which he refused to do. Thereupon the classis decided to call for a day of prayer regarding this matter. The October 9 meeting took note of the secession of elder Haan and others. It was also confronted by an objection from the Graafschap elders to the Reformed Church’s use of hymns, which Van Raalte defended.
The meeting of April 8, 1857 received notification of the secession of the consistories of Craafschap and Polkton and also of Rev. Klein and Rev. Vanden Bosch. Of these documents, that from Craafschap is the most extensive. It declares that the church was separating itself from the Reformed Church “together with all Protestant denominations, with which we thoughtlessly became connected upon our arrival in America” to unite with “the Afgescheidene Gereformeerde Kerk” in the Netherlands, and gives six reasons for this action:
“(1) The collection of 800 hymns, introduced contrary to the church order. (2) Inviting (men of) all religious views to the Lord’s Supper, excepting Roman Catholics. (3) Neglecting to preach the catechism regularly, (to hold) catechetical classes, and (to do) house visitation. (4) That no religious books are circulated without the consent of other denominations. directing your attention to the Sabbath booklet, with the practice by J. Van Der Meulen, in 1855. (5) And what grieves our hearts most in all of this is that there are members among you who regard our secession in the Netherlands as not strictly necessary, or (think that) it was untimely. (6) In the report of Rev. Wyckoff he gives us liberty to walk in this eclesiastical path.”
The President (Rev. P. J. Oggel) deplored these charges saying that joining the Reformed Church here was not a departure from the principles of the Netherlands secession. Rev. Van Raalte answered at much greater length that this development was “the fruit of a lust for schism already for a long time manifested by a few leaders,” “a mixture of ignorance, sectarianism, and a trampling under foot of the brethren, of which the ministers of Classis Holland have been constantly for years the prey, which trampling under foot now extends itself to the entire Old Dutch Reformed Church and the orthodox denominations (a spirit) which has never been characteristic of the Reformed Church (and) which shall bear the judgment of God.” Van Raalte attempted to refute the claims of the seceders in three more pages which are to a large extent an account of his argument with Rev. Klein about these points. The September 9 minutes record the return and reception of Rev. Klein back into the classis after he had made the required humble apologies for his “suspicion of the brethren and union with us as Dutch Reformed Church in America.”
The Question of Evaluation – To what conclusions does this rereading of the record bring us? Are there indications of misinformation about the Reformed Church and the general American situation, an immigrant fear of Americanization, evidence of personality clashes, etc.? There certainly are. Does not such a recognition demand that we should join the brethren in the Holland meeting in dismissing the separation of 1857 as the product of immigrant psychology and a cultural and social conditioning which we have long outgrown and ought to repudiate in a headlong pursuit of fellowship? Not at all.
As one reads these accounts he cannot evade the impression that these personality clashes were by no means on only one side of the disputes, and that the immigrant naivete about American religious conditions is as apparent in the arguments of the defenders of the RCA union as it is in some of those of the critics of it.
An Earlier Assessment – In a little book entitled The Christian Reformed Tradition published by Rev. D. H. Kromminga (father of the first speaker at the Holland meeting and one of the translators of the Classis Holland.Minutes), in the same year 1943 when those minutes appeared, we find a much more sensitive and discriminating evaluation of this material than the present cavalier treatment of it.
This little book by Rev. D. H. Kromminga pOints out that in 1849 when Rev. Van Raalte encountered fear of this union at Craafschap, according to R. T. Kuiper in his Tijdtvoord “Van Raalte neglected to institute an investigation concerning the factual basis of the objections raised and preferred to quiet the objectors with logic and eloquence.” We might add that this is exactly the impression one also gains from his speeches on the subject as summarized in the minutes.
The older Kromminga goes on to cite the observations of individuals who had had direct contact with particular eastern Reformed Churches. There were Ulberg’s observations about such matters as no catechism preaching in Wyckoff’s church, and baptism outside of the church services. Rev. D. H. Kromminga describes Haan as one who had been well trained as an elder under the leadership of the Dutch secession leader Van Velzen and whose “judgments evinced such a clear grasp of fundamental principles as secured for his word great influence among the settlers.” Kromminga observed further that “Van Velzen and his group were concerned about the preservation of the Reformed character of the Church more than about fellowship with kindred minds outside the organization,” and in this respect contrasted with the group of Brummelkamp who continued close fellowship with some leaders in the State church. “Van Raalte plainly represented the inclusive tendency among the seceders in this country, and now Haan came to represent here the strictly ecclesiastical tendency among them.” We are told of a number of specific observations Haan had made while in the east, of an elder who did not have his children baptized and saw no difference between denominations, a minister whose theology was evidently Arminian, neglect to preach about Predestination, prevalent lodge membership, Reformed leaders joining in a Methodist communion service, hymns displacing psalms, choirs displacing congregational singing, and Sunday School replacing catechism.
And Rev. D. H. Kromminga’s conclusion was: “Haan evidently had a remarkably correct picture of the leveling influence of American inter-denominational fellowship” (pp. 107, 108). Thereupon Kromminga proceeds to trace the development of opposition to the union together with the efforts to defend it, as we have also t:raced these in the minutes, until the decision was reacted on the part of some to break away from this uneasy union with a denomination whose faith and practice seemed to differ so markedly from their own.
How Should W. Evaluate What Happened?
The men of both churches who met in Holland last fall were told that the separation of 1857 was largely the product of narrow cultural and social prejudices and misunderstandings of recent immigrants which we ought now to disregard as we seek unity. The little book of D. H. Kromminga in 1943 demonstrates that it is possible to see the events of 1857 in historical perspective and at the same time to evaluate the secession much more sympathetically and appreciatively than is now being done. D. H. Kromminga. the professor who helped translate the minutes, could hardly be accused of ignorance of their contents; and the history scholar, who taught American church history to a generation of ministers, could hardly be accused of immigrant naivete about the American scene. The older Professor Kromminga gives a favorable account of the seceders’ action while neither of the two accounts given in Holland seem to indicate any sympathy for it. What explains this difference? The difference appears to be not just the result of increased historical knowledge or more mature judgment, but rather of increasing indifference to what were considered principles worth fighting for not long ago. Although in the introductory speech in Holland there is listed along with the social and cultural factors which produced the secession “(4) some genuine disapproval of the theological way of dealing with issues” in the conclusions and further discussions one hears no more of this. It was evidently not considered worthy of further attention.
A comparison of the Holland meeting and the records of 1857 reveals that we are not really facing a difference between Reformed and Christian Reformed so much as a difference between the men of today who no longer seem to care about theological issues and the men of 1857 on both sides of the controversy who did! While it is true that the 1857 seceders tended to emphasize the need to be distinctively Reformed in faith and practice and those who remained with the Reformed Church tended to stress the need for unity (the difference between Van Raalte and Haan) yet even those who remained in and defended the union with the Reformed Church tried to do so on the ground of remaining true to the Reformed Faith. In other decisions in the old minutes they all showed a concern about maintaining church discipline that is rare in either denomination today. When maintaining what the Lord and His Word teach us are distinguishing marks of a real Christian church, (faithful preaching and teaching of the gospel, careful administration of the sacraments, and Christian discipline of doctrine and life) receives so little attention from both Reformed and Christian Reformed leaders, can a unity of fellowship and action based on such indifference to the Lord’s own orders promise any good to either church?
While our Lord indeed prayed that His followers might “be one,” we must not overlook the fact that that unity for which He prayed was to be brought about by their being “sanctified” in God’s truth (John 17:11, 22, 17). His word urges them to “contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered unto the saints” (Jude 3), to “be not unequally yoked with unbelievers” (II Cor. 6:14), to “have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness” (Eph. 5;10). The record shows how our church forefathers, facing the problems of immigrant adjustments, language, and personality differences, sought to be guided by the precepts of the Word of God. If we are going to keep a faith and a church that deserve the name Christian, we will have to seek the same guidance. Rather then turning our backs on our forefathers and our own history, we might much more profitably relearn the lesson they did, that when any church leadership begins to turn from the Lord’s Word and the confessional bonds which bind the churches together, refusal to submit to such leadership is not a sin but a Christian duty. “We must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29). Relearning that lesson instead of joining in an indiscriminate search for union may well be one of the greatest needs of the churches of our time.
Peter De Jong is pastor of the Christian Reformed Church of Dutton, Michigan.