We found an extremely interesting paragraph in a book by the late Professor D.H. Kromminga, who taught church history in our Seminary before his death. The book is entitled: The Christian Reformed Tradition From the Reformation to the Present, a 161-page volume we wish could be found in every one of our homes. The paragraph we have in mind concerns the attitude of the mother church in the Netherlands toward the Christian Reformed Church in this country in the first years of its. existence. At first that attitude toward the “Seceders” was not too friendly. However, a decided change came when it was learned in the old country that some of those who had affiliated with the Dutch Reformed Church, as it was called then, seceded partly because of the toleration of lodge members among ministers and members in the denomination which they had joined conditionally and without knowing much about it.

Concerning that change in the attitude of the Christian Reformed Church of the Netherlands we read on page 121 of Professor Kromminga’s book:

“This change in attitude of the Christian Reformed Synod in the Netherlands to the Reformed Church in America naturally went hand in hand with greater friendliness to the American Christian Reformed Church. It swung a greater proportion of the immigration to this Church just at the time when emigration front the Netherlands to America was markedly on the increase, and thus it greatly furthered also the influence which the revival of Calvinism over there came to have on our churches” (italics ours–K.).

         

           

We should consider well the significance of these statements, First, the uncompromising stand of the Christian Reformed Church in this country against the lodge helped to “make” this church, as far as numbers were concerned. If it had not been for this stand many more of the immigrants would have joined the Reformed Church in which by far the largest number of the earlier immigrants had remained when a small group seceded and established the Christian Reformed Church, For those later immigrants had many relatives and friends in the “colony” who had not gone along with the Secession, It was the toleration of lodge members which turned many to the “Seceder” Church. Hence the comparatively rapid growth of that Church was due largely to its firm stand against secret societies.

But that is not all. According to the writer we quoted above, the change in attitude of the Dutch Christian Reformed Church toward the “Seceders” in the new country “thus greatly furthered also the influence which the revival of Calvinism over there came to have on our churches.” It was because of the great influence of many later immigrants that the Christian Reformed Church threw its weight on the side of such important movements and institutions as the parental Christian dayschool, the establishment of societies for Christian mercy (think of Bethesda Sanatorium, Pine Rest Hospital, etc.), the formation of men’s societies, young men’s societies, young women’s societies, and Christian labor organizations. None of these gained a foothold in the Reformed Church, though we can thankfully record the fact that there is an increasing measure of cooperation in some of these Kingdom projects between Reformed and Christian Reformed churches and church members.

Even this is not all, The revival of Reformed theology in the old country also exerted a much greater influence in the Christian Reformed Church than in its sister denomination. The books of Kuyper, Bavinck, and other Dutch theologians were read with avidity by ministers and laymen, And all this, according to Professor Kromminga, was to a great extent the fruit of the consistent anti-lodge stand of the Christian Reformed Church from the beginning of its existence.

There is, of course, more to be said in favor of the ban on lodge membership by the Christian Reformed Church, Freemasonry and other secret orders undermine the church in various ways, partly because of their anti-Christian doctrines and partly because a lodge-ridden church tends to become a church composed hugely of women, For it is an incontrovertible fact that consistent lodge-members are satisfied with the religious teachings and rituals of their order and feel no need of the church.

In view of the wholesome influence which its opposition to lodges has had on the Christian Reformed Church and the great dangers which secret societies pose for the church, we should view with great concern every attempt, even the slightest, to modify or weaken our stand against them. That holds for the suggestion made by one of our ministers a couple of years ago to accept mission converts in our churches even if they are not convinced of’ the irreconcilable conflict between Bible teaching and lodge doctrine and expelling them later if after sufficient instruction they persist in their lodge membership. Aside from the plain inconsistency of such a policy, it would probably become the opening wedge for the toleration of lodgism in the Christian Reformed Church.

We would probably not refer to this suggestion of compromise with organized religious secretism if we did not hear of its occasional defense. Moreover, we can well understand that our home missionaries are sometimes tempted to toy with the idea since lodge membership is so common among a certain class of unchurched people. All honor to our home missionaries for remaining faithful to the principles and policies for which their Church stands and for not being afraid to explain to those who are favorably impressed with their message why membership in a lodge is inconsistent not only with membership in an evangelical church but with the most fundamental teachings of the Word of God. For Freemasonry is a religion, a false religion because it denies the trinity, the eternal godhead of the Lord Jesus Christ, and other basic truths and proclaims good works as the way to salvation. And the same is true of other secret orders.

May the day never come when the Christian Reformed Church retreats from its position that no one can be a member of anyone of its churches who joins a lodge or refuses to renounce his membership in a lodge. But it will not be sufficient for Synod’s stand in this matter to remain one of its rules, The rule must be enforced by all our consistories and our ministers should deem it their solemn duty to instruct every new rising generation in the reasons for this rule.