Book Review

Extracted from Ordained Servant vol. 4, no. 3 (July 1995)


The Liberation: Causes and Consequences, Cornelis Van Dam, editor. Winnipeg: Premier Publishing, 1995, 167 pp. $7.75 (Canadian).

I found it difficult to write this review. The reason is not the length of this book, or any lack of clarity in it. It is rather the fact that the content of the book is already a kind of report or summation—and it is difficult to summarize a summary! Nevertheless, because of the importance of what the Canadian Reformed Churches call “The Liberation” I have attempted to do it.

The book consists of an edited version of three major addresses given at meetings held in Burlington, Ontario in October of 1994. The occasion was the fiftieth anniversary of “the ecclesiastical Liberation that occurred in the Netherlands in 1944.” Included with each of the three addresses is an edited version of the discussion—with questions and answers—that followed.

I

Only one of the speakers, Dr. J. Faber, “was an eyewitness of the events” that took place a half century ago. He was asked to deal with the doctrinal issue.

He began by emphasizing Abraham Kuyper’s influence in the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands (RCN) in the 30s. Kuyper had spoken of the image of God in a broader and in a narrower sense, of common and special grace, of a visible and invisible church, an external and internal covenant, and so on. In those days, says Faber, there were “lively polemics about the pluriformity of the church, about God’s covenant and about self-examination” and so on. “In many respects,” he continues, “they were a continuation of discussions that had taken place after the union of 1892 between theologians of the Secession of 1834 and of the Doleantie of 1886.” These differences “found a peaceful solution” in a compromise-formula at the General Synod of Utrecht (in) 1905. This formula was framed in such a way that Kuyper’s views—while recognized as legitimate—were not seen as the only views allowed in the Church.

The General Synod of Sneek convened just before the outbreak of World War II. In violation of the Church Order, it continued until April of 1943. Toward the end of this period—in 1942—it issued doctrinal statements about five topics which had been hotly debated during the 30s. The most important, says Dr. Faber, was its statement on the covenant of grace. While it reiterated part of the 1905 compromise formula, it then added the following statement:

...the seed of the covenant, by virtue of the promise of God, must be held to be regenerated and sanctified in Christ until, upon their growing up, the opposite should become apparent from their conduct or doctrine.

And that is not all! This was accompanied by an explanatory statement called Toelichting (Elucidation). It required “Classes...to examine candidates for the ministry on these doctrinal points and to assure themselves that the candidates agreed with Synod’s pronouncements.” It was, in effect, the imposition of a fourth Form of Unity.

The main issue concerned “the relation between God’s election and God’s covenant.” Did God establish his covenant with the elect (or with Christ, and the elect in him), or did he establish his covenant with Abraham and his seed? Was it a covenant of election, or a covenant of promise?

Faber says Kuyper and other prominent theologians of the Doleantie were supralapsarians. In their thought the doctrine of the covenant was dominated by election. For this reason they spoke of the essential or internal covenant as made only with the elect. In opposition to this Faber quotes the well-known text in Deuteronomy 29:29, “The secret things belong to the Lord our God; but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children for ever....” Faber says, “The covenant is not a secret thing like election but a revealed thing.... God establishes his covenant with believers and their children, all their children...with Esau as well as Jacob.”

Flowing from Kuyper’s view of the covenant was his view of baptism whereby the “position of all those who are baptized may be called special but...not the covenant position.” Those who opposed the imposition by Synod of this view were unwilling to speak of a twofold covenant, or a baptism that did not, in every case, signify a bona fide covenant position. Faber rightly points out that the Paul (in I Cor. 7:14) says all the children of believers are holy. He says this term “holy” means “set apart from the godless world and dedicated to God.” And in this there is no assumption, or presumption at all.

“Those who let the doctrine of the covenant be dominated by the doctrine of election” also made “a distinction between a conditional and an unconditional promise.” The conditional is an offer. The unconditional is a prediction. It was precisely this “scholastic distinction,” says Faber, “that confused Reformed people.” Those who refused to submit to Synod’s pronouncements maintained that there is no prediction here but only the promise of salvation.

True, as the form for baptism says, all covenants contain two parts—a promise and an obligation. The trouble was, says Faber, that under the Synod’s statement “baptism became a sign and seal of internal grace...presumed to be present in the heart of every child” (and yet not certain to be present). Prior to 1942 this view was tolerated in the Church but henceforth it was to be binding. Dr. Klaas Schilder and others refused to submit. The end result was that he (and others) were deposed from office. This, in turn, precipitated “the Liberation.”

At this point questions were asked and answered. Perhaps the most important was this: Was it the binding that was intolerable? Or was it the doctrine itself? Faber’s response is clear and emphatic: it was the binding. He said he would not throw a man out of the church who had Kuyper’s view.

Asked about the present state of the CRC in relation to these things, Faber said the CRC deviations are “in a certain way much deeper.” It is not a problem now of a Kuyperian concept but of “the new hermeneutic that leads to all kinds of...unscriptural positions.”

II

The second speaker was Dr. J. De Jong, professor of Ecclesiology and Diaconology at the Canadian Reformed Church’s Seminary in Hamilton, Ontario. He dealt with “Church-Political Aspects.” As Dr. De Jong put it: “although the doctrinal issues set the wheels of division in motion, it was the church-political matters that really led to the polarization between the two groups.”

The Synod issued its demand for conformity in October of 1942. In answer to this, Dr. Schilder wrote a letter to his local consistory (in Kampen) in which he insisted that “the General Synod was a meeting not of churches, but of the delegates of the churches, and that these delegates were bound by their instructions and credentials.” He therefore urged his consistory to declare that it could not accept the decisions of the Synod as settled and binding according to Article 31 of the church order. He also asked his consistory to request the classis of which it was a part to take the same position, and it in turn to petition the Provincial Synod to recall the delegates seated at what he called the “presently unlawful” General Synod. His “strategy was aimed at stopping the course of action chosen by the existing Synod, freeing up time for the churches to digest information from that Synod, and setting the mechanics in motion for the organization of a new Synod.”

A new Synod did meet in Utrecht on the 22nd of June, 1943, a few weeks after the previous Synod had closed. It was faced with a large number of appeals but all were rejected. The decisions of the previous Synod of Sneek were declared settled and binding. This was justified on the basis of the use of the word “ordinarily” in Church Order Article 50.[1] And the binding was declared to remain in effect because “it had not yet been proven that its decisions were contrary to Scripture and confession, and the adopted church order.”

Schilder accepted the legality of the new Synod, but in December he sent an advice to the Synod in which he outlined his objections to the doctrinal stand taken by the previous Synod. Three days later the Synod reacted in a forceful way, declaring the doctrinal binding, previously applicable only to candidates, to be now extended to everyone. At this point Schilder, assuming that his advice had been ignored, sent his letter to the churches. This provoked a reaction by the Synod in which his action was called a mutiny causing schism in the churches. A resolution was passed giving Schilder two weeks to change his position, and to declare his submission. In reply Schilder requested the opportunity to present a written defense. With this reply he sent a sealed envelope, asking that it not be opened until opportunity for defense had been given. But Synod rejected the request and opened the envelope. When it saw that the envelope contained a negative answer to the demand for submission, suspension and deposition followed. (A colleague—Dr. S. Greijdanus—had been suspended earlier.) Thus began a series of suspensions of ministers, elders, deacons and even of entire churches.

Eight days after Schilder’s suspension (Aug. 11, 1944), a meeting was held in The Hague for the purpose of liberating the churches. Schilder drew up the Act of Liberation and Return. It followed the model used in the Doleantie of 1886 rather than the Secession of 1834. Dr. De Jong makes some interesting observations about the significance of Church Order Articles 31[2] and 50 in this history. The Synod insisted that conformity to all Synod decisions was required until those decisions were proven to be in conflict with Scripture, the Confessions and Church Order. But Article 31 does not say “until.” It says “unless.” And Schilder and the “concerned” insisted “‘unless’ meant that as soon as a consistory or individual found points of discrepancy with either the true doctrine or the accepted order that” there was “a right of appeal, and as such” exempted “from taking the decision as settled and binding.” In other words, until their objections were heard and adjudicated they were not bound.

With respect to Article 50 the “concerned” pointed out that the term “ordinarily” was inserted in the article at the time of the Synod of Dordt for one specific reason. It met when civil authorities had a significant role in the life of the churches. Dordt knew that future Synods could only be held with the approval of civil rulers. The “concerned” therefore concluded that the use made of this term by the Synods of 1942 and 1943 deviated from the original intent. The Synod also cited the fact that the Synod of Dordt had deposed Remonstrant ministers, as over against the view of the “concerned” to the effect that disciplinary power was only given by Christ to local churches.

In any event, as De Jong says, “the immediate cause of the Liberation was the suspensions and depositions which began to be promulgated by the Synod of Utrecht behind...closed doors” (my emphasis). And “the most astonishing feature” of it was Synod’s refusal to receive Schilder’s defense of his position. Add to this the novel way of interpreting Articles 31 and 50 and you begin to understand the magnitude of the injustice under which the “concerned” labored.

It is nevertheless noteworthy that Dr. De Jong does not depict the “concerned” as faultless. After all, having recognized that the Synod of Utrecht was legitimate, they did have the responsibility of proving that the decision to which they objected was wrong. “This is a point that the concerned did not satisfactorily resolve.”

A point which is not entirely clear to me is this: to what extent was the RCN—from 1942 to 1944—living under special circumstances? “The father of Reformed church polity in Holland, G. Voetius” saw this (as in the time of Dordt) as something which “would allow an assembly to deviate from the terms of the church order.”

From all of this De Jong draws the following lessons:

  1. If a federation is not living in the unity of a living faith, no amount of regulations will keep matters on a proper course.
  2. Local churches must have valid grounds for refusing to accept certain Synodical decisions.
  3. One of the prerequisites for a lasting unity (between the CanRC and others) would be agreement that the Liberation was necessary according to Scripture, confession and church order.
  4. Deviations from the accepted church order, and attempts to cover them up, are detrimental to the peace and unity of the church.
  5. A schism in itself is always a terrible event.

After this followed another question time. I will mention one or two of the more important ones. Do we really need Synods? Yes, says Dr. De Jong, and he cites more than Acts 15, as, for example, the way in which Paul bound the churches together through support of one another. He also said something that I noted as important in discussions between Presbyterian and Reformed brethren. He said, “a classis in the old Church Order has more of a living and abiding character than a regional synod or a general synod. That is how, in my view, the old Church Order was structured.” He says this was lost in the revision process, and he would like to see it restored. So would I.

Another question was this: “Should they [the ‘concerned’] not have gone the church orderly way,” exhausting all possible ways of appeal before making the break? Professor J. Ridderbos, for example, was critical of the first words of the Act of Liberation (reeds geruime tijd, “for some time now”)—an expression taken over from the Act of Secession of 1834. “Look,” Dr. Ridderbos was saying, “it has only been two years. Are you really giving us a chance?” Was this not a serious omission on the part of the “concerned”?

III

The third, and last, contribution was made by Dr. N. H. Gootjes, Professor of Dogmatology, and successor to Dr. Faber. The title of his address was “The Church in the Act of Liberation.”

Though some things mentioned here were already dealt with in the two previous speeches, there were a number of very important distinctive features. Here is one example. At the very beginning Dr. Gootjes warned that this history must be examined “in the light of Scripture” for, he says, otherwise we would “just live in the past and defend and absolutize our own history.” Another important distinction that Dr. Gootjes makes is between the Three Forms of Unity and the Act of Liberation. Says Dr. Gootjes, quite properly, “office-bearers subscribe to” the former but “do not subscribe to” the latter.

For Dr. Gootjes the crux of the matter is this: “liberation” meant “not recognizing Synod’s doctrinal decisions concerning regeneration and baptism, and the ensuing measures of church discipline” (my italics). Deterioration in church polity as well as in doctrine had been noticed for some time in the RCN by 1942. Well, then, asks Dr. Gootjes, “Was the liberation necessary because of this deterioration?” No, he says, “it may sound strange but the answer is in the negative.” He also insists that Dr. Schilder did not try to bring about the Liberation because Synod had turned against him. It only became necessary when Synod adopted and then enforced decisions that deviated from the adopted confessions. “In other words, the Liberation became necessary when the wrong doctrine was made binding.” The result was that a minority of less than 10% followed the way indicated in the Act of Liberation. But, as Gootjes observes, it is not the numbers that is decisive but Scripture.

Turning, then, to the relevance of all this for today, Dr. Gootjes warned of three pitfalls confronting our generation. (1) The scholarly world no longer accepts the Bible as the Word of God. (2) The rampant individualism of our society. And (3) the danger of traditionalism.

It seems to me that Dr. Gootjes emphasized this third danger as a special one for the Canadian Reformed Churches. Having said that the “danger of a small community is the tendency to treat our emphases as confessional issues,” he goes on to mention as examples (1) a certain method of preaching, and (2) what he calls “our system of schools.” He points out that ethnic churches, like ethnic communities, “tend to hang on to their customs and backgrounds” and warns that the Canadian Reformed Churches “are subjected to that danger as much as anyone else.” The Act of Liberation, he insists, warns us against making our specialties into conditions for church unity.

Dr. Gootjes goes on to say some important things, also, about church cooperation and unity. There are ways, he says, in which we can work together—in a limited way—even with Roman Catholics. But we must also note the dangers. “When the real communion is experienced in an organization...instead of the church, something has gone wrong.”

In the discussion that followed, another professor at the Canadian Reformed Seminary, Dr. J. Geertsema, asked quite pointedly if Dr. Kuyper’s doctrine “can and should be tolerated in our...churches?” As far as I can see this question was not directly answered—not categorically answered—by Dr. Gootjes. But in a concluding section entitled “Afterword: The Liberation and Catholicity,” Dr. Faber does answer it. Here is his statement in full: “We should not bind candidates and parents and covenant children to academic constructions of theologians but to the clear teaching of Holy Scripture. We do not infringe upon the place of supralapsarian theologians such as Franciscus Gomarus or Alexander Comre or Abraham Kuyper (again, italics are mine) within God’s catholic church, but as Reformed believers we do not want to be bound by their theological ideas as if they were the revealed truth of God” (emphasis mine).

Dr. Cornelis Van Dam, editor of the book containing these speeches and the discussions that followed, also responded after the speech of Dr. Gootjes. He noted that perhaps a fourth danger should be mentioned: namely, secularization. He also has something important to say about what I would call the religious climate in the RCN during the 30s and 40s. As Dr. Van Dam notes, “there was a sense of having arrived. Everything was pretty well down pat. There were a few doctrinal matters that needed attention, but everything seemed to be under control. There was a sense of ‘we have made it. We have our churches, our schools, and our organizations.’ The moment you get into that frame of mind you get problems.” As the proverb says, “Pride goeth before a fall.” (A longtime and enthusiastic student of Schilder, who was one of the founding fathers of the Reformed Churches of New Zealand—but who did not join the Vrijgemaakt—also noted this triumphalism as the root of the disaster. Let us hope that this will be further explored in future publications from Premier).

And now a few of my own comments.

  1. This book strengthens my conviction that, in the main, the Vrijgemaakt people were in the right.
  2. The refusal of the Synod to receive a written defense from Schilder was, in my opinion, a truly heinous sin. It is hard to see how he can be blamed for what followed when he offered, in effect, to furnish proof to the Synod that its decision was wrong, only to be informed that the Synod would not even consider it.
  3. Yet having said all that, it is regrettable that the “concerned” called for secession so swiftly. I think they could have tried other means of redress first. This consideration is all the more weighty when we remember that the doctrinal view at issue had been present in the church—even in some of its most noted leaders—long before this time, while no one (even among the “concerned”) had considered this sufficient reason to break with the church.
  4. As in Scottish church history, the most tragic result, in my view, is that when the church is divided over a single issue, the fallout is so unpleasant that the church may lose the ability to act later on even when there are many issues—and much more blatant issues—that cry out for militant action.
  5. Finally, I find it very encouraging indeed that these men from the Theological Seminary of the Canadian Reformed Church were willing to take such an honest and critical look at their own past history.
  6. I heartily welcome and recommend this book.


Endnotes

[1] The article begins as follows: “The National Synod shall ordinarily be held every three years, unless an urgent need arises to make it a shorter period....”

[2] We quote: “If anyone complain that he has been wronged by the decision of a minor assembly, he shall have the right of appeal to a major ecclesiastical assembly, and whatever may be agreed upon by a majority vote shall be considered settled and binding, unless it be proved to conflict with the Word of God or with the Articles formulated in this General Synod, as long as they are not changed by another General Synod.”