Why we liberated ourselves


At the end of January 2010 some office-bearers and a group of congregation members at Dalfsen took a major ecclesiastical step.

They broke away, liberated themselves from the bond of the Reformed Churches (liberated), the GKv (RCN).

That is now four years ago. That move of ecclesiastical liberation is far-reaching for all concerned. These things do affect you and it gives pain on both sides.

A GKv-minister met a brother who had liberated himself, and said to him: ‘It is so very painful for me that you departed.’ The brother answered: ’It can hardly be so that your pain is greater than ours. For we would so much have liked to have remained one. But it was not possible, because of the substantive difference’.

The minister could not comprehend this and the conversation ended.

This was a brief contact between two separated brothers.

But it was very characteristic, because of the pain that was expressed.

But also because of the lack of understanding.

No understanding, because it is so often thought, and is still thought, that the brothers and sisters who liberated themselves, are a group of discontented church members. Malcontents, who were not able to get their own way.

Pugnacious church members, who always see a reason or look for a reason to be difficult, and who are always ‘anti-’ everything.

Or church members who are so traditional that they are already, in advance, against every change.

Church members that do not think highly of church unity, and who easily cause ecclesiastical rifts, say, people with a schismatic attitude.

Many sarcastic remarks have been made in response to our ecclesiastical moves, something to the effect of: ‘that is a club of like-minded people, who want to impose their opinion on others.’

Or the remark: ‘of course they just have to found a new church.’

 

It is only regrettable, if a distorted image exists of those who left the GKV.

We have regretted it, that in 2010 a rapprochement was not sought by the church councils and office-bearers, after we had sent them all our Declaration. There have been no reactions, something to the effect of: ‘We now see how big the ecclesiastical problems have become. Come, brothers, let us now have a real substantive discussion.’

When it came to a break in Dalfsen, the GKv acted resolutely to practically and juristically demarcate the positions. But until today not one attempt has been made to come to a substantive discussion about the contents of the Declaration that we issued, that is, about the cause of the ecclesiastical break.

I can then only be thankful to have an opportunity, to again give account of the ecclesiastical move which we were obliged to take at the beginning of 2010.

 

For it was not an urge to make headstrong moves. It was not the fighting spirit of some church people who are always against everything. It was not the founding of a new church, in stubborn pedantry.

No, it is totally different.

The bond of churches of the liberated Reformed Churches was and is dear to us.

The Lord had given us so much in that church. We were baptized there, we did our confession of faith there. We were allowed to serve there as office-bearers.

The Lord gave so much to that bond of Reformed Churches.

It was the church community that had been preserved by the LORD, along the path of church reformation and church restoration. I mention the Liberation of 1944 and the church struggles of the 1960’s.

Up to a certain time the Lord was thanked in the GKv for the Liberation of 1944 and for the protective hand of the Lord in 1967 and in the years that followed.

 

But that thanking is now a thing of the past. A mentality of ‘away-with-us’ developed.

There was embarrassment about their own church history.

No longer does one say to members of other church denominations: ‘Let us with one accord, go to the temple of the Lord’. No the heresy of the ecclesiastical pluriformity was again embraced. The church understanding is disappearing more and more.

The articles 28 and 29 of the Belgic Confession are still written in the church books, but the contents are no longer considered appropriate in the church situation of today.

Our liberation from the GKv did not come out of the blue.

In a process of many years there was a growing estrangement.

Estrangement, that was not only a result of liturgical changes. It was not just about the use of modern means.

It is not so that the concerned GKv-members are not people of this era.

No, it was and is about fundamental issues.

It was about matters for which you, as office-bearer, had in faith, signed the Subscription Form. Matters where you, as Church Visitor, should ask questions about and on which you should lay a finger.

But that was and is no longer possible because the course had changed, ratified by ecclesiastical decisions.

Concerned brothers and sisters asked themselves: ‘Have we then always believed wrongly?’

Have we then wrongly believed that what the fourth commandment says about ‘resting’, still applies for today?

Have we then always wrongly believed what the Bible says about marriage and divorce?

Have we then always wrongly believed that you should believe Genesis 1 and 2 as being a reliable historical reality?

That fundamental changes have been introduced into the bond of churches of the GKv can be seen by all, and that is generally acknowledged as well. Here I think of the letters of admonition from the sister-churches abroad.

Testimonies that, as far as I am concerned, are above suspicion, are the publications on the website ‘gereformeerdekerkblijven’, written, among others, by Prof. Dr. J.Douma.

The letter sent by ‘gereformeerdekerkblijven.nl’ to the General Synod at Ede, also states emphatically that the foundations are in dispute. And that is not just happening today. The Word of God Itself and the Scriptural confessions were and are in dispute.

 

With the decisions that were made concerning the fourth commandment, the universal character of the aspect of rest was at stake.

The authority of the words of Genesis 2:2,3 cannot be independent of the liberal exegesis of any minister. The clear words about the ‘blessing and sanctifying’ of the seventh day are affirmed by the words of the fourth commandment in Exodus 20.

The synod of Amersfoort-Centre 2005 has published a handbook (‘Handreiking’) of 175 pages on the fourth commandment. However, the General Synod could have pointed to the still fully Scriptural statements of the National Synod of Dordt 1618/19 for refuting the error that had been introduced.

Unfortunately it is now so, that the opinion that the aspect of rest was really only a commandment for the people of Israel, is broadly defended, even in a new teaching method for catechism.

That is: the rest for Israel, from Sinai until the coming of Christ.

Errors concerning the fourth commandment are not being stopped anymore.

The power of Gods commandments were undermined and the Scriptural preaching and practice of admonition and discipline were robbed of power.

That is also the case where it concerns the seventh commandment. The reality is that through the synod decisions the boundaries that Scripture itself points out with regard to the admissibility of divorce and re-marriage, are being crossed. Because the so-called grounds for divorce (namely the Scriptural boundaries) have fallen away, an open possibility has in fact been created to allow divorce and re-marriage in all sorts of situations, without the clear limitations from Scripture.

The objections that were raised against Synod Amersfoort-C, 2005 were not unfounded. From the side of the Synod examples were given in which the consistories were allowed to waive church discipline. In practice that would mean that church discipline would be exercised less and less.

That seems pastoral, but it is in fact unmerciful! For the ecclesiastical censorship , applied according to the Word of God, is the very means of God’s love to save the sinner!

 

It is not the intention to extensively mention all the grounds of Dalfsen’s liberation.

They are amply mentioned in the Declaration that we published in February 2010, and this is still available.

However, what I do emphatically wish to mention, is the admission to the Lord’s Supper of those who are not members of the Reformed Churches (liberated).

The decisions of Synod Amersfoort-C, 2005 and Synod Zwolle-South 2008 on this matter, have been proposed as implementing-decisions. It was, so it had been said, a compromise, thus worse could be prevented. But in reality, because of this regulation, there was no way of stopping things anymore.

That also became evident in practice: In many congregations one no longer asked or asks for the lawful attestation for the Lord’s Supper.

Members from different church denominations, such as the PKN (Protestant Church of the Netherlands), are welcomed to the Lord’s Supper tables without any problems. One can in actual fact, speak of an open Lord’s Supper.

Does this concern a matter of minor importance?

No, it does not. Here the being-the-Reformed-Church is being disputed.

Here the foundation of ecclesiastical unity is being disputed.

This is about the three marks of the true church. For when you speak of the Lord’s Supper, then you also speak of the administration of the keys of the Kingdom of heaven. At the Holy Supper it is about the distinction of the Body of Christ. That is in the first place Christ Himself, but that is also his congregation. And what then does the church teach about the admission to the Lord’s Supper? Who may be admitted to the table of the LORD, the supper of God’s covenant, where you are strengthened through the grace of God!? In short: Here the pure preaching of the Word is being disputed.

Also the second mark of the church is then being disputed: the pure administration of the sacraments. And then we must say: The bond of churches of the GKv, in its major ecclesiastical assembly, has approved that in many congregations the Holy Supper is no longer being administered as Christ had meant it to be.

That is again directly connected with the third mark of the church: The true exercising of the Church discipline. At the Lord’s Supper the church has to do with the command of Christ and His apostles to watch over the holiness of God’s covenant and at the table of His covenant.

This was pointed out in the written objections and there were warnings. But the decision-making continued.

The decisions concerning the Table of the Lord’s Supper can only be explained by the fact that the doctrine of pluriformity of the church is again being strongly defended and applied.

In practice that means that everyone who calls himself a Christian, is to be considered as belonging to the large body of Christ and is authorized to take part in the celebration of the Lord’s Supper. It doesn’t really matter anymore to which church or denomination you belong. But those who speak and make decisions in this way, are no longer in accordance with Scripture and the Reformed confessions.

You also see in practice how crippling it works for ecclesiastical life, just think of the exercising of church discipline.

 

Now what is the most fundamental cause for the break with the bond of the churches of the GKv? Well, that concerns the dealing with God’s Word. The manner in which the trustworthiness and authority of the Holy Scripture was affected. Concerned church members had brought forward well-founded objections against publications by theologians who were connected to the Theological University at Kampen, in which, among other things, the teaching of the creation in six days is let go of. It is considered legitimate to speak of a ‘big bang’, or the development of the universe and the earth (including that of human life) according to a model of evolution.

To be sure, it is then stated that it would have been an evolutionary process led by God. But with that it is permitted that results of natural science research reign over the literal text of God’s revealed Word.

It came so far that the Synods spoke approvingly about such publications, and objections from within the churches were rejected.

Objections to publications from lecturers connected to the Theological University were turned down. Well-founded objections that defended the trustworthiness of God’s Word. But they were turned down, turned down on formal grounds (e.g. ‘presented too late’).

At the same time a lecturer was appointed at the university, one who made it clear in publications, that he allows the results of religion-historical science reign over the trustworthiness and the authority of the Holy Scripture.

 

But must the fact that the church permits errors, then immediately lead to a break in the church? No, that is not so. Also in Dalfsen we were well aware that it is never allowed to come to a church break in a rash manner.

Even more strongly, we believe that you are only allowed to take a step like this ‘to remain Church’. I have always taught my catechism pupils, that as a believing child of God you may never break with the Church of Christ!

But it is therefore our conviction that it was not us who broke with the Church of Christ, but that the bond of the GKv had fundamentally changed.

And those who followed the developments closely, also confirm this.

The foundation that Christ Himself had laid has been let go of.

 

But there is more, and that is of importance for the answer to the question why we (in Dalfsen) liberated ourselves, why it had to come to a break with the bond of churches.

That is that church people, who in every aspect wanted to remain reformed, were pushed into awkward positions. Their warning, their words were no longer accepted. In their standing up for the right of God and His Word they were silenced.

Office-bearers and congregation members were forced into awkward situations, to cooperate in the carrying out of decisions, for which they could not carry the responsibility.

It came so far that, even with conscientious objections, there was no room for not cooperating in the carrying out of the decisions taken.

There were ministers who ran into problems because members of consistories and congregations thought their views were too reformed.

The best known example is what happened with Rev. E.Hoogendoorn, in Kampen–North. It is not without reason that in the Declaration which we issued in Dalfsen, the matter of ‘Kampen-North’ emphatically received a place.

What happened in Kampen-North, is undeniably a result of the fact that the attitude of a minister and his co-officebearers was thought to be too ‘principled’, in other words: too reformed.

And if then no justice is done by ecclesiastical meetings, up to and including the synod, then the ‘peace in Jerusalem’ is at stake. When also the exercising of discipline is misused, and no further appeal is possible, then the moment comes that you, just like Martin Luther, must say: ‘Here I stand, I cannot do otherwise’…

We are convinced that the ecclesiastical steps that we took indeed meant a break with the course and with the many decisions taken by the bond of churches of the GKv, but not a break with the Church of Christ. We took ecclesiastical steps to remain Church of Christ.

However, let no one think that we broke with the bond of GKv in toughness and self-enhancement. No, we went as humble people, well aware of our own weakness and sin. But also with continual prayer: ‘LORD, wilt Thou direct our way?’

As a personal note, I wish to say here, that I myself also continually pray: If it was not right that we took these steps of Liberation, LORD, take our hand and lead us back.

But the reality is that we have only been confirmed in it that it was indeed not possible to stay in the GKv.

And that today this is certainly not possible any more.

For us it was a sad confirmation that it was possible that a synod deputy-report could be published, countersigned by lecturers from Kampen, in which it was advised that all offices should also be opened for women in the congregation.

As a reformed person it is startling when you read of the view on Scripture that is being defended in that report.

 

What I do wish to emphasize is that it is not only pain that we have, because of the break that had become necessary.

There is also thankfulness. Thankfulness to the LORD that we may again be simply reformed. Thankfulness that we may again experience the brotherhood in a bond of the churches that also wants to be, and may be, simply reformed.

Thankfulness that we may again stand in the fellowship of the Lord’s Supper, that is not being desecrated by synod decisions.

With all the more conviction I summon brothers and sisters in the GKv : ‘Let us with one accord, go to the temple of the Lord’.

No, not because we are better people.

But to the cause of Christ and for yourself and your children and grandchildren.

Do not underestimate the temptation and the habituation for so many younger and older people in a course that leads away from the Word of the LORD and away from the reformed confession. Christ Himself says it so emphatically: ‘Hold fast what you have, so that no one may seize your crown’ (Rev. 3:11). Our hope is in the LORD and in our prayer we entrust you to the LORD.