The question implied in our title, which we began to discuss in the last issue, namely, “To what church must I belong?” is an important one. It is important and pressing, as we noted last time, first of all, because of the vast multiplication of church denominations which has come into existence since the time of the Reformation especially. In the face of this situation the believer, who confesses one holy, catholic church, must make a decision and maintain a decision as to where he must have his church membership, where his “papers” should be.

Doctrinally, too, the question involved, namely, that of the true or the false church, and the distinguishing marks thereof, together with the implication of these truths, is important. The subject is often one that is misunderstood. On the one hand, it is misunderstood in such a way that we are accused of conceitedly relegating all those who do not belong to the Protestant Reformed denomination to everlasting destruction. This is done not only by some outside of our churches, who use this as a “talking point” against us,—meaning to emphasize how conceitedly narrow and sectarian we are,—but one occasionally comes across that same misunderstanding in our own circles,—and I speak now from personal experience. On the other hand, it is misunderstood in such a way that we Protestant Reformed, who by some are accused in the manner above; are by others accused of not ourselves understanding the Confessions on this point, so that we were told not too long ago: “I believe if there is one important question which you need to study, it is the question: ‘What is the church? Where is the true church in America?’ This question must become an urgent one among you.” Implied in the above quotation is the charge, of course, that we don’t know, and have not for the 26 years of our existence known, a proper conception of the church and of the true in distinction from the false church. Implied too is the charge that this question is not urgent among us. And by implication is included the charge that we did not know what we were doing ecclesiastically when we allowed ourselves to be cast out in 1924 and organized anew as the Protestant Reformed Churches.

That the question must be urgent among us there can be no doubt. That it has been urgent among us in the proper way is also my conviction; so urgent has it been in the proper sense that it was in obedience to the requirements of our Netherland Confession that we came into existence as Protestant Reformed Churches. And also that this question must remain urgent among us in a healthy way cannot be challenged. The moment that we fail to judge ourselves as churches in the light of the distinguishing marks of the true church, at that moment we shall go astray as churches. And the moment that any member cannot and does not give account of his church membership in the light of those marks, at that moment he will certainly go astray.

How the above must be understood of us as Protestant Reformed Churches and as members of those churches in distinction from all other churches is another matter. But even now we may be warned against the tendency to blasely go down the list of denominations with the crass and blunt judgment: “This is false, and this is false, and this is false, period. But this only is true.” We may be warned, too, against naively assuming that we exclude anyone and everyone who leaves our churches from the kingdom of heaven. And we may remember from the outset that our calling is not to pass judgment on what someone else does, but that this question must be approached primarily from the viewpoint of the question: “Where must I, personally, individually, join myself and remain joined?”

That question we hope to consider here. The doctrinal and confessional question concerning the true church and its marks must necessarily be considered in this connection. But it is not as such the question in this rubric. As a matter of objective doctrine we can leave it to the writer of Our Doctrine. And in as far as at present it is the subject of a little controversy, we safely leave the matter to our editor, whom, we trust, will in due time finish what he promised to finish in the Standard Bearer of December 15, last.

And from the above point of view, the question often is brought before our attention in various concrete ways. There is always, of course, the probability that you will be forced to answer the question by those from the outside, who often stand amazed that a little group of people has the audacity and the stamina to exist separately as a church. The majority always belongs to the “big” church, and cannot understand the motive of one who doesn’t belong to it. There are others, whom you may meet, who will sing the siren song of tolerance to you, and whom you must answer. More concretely still, there is the case of the Christian young man who falls in love with a young woman from another denomination, and who must face the question of church membership in that connection. May he go to her church? How must he answer the question? Should he insist simply that she comes to his church, regardless of anything else? May she accede to that request simply to “keep” her man? What must be the standard according to which these questions must be answered by people of God? Or equally concretely, the question must be faced by those who wish to move elsewhere to earn their daily bread, or who are tempted by an opportunity to earn just a little more than daily bread. It is even possible to a certain extent—if we maintain that one has a duty not only toward himself as member of the church, but as well toward the congregation to which he belongs—that this question is connected with the matter of transfer from one congregation to another within a denomination. I could conceive of a situation in which it would be wrong to transfer to another congregation if it were not strictly necessary.

The Tolerance of Undenominationalism

With regard to this question, there are many, first of all, who take the stand that the various churches should simply break down their confessional walls of separation, forget their differences, and unite on a very broad platform of a few general principles. There are two trends in this connection, probably to be denoted as the modernist and the fundamentalist trend. The one you see evidenced in the numerous movements toward union of existing denominations in our day. The modern tendency is for churches to unite without setting their differences, either confessional, church political, or historical. They find a basis which is broad and general; one or both groups have to give in a little; the truth must either be compromised, or room must be left for differences of opinion. And presto, two denominations become one giant, and they look around for another church to swallow. What has happened? Doctrinal standards have become no more than dead traditions, and they have no longer a place as the living confession of the truth. Their connection and foundation upon Scripture is no longer seen. And the confessions have long failed to be taken seriously either by the church or its members.

But such an event cannot take place without the consent, either silent or vocal, of the individual member. And what attitude must he take when that so- called tolerance is sweetly preached in our day? May he go along? May he go along who concretely faces the question of such a church merger? And may he go along with it in his heart and mind, who witnesses such events every day, and who hears and reads such teachings? For you understand that if we go along with such teachings in theory, the day is not far off when we will actually practice them also.

Principally no different, but with a little different approach, is the fundamentalist doctrine of tolerance. You are also acquainted with this movement. They likewise want no confessional barriers. Their slogan is “No creed but Christ” or “No creed but the Bible.” They are willing, at the most, to accept as their creed the non-controversial Apostolic Confession. They insist that the church cannot afford to spend its time on petty doctrinal differences, that the only thing that matters is the blood of Christ, and that all evangelicals should unite to do battle against modernism and work for a revival of the fundamentals of the Christian faith. They often have their origin in a group of malcontents in an existing church or in an independentist movement, which came into existence entirely apart from the instituted church.

Concerning both we may say, first of all, that they deny the very principle of the Reformation in which all protestant churches had their beginning, the right and the calling to reform. If the reformers of the sixteenth century had assumed the same attitude, we would all be in the Romish Church to this very day. Once in a while the truth of the above statement becomes concretely evident in those extreme statements of the modernist in which he pleads for cooperation between Catholic, Protestant, and Jew.

In the second place, however, we must remember that this song of tolerance is actually intolerance of the worst sort. It is intolerance of the truth. And the truth is after all the fundamental issue. We are not speaking now of the constitutional religious tolerance granted to us in this democratic country. Surely, in the framework of our constitution up to this day, everyone is free to worship as he sees fit. But the tact is that in these professedly tolerant movements in the church of today there is no tolerance for the clearly and sharply defined truth of Scripture. And the moment you begin to insist in modern circles upon the satisfaction of the blood of Christ, for example, or in fundamentalist circles upon the truth of sovereign, particular grace, you are an outcast. Because the truth is so fastidiously intolerant of any lie, the lie will not for a moment endure the pure truth of the Word of God. And what is true in regard to the two main principles mentioned above is equally true down into the last nook and cranny of the truth.

And by this let us be warned against a false tolerance, a tolerance of the lie.