At the last session of Classis West there were no less than five protests against the Declaration of Principles : from Sioux Center, from Bellflower, from Pella, from Oskaloosa, and from Rev. W. Hofman.
The committee that was appointed to advise Classis in re all these protests reported as follows:
Regarding this material we advise:
Elder Leep feels that the promise is adequately defined especially in the light of the (Declaration part 3, B.
4. A. That Classis express under 2 of Rev. Van Weelden’s protest, page 7ff, that he has not proven that the declaration expresses that “The promise of the gospel is not conditional” and “faith is not a condition.”
B. That Pella has failed to prove that “Synod simply declared all conditionality to be heresy.” Page 18 and 19, No. 2.
C. That Classis West express:
a. That, while we are not pleading for the ushering in of the term condition, Synod was obliged to give account of its use of the terminology in view of the fact,
1. that the terms, condition, conditional, and conditioned, have been used at least from Calvin on down in Reformed circles, by theologians, by the framers of the Confessions, by ministers in our history in which we were engaged in a fierce struggle to defend free, sovereign, and particular grace against denials of it in the “well-meant offer.”
2. The promise is put in conditional form in the Confessions.
3. An amendment was made, and proven upon request, to prove that there are conditions in the Bible. Synod was obliged to disprove in discussion and writing before it failed to adopt this amendment.
b. That Synod did not substantiate the document from Scripture. It is inadmissible for the Church to declare a doctrine without reference to Scripture.
1. For it separates the Confessions from their derived and inseparable context, Scripture.
2. It omits what the Church has done in its formulation and use of the Confessions.
Now I understand that Classis West adopted the first part of this advice, the part regarding the legality, or illegality, of the Declaration, but that they refused to adopt the second part, regarding the contents of the Declaration. Into the contents they did not enter. I understand that their argument was that the Declaration was not legal anyway, and it certainly was not proper for the Synod, no more than for the Classis, to discuss an illegal document. Hence, all that will be brought to Synod as far as Classis West is concerned, is the contention that the Declaration is illegal.
Frankly, the Standard Bearer cannot understand the church polity of Classis West.
It seems to emphasize very strongly that “ecclesiastical matters shall be transacted in an ecclesiastical manner.” This is based on Article 30 of the Church Order: “In these assemblies ecclesiastical matters only shall be transacted, and that in an ecclesiastical manner. In major assemblies only such matters shall be dealt with as could not be finished in minor assemblies, or such as pertain to the churches of the major assembly in common.” And Classis West seems to be of the conviction that the Synods of 1950 and 1951, in adopting the Declaration of Principles, violated this fundamental principle of the Church Order.
To this we will refer presently.
But now let me point out that the ecclesiastical manner of Classis West manifests a strange mixture of indepententism, on the one hand, and hierarchy, on the other.
Let me explain.
The decision of Classis West is indepentistic in relation to Synod. Although the Synods of 1950 and 1951 took the stand that the Declaration of Principles was legally adopted, and although it maintained this stand even after all the protests of Classis West had been considered, nevertheless Classis West now not only again protests against the adoption of the Declaration as being an illegal act,—which, of course, is its legal right, provided it can show new grounds, that have not been considered by Synod,—but Classis West positively declares that the adoption of the Declaration of Principles by Synod was illegal, and acts upon that declaration. For it refuses to recognize the protests of the consistories that asked to enter into the contents of the Declaration, and it does that on the basis of the supposed fact that the Declaration is not legal. Evidently the position of Classis West is that the Declaration is not legal, and that no matter what Synod may decide, it will continue to take that stand.
That is pure independentism!
On the other hand, however, the church polity which Classis West follows is hierarchical. The Classis lords it over the consistories.
Mark you, there were legal protests by the consistories, not only against the illegality of the Declaration, but also against the contents. The consistories, therefore, intended to have the contents of the Declaration discussed at the Synod. But the Classis hierarchically decided to mutilate and to split, these protests, so that only the part that treats of the illegality of the Declaration shall come before Synod. This is purely hierarchical. No Classis has the right, and can possibly have the right, thus to mutilate and to divide protests that are presented by the consistories. Classis, of course, can act unfavorably on those protests, or on part of them. And even then the consistories can still appeal to Synod, and demand that their entire protests be sent through to Synod. But the Classis certainly cannot have the right arbitrarily to decide that only part of the protests by the consistories shall be presented to Synod.
In my opinion, the Synod simply ought to ignore this part of the decision of Classis West, and also enter into that part of the protests by the consistories that treat of the contents of the Declaration.¹
But how about the question of the legality or illegality of the actions of Synod of 1950 and 1951 in adopting the Declaration of Principles?
At the Synod of 1950 there was no question about the legality. The Declaration was almost unanimously adopted, that is, I believe, with one dissenting vote. And no one certainly raised an objection against the right of Synod to adopt such a Declaration for the use of our Mission Committee and upon its request. Even the delegates of Classis West at that time raised no objection against the legality of adopting the Declaration of Principles.
The objections were raised in Classis West and overtured to Synod in 1951.
Now, in the Acts of Synod, 1951, Article 200, p. 182, we read:
The motion of Article 128 “That the action of the 1950 Synod in reference to the Declaration of Principles is contrary to our Protestant Reformed way and regulations and to Reformed principles of ecclesiastical actions,” together with the ground 1, 2, and 3 is put to the vote. The motion is defeated 9 to 7.
In Art. 128 of the same Acts of Synod, to which Art. 200 refers, we read:
Reporter reads advice of Committee, divided into Committee A and Committee B.
Committee A
I. We advise Synod to heed the protest of Classis West found in the Agendum, p. 47, point 1 of the overture, and to declare:
That the action of the 1950 Synod in reference to the Declaration of Principles is contrary to our Protestant Reformed way and regulations and to Reformed principles of ecclesiastical actions for the following reasons:
1. Because this document concerns confessional material, is classified in the same category as interpretations, regulations, declarations, explanations, elucidations, and any decisions of Synod which bind with respect to doctrinal material. It is material which, with respect to its official formulation as basis, is beyond the present basis, which we have. It goes beyond quotation. Even mere quotations may modify by virtue of their being extracted.
Such material does not belong under the scope of the mission committee. The mission committee according to clear statements in its constitution and according to the very nature of the case cannot deal with nor suggest to have Synod deal with any other than that which pertains to its activity such as field of labor, and other regulations for its work.
2. Its message is only the same message as based upon the Word of God and the Three Forms. That message is the same as the Reformed message of our historic past as it has its root in the Reformed Creeds of the reformed fathers, and in Calvin, Augustine—to Christ and the prophets. The mission committee does not have authority over the content of the message or the preaching in any way. According to our Reformed Principle, the Church preaches the word; the living organic body of Christ through its instituted offices. Therefore we place that in a servant of Christ, a missionary—sent out by the calling church. To have any other principle is to fall into the error of boardism, so prevalent in our modern American Churches. We must emphasize the missionary as our representative sent by Christ with His Word to those outside of us, with that very particular emphasis that the world is held accountable to the lively preaching of the Gospel. Therefore he is sent by a local church.
If this message is in any way brought directly to the Mission Committee-Synod, that is so that Synod initiate its consideration. This is a serious error. Synod can only treat that sort of material which belongs to all our churches in common by way of instruction from our Churches. Other material that belongs to our churches in common which synod may treat upon its own initiative is that which has been delegated to it and regulated by Synodical standing committees and constitutions.
3. We wish to call attention to our history as Prot. Ref. Churches, how we have always emphasized these principles more than anyone else. We have emphasized, moreover, more than any present day Reformed group that we always must have a clearly defined, concrete case before we take action. This action regarding the Declaration lacks the essential elements of this principle. We really only have a general call for help on the question what is binding, without a concrete error presented. To do this what we have done admits a. the inadequacy of the status quo basis, and b. will fail of effectiveness.
We call attention to our method pursued in our Holland case, the giving of infants for adoption. From a concrete case, there was presented a protest. And Synod very wisely advised to put into the hands of a study committee.
Let us also see how Scripture in its historical instances and utterances teaches us to wait for the occasion God causes to arise, and gives us wisdom and insight at that particular time. Consider how Saul was commanded to wait seven days according to the command of Samuel. Let us wait according to our tried and tested ways to be most effective in our peculiar times.
This motion, together with its grounds, the Synod rejected. And by the rejection of this protest the legality of the Declaration still stood.
Now, does Classis West in its renewed protest against the legality of the Declaration produce any new grounds which Synod will have to consider?
The decision of Classis West in this matter refers as grounds, first of all, to the overture of Bellflower, grounds 1 and 2, on page 13. There we read the following:²
Synod of 1951 failed to answer the protests of Classis West, and Bellflower, and rejected the advice of the committee of pre-advice A, without motivation.
This is contrary to Church Order, article 30, which states that ecclesiastical matters shall be transacted in an ecclesiastical manner. J. Jansen in his commentary distinguishes this manner from political, military, judicial and other manners which are characterized by command and force. He correctly points out that the ecclesiastical approach is characterized by conviction, persuasion, instruction and guidance. So he also points out that all decisions should be motivated and founded upon God’s Word.
This failure of Synod which invalidates the action taken was further maintained in a failure to honor a request to consider the necessity of adopting the document before proceeding to adopt it.
Now certainly, in “1” there is no new ground furnished by Bellflower against the legality of the Declaration. What Bellflower here protests against is not the legality of the Declaration, but rather against the fact that the Synod furnished no grounds for its rejection of the advice of the Committee of Pre-advice A, Point I, with its grounds 1, 2, and 3. But I reply:
4. I fail to understand the force of ground 2 in this protest of Bellflower. If Bellflower means to argue in favor of the adoption of the Declaration of Principles in general, without limiting its force and value to the Mission Committee, I have no objection. We should have had some sort of Declaration when we organized as Protestant Ref. Churches, a positive declaration over against the Three Points adopted by the Synod of 1924, Kalamazoo. But Bellflower is begging the question when it simply states, without any proof or motivation, that it is wrong for a church, that it is not worthy of a church, to declare to the outside and as a basis for organization of churches, what we as Protestant Reformed Churches believe to be the expression of the truth of our Reformed Confessions. Nor is there in this ground a protest against the legality of the adoption of the Declaration by Synod.
H.H.
¹ I was in doubt about this part of the report. Hence, I inquired about it. It now appears that the classis merely decided (a) that as far as they are concerned they synod cannot go into the contents of the “Declaration” because it is illegal; (b) that they, nevertheless, send the entire protests through to synod for this body to determin whether or not they will discuss the contents.
² It must be remembered that the grounds belong only to 2 of the report quoted in the first part of the editorial, and concern, strictly speaking, only the alleged violation of the ecclesiastical manner.”