In a purported church news item in Concordia, Feb. 25, 1954, pages 7 and 8, one finds such a concoction of inaccuracies, omissions, and downright lies concerning the recent history of our Protestant Reformed congregation in Lynden, Washington, that it is simply amazing that anyone, let alone a writer in a religious paper, dares to break out in print in such a fashion. The undersigned writes about this matter because he is personally acquainted with the facts, and because such lies must be publicly contradicted for the sake of the good people of God who are made the object of such slander in Lynden. 

The author of this so-called news item is unknown. Is he, perhaps, too much of a coward to sign his name? News items, of course, need not be signed. But their source should be identifiable. And especially when these news items become news comments and partake of an editorial character, the author should not be ashamed to sign his name. From the literary style, as well as from certain other facts, I think it is not difficult to accurately guess who penned this vicious piece. But I will not identify the man now: let him speak up. Or does this mean that the Consistory of Lynden (schismatic brand) holds itself responsible for the contents of this article? Let them repudiate it if they do not. 

But now notice the wicked lies: 

1. It is a lie that the faithful Protestant Reformed people in Lynden acted on so-called instructions from headquarters. The truth is that they sought, and received, advice on certain matters of procedure from the pastor of the Doon, Iowa, Protestant Reformed Church. The truth is too that these people were never in doubt as to their principal stand in the whole situation. The truth is too that until the people in Lynden themselves sought advice, there was absolutely no interference in their affairs, except for a great deal of agitation on the part of the adherents to the Rev. H. De Wolf! 1. 

2. It is a lie to say that these people simply refrained frond attending services held at the I.O.O.F. Hall in Lynden. The truth is that the moment the “consistory” of Lynden announced its stand in favor of the Rev. H. De Wolf, they principally ceased to be a Protestant Reformed Consistory, and there were no Protestant Reformed worship services to be found in Lynden. The truth is that these faithful people were being wickedly deprived of their Protestant Reformed church home. And the truth is too that they could far better attend the Christian Reformed Church, even though principally they do not differ in doctrine from the De Wolf group. Personally, I would sooner attend a Christian Reformed Church myself than to listen to the preaching of a renegade Protestant Reformed minister. 

3. It is a downright lie to say that these people threatened the “consistory.” The truth is that they seriously admonished them for their error. The truth is too that they insisted on having their protest treated without delay. And the truth is too that they stated their position clearly, informing them that in good conscience before God they could not recognize the De Wolf group (and they gave grounds). But threaten? Not at all. The “consistory” was completely free to follow their own course. And the faithful Protestant Reformed families were completely free to follow the Protestant Reformed course, and to inform the “consistory” thereof, as they did. The truth is too that the “consistory” never even granted them the courtesy of an answer, never acknowledged their letter, as they could easily have done before December 9. 

4. It is a lie that they did not know what they were protesting. They knew very well that they were protesting the “consistory’s” stand in favor of De Wolf. And they produced solid grounds for their protest too. And it was not necessary to know the “consistory’s” grounds in order to register their protest, and in order to state their own positive grounds against the decision. 

5. It is also a rather ludicrous lie to state that the validity of a reason for an elder’s omitting part of an official announcement by the consistory is “debatable.” Since when is such a thing debatable under Reformed church polity? 

6. It is a lie to state that these people don’t know what they are doing. I found in my brief stay in Lynden, both in May, 1953, and in December, 1953, that they know very well what they are doing, and that they are not to be swayed in their ardent zeal for the truth of God’s unconditional promise and absolutely sovereign grace. But perhaps the author never became acquainted with them? 

7. It is a lie too to say that they are victims of persisting propaganda. For they are neither victims, nor has there been any persisting propaganda except on the part of the De Wolf schismatics. These people by the grace of God understand the truth; they love it and are drawn to it when, they hear it proclaimed. And they reject all heresies repugnant thereto, as they vowed before God and His church. 

8. It is a malicious and hypocritical lie to say “We have no hatred nor malice in our hearts against those who left us.” For, in the first place, they did not leave, but the adherents of De Wolf left. And in the second place, it is impossible that such a concoction of lies and slander should have their source in any other motive but that of hatred and malice. For lying and slander are the proper works of the devil! They certainly cannot arise out of love and brotherly kindness! 

9. And finally, it is such a malicious and unholy lie as to make one shudder and tremble, when the author adds: “We commit our way into the hand of the Lord. And we will, by His grace, go onward on our difficult church-path . . . . .” To go onward on that church-path and to commit your way into the hand of the Lord are mutually exclusive! For there is no peace, saith my God, for the wicked! And wicked your way certainly is, Mr. Anonymous! His strength is indeed perfected in our weakness. But the strength of the holy one of Israel is not perfected in your wicked and unholy course of lying, deceit, and slander!