SEARCH THE ARCHIVE

? SEARCH TIPS
Exact phrase, enclose in quotes:
“keyword phrase here”
Multiple words, separate with commas:
keyword, keyword

Dear Editor,

On our last Classis, one Consistory came with a protest against the action of a neighboring Consistory, for admitting to the Lord’s Supper members that came to them from the first mentioned Consistory without the proper testimony of a godly walk.

As I understand it, the protesting Consistory did not go in a body to the other, but just sent a cold letter of protest, (for a mere letter to settle difficulties between two parties, who confess the name of Christ is always cold).

The neighboring Consistory did not give satisfaction, and so this protest came to Classis. Would it not be far better, to go to the guilty Consistory in the spirit of love, calling upon the Name of our God, and relying upon His promise: “Where two or three are gathered together in My name, there am I in the midst of them,” Matt. 18:20?

And if this would prove to be a failure, go there again with a third consistory or a committee thereof?

Was this case really ready for Classis?

Is it therefore not necessary or at least much better, that a consistory also follows the admonition of Matt. 18, just like a consistory does in trouble between brothers of the same household?

Yours for the welfare of our churches.

J. Cammenga, Sec’y

_____________________

The above is first of all a matter for the consistory to which Mr. Cammenga refers. However, that consistory cannot answer Mr. Cammenga’s accusation without revealing itself. The result would be a public debate on the whole case in our paper. I do not think that this is desirable at present.

Personally I am convinced that the case to which Mr. C. refers was quite legally before Classis.

The Editor