Reformed.net Essays

A Tale of Three Inquiries

How the Form of Subscription Fell from Significance in the CRCNA

Mid-America Reformed Seminary

Term Paper for ED 333-H, Denominational History

Professor: Dr. Cornelis Venema

28 March 2003

What does it mean to subscribe to the Reformed Confessions? What is the significance of declaring that "we heartily believe and are persuaded that all the articles and points of doctrine contained in the Confession and Catechism of the Reformed Churches, together with the explanation of some points of the aforesaid doctrine made by the National Synod of Dordrecht, 1618-19, do fully agree with the Word of God"?

At the very least, the Form of Subscription employed by the Christian Reformed Church and United Reformed Churches serves as a confession of belief, a profession of intent, and a promise of accountability. That is, in signing the Form of Subscription, we declare that we believe the doctrine contained in the Three Forms of Unity to be in full agreement with Scripture; that we intend to teach this doctrine and defend against errors in its doctrine; and that we agree willingly to submit to examination by any ecclesiastical assembly that believes we have given reason to doubt our commitment to the first two points.1

The question this paper seeks to examine is whether the Form of Subscription still serves to uphold these vows - or whether the signing of this formulary has become mere tradition, lacking authority and honesty. If the former, we must celebrate - but if the latter, we must lament the loss and call to repentance those who have failed to uphold the solemnity of vows taken before the Lord and His Church.

In examining the question, this paper will enter into a brief comparison of three essentially similar cases addressed by synods of the Christian Reformed Church. The first two, concerning the public teachings and writings of Dr. Ralph Janssen and Dr. Frederick Wezeman, came before synods in the early 1920s and mid-1930s, respectively. The third, concerning the public writings of the Rev. Andrew Kuyvenhoven, came before synod half a century later, in the mid-1980s.

Before proceeding, several caveats are in order. Each of these cases is worthy of a monograph (if not a book) to explore the doctrine and church polity questions they present. However, such an undertaking far exceeds the scope of this paper. Thus, many specifics of the cases and a full evaluation of process and product, while valuable, can be addressed only in passing, if at all.2 Further, the author's intent is not to condemn any perceived failings in the Christian Reformed Church. Rather, it is his desire to present an examination that will allow us to step back from the passions and personalities involved to see the changes the cases evidence in the CRC's approach in upholding the Form of Subscription. Having seen this, it is hoped that those given opportunity to reverse the situation in the Christian Reformed Church will do so, while those who serve in the United Reformed Churches will be moved to fight against a similar compromise as we seek to uphold our vows. Finally, we must note that the cases to be presented in this paper are not exhaustive. The CRC addressed Form of Subscription concerns a number of times throughout its history. These, however, provide a representative sampling from which we should be able to draw some conclusions.

Roelof (Ralph) Janssen

Raised on a farm near Holland, Mich., Ralph Janssen would become one of the most educated figures of the Christian Reformed Church of his era. His teachings would prove to be the catalyst for a house-cleansing that would culminate in the infamous common grace debates in the early 1920s.

But Janssen's story really begins in 1902, when he was appointed to instruct at the Theological School of the Christian Reformed Church. Although not an ordained minister,3 as were his colleagues, Janssen served as a lecturer in Old and New Testament until 1906, when tensions over his teaching concerning the relationship between the authority of the church and science convinced synod not to re-appoint him in 1906.4

Janssen used the ensuing years to further his education. According to one source, he earned two degrees from universities in Germany and another from a Scotland university, and he completed all the work for a fourth degree from the Free University of Amsterdam.5 Thus academically armed, Janssen returned to Michigan, where Synod 1914 appointed him to Calvin Theological Seminary as professor of Old Testament. Curiously, synodical delegates failed to investigate his theological views at the time of appointment.6

The old tensions returned in short order - particularly when Janssen's colleagues encountered concerns and statements by Janssen's students that raised questions about the professor's doctrinal soundness.

In 1919, four professors - L. Berkhof, W. Heyns, F. Ten Hoor and S. Volbeda - petitioned the governing board of the seminary, the Curatorium, asking for an investigation of Prof. Janssen's teachings on the authority, infallibility and credibility of Scripture. A committee of the Curatorium investigated, questioning Janssen as to the charges. The committee concluded that Janssen's beliefs were in line with his profession as asserted in the Form of Subscription. The Curatorium responded with a statement of confidence in Janssen and a censure for the professors who had brought a complaint against Janssen without first seeking private reconciliation.

Unsatisfied, the professors gave notice of their intent to appeal to Synod 1920, prompting a second investigation by the Curatorium. The resultant conclusions were similar to those of the first investigation, with the addition of an admonition that Janssen should "strive to evade anything that might give cause to misconception, and that he express himself so clearly in his instruction, that misconception is excluded."7 The professors appealed to Synod 1920, asking that body to investigate Janssen's teachings. Synod responded by interviewing the professors and Janssen, concluding that Janssen had not demonstrated beliefs that conflicted with Reformed teaching on the inspiration of Scripture, but that he should take more care not to emphasize the human and natural means of God's revelation so greatly that the divine aspect was obscured. The censure of the professors, however, was reversed.8

In response to Synod's action, the professors took their concerns public via a pamphlet, Nadere Toelichting omtrent de Zaak Janssen (Further Enlightenment Concerning the Janssen Case), thereby setting off a war of words between those who supported and those who feared Janssen's teaching. At about the same time, the Rev. Herman Hoeksema, Curatorium member and Banner columnist, began airing his concerns and debating Janssen publicly on the pages of the denominational magazine.

With the churches stirred by the public discussion, the Curatorium found itself confronted in 1921 with requests by eight classes for an investigation of Janssen's teachings and beliefs. "No one had made any charges," Dr. Harry Boer later commented. "There were only 'questions' and 'unrest' in the church."9

The questions and unrest were sufficiently weighty to convince the Curatorium to convene a special committee of ministers with the task of investigating Janssen's teachings - a move that found no favor in Janssen's eyes. From that point forward, Janssen refused to cooperate with either the committee, the Curatorium or committees of synod, claiming he would not be part of their alleged violations of Reformed polity.10

Despite Janssen's protest and lack of cooperation, the committee conducted its examination on the basis of student notes. When the Curatorium met in March 1922, it found the committee had split down the middle. Four of the ministers submitted a majority report of unqualified condemnation of Janssen's handling of the Scriptures, and three submitted a minority report that expressed cautious concern and called for an interrogation concerning Janssen's views and the substance of the notes used in the investigation. Members of the Curatorium debated the reports and agreed to forward them to Synod 1922, along with their conclusion: "It is the conviction of the Curatorium that such teachings are unsatisfactory and not desirable at our school."11

Along with the Curatorium materials, Synod 1922 was faced with 13 protests and communications on "the Janssen case," ensuring that the bulk of the assembly's sessions would focus on Janssen and his teachings. Although Synod 1922 could have deposed him for refusing to submit to questioning, delegates proceeded with a trial in absentia, deciding after extensive and emotional investigation to adopt five charges against Janssen and, on the basis of those charges, to remove him from his post as professor. This decision was upheld by the following synod, in 1924, which was faced with 15 appeals on the Janssen case.

There is far more to the Janssen matter than has been set forth above. No such case is without nuances and biases, doubtful facts and sins on both sides. However, several questions should help us to summarize the case.

First, what began the process that ultimately escorted Janssen out the doors of Calvin Theological Seminary? For that, we must look to the professors and, ultimately, to the concerns that first raised their eyebrows. Particularly in the course of their huisbezoek - pastoral visits of students by faculty members - Janssen's four colleagues found students questioning the orthodoxy of Janssen's lessons, the origin of parts of the Bible, even the infallibility and reliability of Scripture.12 To be certain, the professors could have approached Janssen personally, but they argued that it was proper to take the matter directly to the Curatorium, since the teachings that caused concern were public and because they were seeking clarification of Janssen's views rather than leveling charges. Thus, they sought an investigation into the matter by the bodies ultimately responsible for that which was taught at the seminary: the Curatorium, then the synods, and finally the churches.13 In essence, they desired "further explanation of [his] sentiments," in accord with the Form of Subscription.

Were the professors and other office-bearers right in the course they took, from a church polity viewpoint? That question is slightly stickier, for there is no simple answer. Due to the nature of their concerns, it would seem their requests to the Curatorium in 1919 and 1920, along with the appeal to Synod 1920, were proper. However, Hanko rightly notes that the public writings of the professors and Hoeksema likely were out of bounds. "There seems to be little question about it that the public discussion of the case after the Synod of 1920 was, if not in a technical sense of the word wrong from the viewpoint of church polity, at least wrong from the viewpoint of the spirit of the Church Order," Hanko writes. "To appeal directly to the churches without also protesting or appealing these decisions was wrong. Further, by means of such an appeal made directly to the churches, great turmoil was created in the churches. This made an unbiased decision on the floor of the Synod of 1922 virtually impossible."14 In short, they started well, but not all was done decently and in good order.

Finally, did the broadest assembly of the Christian Reformed Church - Synods 1920 and 1922 - act properly with regard to the concerns and complaints against Janssen? Again, the answer begs for debate, but the simple answer is a qualified yes. Synod 1920 was asked to examine Janssen's views in several specific areas, and it did so, ruling on the basis of that which delegates saw and heard, while at the same time affirming that the professors had not erred in the way they brought their concerns to light. Synod 1922 was asked to adjudicate certain specific accusations against Janssen, and this, too, it did - although in truth, synod would have been justified, and possibly more prudent, simply to depose Janssen for refusing to submit to the investigation.

Thus we may conclude that, in the case of Ralph Janssen, the Form of Subscription functioned as it ought. Concerns arose over the orthodoxy of a professor's doctrinal and exegetical teaching, and those concerns were brought before the assemblies best suited to address them. They were addressed and judged accordingly.

Frederick H. Wezeman

The subject of our second study was a significant figure among the Chicagoland churches in the 1930s and 1940s and, like Janssen, was both highly educated and highly controversial.

Immigrating from Groningen to Chicago as a babe in 1894, the Rev. Dr. Frederick Wezeman would go on to study science, law, theology and educational administration at various institutions. It was after receiving his degree in law and practicing law for several years in Chicago that Wezeman turned to study of Scripture, becoming the first student to receive a degree from Calvin Theological Seminary after having already received a degree from another seminary. In 1921, he accepted an appointment to teach history and English at Grundy College, later to be ordained as pastor of College Church in Grundy Center, Iowa. Significantly, during his time at Calvin, Wezeman studied under - and loudly defended - Dr. Ralph Janssen.15

Wezeman returned to Chicago in 1927 as principal and Bible teacher at Chicago Christian High School (CCHS), where he would remain for 24 years - an influential figure known by all as "Doc" Wezeman.

Early in his tenure, Wezeman encountered ministerial criticism concerning student clubs at the high school. But the most significant controversy arose in 1933 when A.S. De Jong, principal of the 104th Street Christian School, raised concerns about the orthodoxy of Wezeman's Bible class notes on Amos. These concerns were raised to CCHS Board member Rev. Gerrit Hoeksema, who brought them before the school board. The board responded by naming an in-house committee of three, including Hoeksema, to investigate the concerns. This investigation found "decidedly objectionable material,"16 prompting the formation of a second committee comprising a trio of ministers not on the board. When the second committee declared that the notes on Amos were "nothing but modernism, pure and simple,"17 the board charged Hoeksema's committee with the task of reviewing all of Wezeman's Bible syllabi. Upon receiving the committee's report, it ordered Wezeman to revise his notes in a manner set forth by the committee.

Despite the concerns, the board overwhelmingly agreed to reappoint Wezeman in 1935, prompting Hoeksema and another board member to resign. When Hoeksema and his consistory subsequently asked Classis Illinois to investigate Wezeman's doctrinal views, they were turned down - but classis also denied a request by Fourth Chicago CRC to allow it to call Wezeman as associate pastor.

At this point, late in 1935, the controversy went public, with the Rev. Herman Kuiper - who had served on the second investigatory committee - joining with Hoeksema and the Rev. Dr. William H. Rutgers to document Wezeman's deficiencies in a widely distributed booklet entitled The Chicago Situation: A Word of Warning to the Churches (widely known as "The Blue Book"), which offered a scathing rebuke to the notion that Wezeman's modernist leanings could be repaired through revisions and "improvements." Kuiper wrote, "Positively orthodox teaching is not an improvement upon Modernism - it is its direct antithesis. And the man who, face to face with the well-grounded charge of Modernism in his notes, is constantly harping on the need of improvement, and sees no real danger, and confesses no sincere regret, shows thereby that he does not clearly understand how fundamental is the antithesis between the true Christianity of Orthodoxy and the false Christianity of Modernism."18

The school board was quick to respond, adopting Wezeman's recommendation to create a propaganda committee; holding a special public meeting to drum up support; and appointing a "Michigan Committee" comprising two RCA and two CRC seminary professors, as well as a CRC minister and Bible teacher, to review and publicly approve Wezeman's Bible syllabi, now thrice revised. This report was published and disseminated, along with Wezeman's booklet, The Truth About the Chicago Situation (later dubbed "The Orange Book"). Wezeman also launched a newspaper, the Chicago Messenger, which did much to advance his position.19

Meanwhile, at least three consistories asked Classis Illinois to advise members of area churches to neither support nor send their children to CCHS. Classis responded with its own investigation which documented examples of heterodoxy in Wezeman's notes.

The matter came before CRC Synod 1936 by way of consistories protesting Classis Illinois' failure to recommend against the school. Synod declared the actions of Classis to have been inconsistent and subsequently refused to sustain a protest from Fourth Chicago CRC against the decision of Classis Illinois to investigate Wezeman's Bible Notes.20

Most significantly, Synod 1936 determined that Wezeman's teachings had created "sufficient grounds of suspicion" of the soundness of his teaching to warrant further explanation. Lacking time to take up the matter itself, Synod appointed an advisory committee to oversee the process and referred it to Classis Ostfriesland, which held Wezeman's ministerial credentials.21

However, the case was far from over. Synod 1937 learned that although Classis Ostfriesland had examined the Wezeman case and concurred that his Bible notes contained problematic sections, it had declined to act, being disinclined to depose Wezeman and realizing that the synodical committee would not allow him to continue without censure.

And so the matter came before Synod 1937. After extensive deliberation of the matter, coupled with an interrogation of Wezeman, synod sustained four charges against him. Presented with these charges, Wezeman submitted a statement affirming the decision of Synod and repudiating the teachings and passages condemned by Synod. Synod declared itself satisfied and allowed Wezeman to maintain his ministerial credentials and to continue his work as administrator of CCHS.22

In a later presentation of this case, Dr. J.H. Kromminga noted that while the Wezeman controversy was less significant than that of Janssen, it offered a significant testimony to the Christian Reformed Church's resolve with respect to doctrinal orthodoxy. He writes, "The Formula of Subscription is again seen as a highly important document with respect to that orthodoxy. What is even more important is the evident willingness of the Christian Reformed Church to apply the requirements and threatened punishments of that formula in a very strict and uncompromising manner. It is further evident that not only adherence to the teachings of Modernism, but even tendencies in that direction were considered valid grounds for investigation and condemnation of the teaching of a signer of the Formula."23

Thus, we see that Wezeman, unlike his seminary professor, survived his interrogation before a synod. Again, we are led to ask our summary questions. What began the process that eventually landed Wezeman in the synodical hot seat? In this case, the course lay in his teachings and the inability or unwillingness of the local boards and narrower assemblies to make a final determination of his fate. Thus, Synod 1937 found itself fulfilling the task its predecessor had assigned to Classis Ostfriesland: requiring of an office-bearer "further explanation of [his] sentiments," according to the Form of Subscription.

Was the case handled properly? As with the Janssen case, there are shades and nuances, and neither side stands blameless. But by and large, it would seem that those who sought to have Wezeman examined and the synods involved acted appropriately - perhaps even with regard to the public writings, considering the high stakes of youth education that were involved in the case. If there is blame to be meted out for wrong behavior, it would have to lie with the CCHS board and Classis Ostfriesland, both of which declined to take the appropriate actions demanded of them.

Did the broadest assembly of the Christian Reformed Church - Synods 1936 and 1937 - act properly with regard to the concerns and complaints against Wezeman? We would have to say yes, for although the grilling of Wezeman was heavy, according to reports in The Banner from that time, the outcome was an apparent repentance and the restoration of a brother to the way of orthodoxy.

Andrew Kuyvenhoven

From 1980 through 1989, the Rev. Dr. Andrew Kuyvenhoven served as editor of The Banner, the official voice of the Christian Reformed Church. And under his leadership, that voice took on a decidedly liberal accent.

Born in Den Haag, Zuid Holland, and emigrating to Alberta, Kuyvenhoven received his Bachelor of Divinity degree from Calvin Theological Seminary in 1957, a Master of Divinity degree from Princeton Theological Seminary in 1958, and a doctorate from the Theologische Universiteit, Kampen, in 1963. Before taking the helm of The Banner, he served in a number of Canadian Christian Reformed Churches, including First Lethbridge and First Hamilton, as well as serving for five years as director of education with the CRC Board of Publications. He also was the author of a book of daily devotions entitled, Daylight: Daily Readings with the Bible (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, and St. Catharines, Ont.: Paideia Press, 1978).

This resume led many to greet his appointment with enthusiasm, particularly among the Kuyperian Canadians. Witness the opening sentences of a 1984 editorial in the conservative Christian Renewal:

Dear Andrew Kuyvenhoven,

How our expectations soared when you became editor of The Banner. Shortly after your appointment you stated, with tongue in cheek: "If you can't get The Banner into Canada, put Canada into The Banner." We concurred wholeheartedly because we understood you statement to mean that now a strong reformed, Kuyperian emphasis would pervade the pages of our denominational paper. After all, you yourself were a child influenced by the Kuyperian era. In your first book, Daylight, you demonstrated a reformed sensitivity as you opened Scripture.24

Such enthusiasm turned to dismay, however, when Kuyvenhoven began addressing all the hot-button issues of the day - from a decidedly liberal tack. Thus, by October 1981, Kuyvenhoven had published a column claiming that "the views of the Reformers are no longer ours. And the kind of thinking about the church that is recorded in the Belgic Confession is no longer functional in the Christian Reformed Church."25 Columns in 1984 declared that "The church would be well served if we who say that the Bible allows women to hold office in the church frankly admit that we have made a hermeneutical decision: we have decided how to interpret certain texts" and compared the hermeneutic underlying the prohibitions on ordaining women to the hermeneutic that defended the institution of slavery more than a century before.26 He went so far as to call the Form of Subscription "an ecclesiastical yoke by which orthodoxy is to be maintained; and we aren't so sure it is the yoke of Christ. The form functions as a device to keep the lid on. It has paralyzed the teachers of the church."27

The Rev. Edward Heerema, a retired minister from Cape Coral, Fla., discussed Kuyvenhoven's views with him in 1984, seeking to persuade him to cease teaching that parts of the Bible are time-bound and no longer directly applicable, contrary to Belgic Confession Arts. V and VII. But Kuyvenhoven's continued attacks on Scripture and Confession convinced Heerema to write an overture asking synod to request of Kuyvenhoven "a further explanation of his understanding of the Confession of Faith, Articles V and VII." The overture was submitted to the consistory at Cape Coral CRC, which adopted and forwarded it to Classis Florida. In January 1985, Classis Florida unanimously adopted the overture and submitted it for consideration by Synod 1985.

At that point, church polity began to take some interesting turns.

The CRC's stated clerk at the time, the Rev. Leonard Hofman, did not believe the overture was legally before synod, since Classis Florida had not first taken its concerns to Kuyvenhoven's home church, Boston Square CRC, or his home classis, Classis Grand Rapids East.28 Hofman directed the overture to the standing Church Polity and Program Committee, which ruled the overture out of order29 and decided not to print it in the Agenda for Synod 1985. This move was protested privately and by official action of Classis Florida, with the result that the Synodical Interim Committee in May reversed the action, bringing the overture before synod.

Synod 1985, however, was not of a mind to question the beliefs and teachings of its magazine editor. Having already received a report from the Publications Committee chastising Classis Florida for the overture and declaring that the committee "finds no grounds for questioning [Kuyvenhoven's] faithfulness to the Scriptures, his loyalty to the confessions, or his love for the church,"30 Synod rejected the request for an investigation in something of an odd way. Synod's advisory committee argued that Classis Florida should have addressed its request to Kuyvenhoven's calling church rather than synod; that the Form of Subscription provisions do not create a method of inquiry outside the provisions for discipline set forth in Church Order Articles 89-93; and that Synod 1976 had set a precedent which would require the calling church to be approached first about such concerns. Instead of taking this course, Synod 1985 adopted a motion to declare that the overture was out of order after all.31

This was not to be the end of the matter. Several months after the decision was handed down, Classis Florida's stated clerk, the Rev. Ralph Pontier, accepted a call to First CRC of Orange City, Iowa. Pontier rallied the consistory of First Church to pursue the concerns via the consistory at Boston Square CRC, Grand Rapids, which was Kuyvenhoven's calling church.

Briefly, we must examine the ensuing battle. Boston Square CRC declared in September 1986 that First CRC of Orange City had not presented "sufficient grounds of suspicion" to justify a formal inquiry of Kuyvenhoven's views.32 First CRC of Orange City responded with five additional grounds, concluding,

We are not accusing Rev. Kuyvenhoven of violating our confessions or the Form of Subscription - we are making no charges - but we do believe that there does (sic) exist sufficient grounds of suspicion that he may have moved outside their boundaries. ... Further we would ask that you remind the brother that if he indeed has difficulties with the three forms of unity then he owes the church a gravamen on the subject, not editorials.33

In November 1986, this appeal also was denied, leading First CRC of Orange City to appeal to Classis Grand Rapids East. This was denied in May 1987, with Classis Grand Rapids East reviving an argument of Synod 1985's advisory committee, that "the Form of Subscription does not provide a method of inquiry independent of or preliminary to Church Order Articles 89-93." The classis advised First Church to pursue informal discussion with Kuyvenhoven regarding its concerns.34

One final appeal was made, this time to Synod 1988. This appeal sought essentially two things: a judgment that consistories have a right under the Form of Subscription and the Church Order to request an explanation of an office-bearer's suspect confessional views; and, should the appeal not be sustained, advice on how to inquire regarding an office-bearer's adherence to the confessions when the concerned consistory has insufficient information to file charges, but sufficient grounds for suspicion.

Synod 1988 struggled with its response to First Church's appeal. An initial report from synod's advisory committee conceded that the Christian Reformed Church had two avenues for holding office-bearers accountable: by questioning according to the Form of Subscription vow, and by special discipline according to the Church Order. However, the committee judged that First Church erred in refusing to discuss its difficulties privately with Kuyvenhoven; its demand that the process remain within the assemblies "placed the editor in the position of having to defend his innocence rather than having the consistory establish his guilt. Our secular society recognizes that approach to be unjust; how much more should the church."35 The committee recommended that synod not sustain the appeal of First CRC of Orange City because there were "no formal charges or substantiated suspicions to support a formal inquiry." Instead, synod sent the matter back to committee.36

Three days later, Synod 1988 considered a far different report from its committee. This time, the focus fell not on the concern of First Church and the proper procedure for addressing those concerns, but on a technicality of wording. In its appeal, First CRC of Orange City had asked, "Please advise Classis Grand Rapids East that we do have a right under the Form of Subscription and the Church Order to request of Rev. Kuyvenhoven a further explanation of his views ..."37 Synod's committee focused on that wording, noting that the Church Order does not provide jurisdiction for a neighboring consistory to supervise the doctrine and life of office-bearers in the local congregation. First Church had no right to interrogate Kuyvenhoven itself, as that was the task only of his supervising consistory. Stunningly, the committee also said an office-bearer serving the whole denomination under the jurisdiction of a synodical board pledges, by means of the Form of Subscription, "his readiness to give an account of his views to synod or its representative, the board of jurisdiction."38 The committee thus suggested (perhaps inadvertently) that Classis Florida's approach in 1985 had been the proper course all along!

Synod 1988 concluded the matter by declining the appeal of First CRC of Orange City on the basis of the wording technicality, simultaneously agreeing to advise First Church of the proper course to be taken to investigate suspicious views of office-bearers not under its jurisdiction. Individuals with such concerns should follow the course of Matt. 18:15-18 in approaching the brother fraternally or should communicate his concerns to the consistory or board under which the office-bearer serves, according to the ruling. Consistories believing they have grounds of suspicion against an office-bearer not under its supervision my communicate the concerns to the consistory or board in charge of the office-bearer. "If the officebearer's consistory and/or synodical board then judges that the grounds of suspicion are insufficient to require further explanation, the procedure ends."39

Thus concludes the failed effort to hold the editor of The Banner accountable for repeated writings that appeared to contradict the confessions and, consequently, his vows under the Form of Subscription. Again, we must briefly pose our summary questions.

What began the process that caused so much confusion concerning Rev. Andrew Kuyvenhoven's adherence to the Form of Subscription? It is difficult to escape the conclusion that Kuyvenhoven himself began the process by repeatedly publishing columns that openly attacked the confessions of the Christian Reformed Church. That some of his fellow office-bearers called him to task for this should not be shocking. Indeed, the CRC's history - particularly during its first century of existence - prompts wonder that far more individuals and consistories did not advance requests for inquiry according to the Form of Subscription.

Was the case handled properly? Examining the case from the perspectives of Classis Florida and First CRC of Orange City, it is difficult to find significant cause for censure. Indeed, the personal and official correspondence from the time reveals a surprising degree of patience and perseverance - and it cannot escape our notice that First CRC of Orange City followed the precise procedure recommended by Synod 1985, while Synod 1988 declared that the course initially taken by Classis Florida was entirely proper.

If any fault is to be laid on the side of these two assemblies, it would have to be found in their refusal to privately address their concerns to Kuyvenhoven. However, a number of factors encouraged them not to pursue that avenue. The reader will recall that Rev. Edward Heerema did, indeed, begin with private admonition, but this effort failed to influence the content of Kuyvenhoven's writings. Further, as Classis Florida wrote in an addendum to its 1985 overture, Kuyvenhoven was responsible most directly to synod, and his writings affected the entire denomination. In the case of matters that concern all the churches in common, Article 28 of the Church Order places the ball in synod's court.40

Classis Florida and First CRC had significant precedents in their favor, including the Janssen and Wezeman cases, as well as cases adjudicated in 1918, 1959, 1961 and 1963. Finally, the concerns arose over Kuyvenhoven's public writings. If, indeed, his writings were contrary to the confessions, then his sin was public, and the Christian Reformed Church established precedent in the Janssen affair that in such cases, the process outlined in Matt. 18:15-18 does not apply. It would appear that these assemblies followed the proper course throughout.

Did the broadest assembly of the Christian Reformed Church - Synods 1985 and 1988 - act properly with regard to the concerns and complaints against Kuyvenhoven? It would be difficult to answer this question in the affirmative. Aside from the muddled conclusions of some of the assemblies - and without taking the time to evaluate the actions of the narrower assemblies - it seems clear that these synods acted irresponsibly at best, and possibly in an offensively partisan manner.

Consider: Synod 1985 nearly lost the opportunity to hear the complaint, through the improper intervention of its committees in heading off a legally passed and submitted overture. When it did hear Classis Florida's concerns, it determined to avoid the issue and rule the matter out of order. Three years later, Synod 1988 ruled that the procedure followed by Classis Florida in 1985 had been proper after all. It nonetheless refused to act on the basis of a technicality.

Heerema lamented this latter decision in a booklet he wrote to the denomination. This means of disposing of the overture, he said, was disturbing. "Does the church of Jesus Christ deal with an earnest concern of some of its members by throwing it out on a technicality of the kind we have here?" he asked. "Rather than make the whole serious issue turn on such a technicality, the synod could have noted the error in a sentence, and then dealt with the real burden of the appeal by addressing the question of the sufficiency of the grounds of concern. Synod's action on the Orange City appeal made an honorable body look petty."41 Indeed.

Comparison of Cases and Conclusions

Although we have focused on three specific cases, additional comparable cases could be brought forward, as was noted above. Through the early 1960s, such cases largely revealed Christian Reformed synods to be bodies that, when faced with legitimate concerns regarding the confessional allegiance of office-bearers, consistently acted to examine and, if necessary, to charge them.

However, the Kuyvenhoven case provides evidence of a significant shift in the CRC's approach with regard to the Form of Subscription and the vows it implied. It is hard to read Kuyvenhoven's writings from that period (or, indeed, from subsequent years) without concluding that he no longer holds to significant points of doctrine set forth in the Three Forms of Unity. Yet two synods, along with a consistory and a classis, refused to address those concerns, erecting all manner of procedural hurdles and digging up technical minutia to avoid addressing the significant doctrinal concerns in which the editor of their magazine had implicated himself.

In sharp contrast to the actions of these synods stand the tradition preceding them. Consider the advise of Van Dellen and Monsma in their Revised Church Order Commentary of 1967. Discussing the implications of the Form of Subscription, they write, "As a burdened subscriber can go with his problem to consistory, classis or synod, so also a consistory, a classis or a synod may decide to require of a brother falling under their authority a further explanation concerning his sentiments regarding any article of our standards." While affirming that, for instance, First CRC of Orange City would have no right to require Kuyvenhoven to provide such explanation, Van Dellen and Monsma seem quite clear that such a consistory - or a classis - may seek to convince a synod to require it. "Action of this kind may be taken by a classis or a synod as well as by a consistory. The major assemblies need not wait for minor assemblies."42

Without a doubt, the inquiries into the teachings of Janssen and Wezeman involved problematic aspects. Both could have been handled with more charity and gentleness. Yet we cannot deny that the assemblies involved - with the possible exception of Classis Ostfriesland during the Wezeman case - took quite seriously the promises made through the Form of Subscription. They held purity of doctrine in the church, along with honest adherence to the Three Forms of Unity by office-bearers, to be of the utmost importance.

That tradition was unambiguously altered in 1985 and 1988. With Synod 1985, the broader assemblies lost the right to initiate inquiries into the orthodoxy of office-bearers. With Synod 1988, that power was partially returned, provided the office-bearer was under the direct supervision of the assembly in question. But the understanding of Matt. 18:15-18 applying only to private and personal sins was muddled and weakened, at the very least. And without explicitly saying it, Synod 1988 proclaimed through its dismissal of the concerns of First CRC of Orange City that the Form of Subscription, with the vows and doctrinal accountability it represents, fall a distant second to political exactness.

Being a young federation, the United Reformed Churches have yet to deal with a significant case under the Form of Subscription.43 Thus, it would be rash to judge how they are most likely to address such a case when it arises. However, it behooves us to ponder whether and to what extent the Christian Reformed Church practices of the past - or the present - will be adopted in such a case.

Since the United Reformed Churches have adopted the same Form of Subscription used in the Christian Reformed Church through 1988, our vow remains the same. Thus, we continue to pledge to uphold, teach and defend the doctrine contained in the Three Forms of Unity, as being in full agreement with the Word of God. And we continue to affirm, before God and fellow believers, that we will provide further explanation of our sentiments respecting any particular article of those confessions should our consistory, classis or synod find sufficient grounds to require it of us. This is not a matter of being guilty until proven innocent, but rather is a matter of holding one another accountable before the Lord.

Our Church Order clarifies several matters and opens others up to question. For instance, Art. 52 makes it plain that the rule prescribed in Matthew 18 must be followed only when the offending brother's sin is private in character and does not give public offense. Art. 25 declares that no broader assembly possesses the authority to depose office-bearers or exercise other forms of church discipline, those powers belonging exclusively to the consistory.

Thus it would seem proper, if the case requires it, for a broader assembly to require an office-bearer to submit to interrogation to clarify suspect beliefs, teachings or writings. Should that interrogation indicate an unrepentant departure from the doctrine of our confessions, the broader assembly would be obligated to refer the matter to the office-bearer's consistory for adjudication. If the consistory declines to act, the matter could be appealed to synod and, should the consistory still refuse to act, the subsequent synod would be free to declare that congregation no longer eligible for membership in the URCNA.44

Is this the most efficient means available? No. But until a better process is submitted and approved, this one should allow our churches to safeguard both doctrinal purity and the primacy of the local consistory.

May the Lord grant that such will be the case; may we learn well from our history in the Christian Reformed Church; and may we so cherish the truths of God's Word that we steadfastly refuse to compromise either our confessions or our vows to that end.

Go to the Reformed.net Essay index.

Bibliography

General Reference

Brink, William P., and Richard R. DeRidder. Manual of Christian Reformed Church Government, 1987 Revision. Grand Rapids: CRC Publications, 1987.
Church Order of the Christian Reformed Church in North America, and Rules for Synodical Procedure, 1984. Grand Rapids: Board of Publications of the Christian Reformed Church, 1984.
DeRidder, Richard R., and Leonard J. Hofman. Manual of Christian Reformed Church Government, 1994 Revision. Grand Rapids: CRC Publications, 1994.
Hemkes, G.K., W. Heyns, and H. Beets. Dordtsche Kerkenorde met de Daaraan Verbonden Bepalingen der Christelijke Gereformeerde Kerk benevens hare Reglementen en Formulieren. Grand Rapids: J.B. Hulst, 1905.
Schaver, J.L. Christian Reformed Church Order. ("Published Under Auspices of Synod.") Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1937.
________. The Polity of the Churches, Vol. 1 and 2. Chicago: Church Polity Press, 1947.
Stuart, William, and Gerrit Hoeksema. Church Order of the Christian Reformed Church and Synodical Decisions, Formulas, Rules and Regulations for Committees, Etc. Grand Rapids: Smitter Book Co., 1927.
Van Dellen, Idzerd, and H. Keegstra. Kerkelijk Handboek ten dienste der Christelijke Gereformeerde Kerken in Noord-Amerika. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans-Sevensma Co., 1915.
Van Dellen, Idzerd, and Martin Monsma. The Church Order Commentary: A Brief Explanation of the Church Order of the Christian Reformed Church. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1941.
________. The Revised Church Order Commentary: An Explanation of the Church Order of the Christian Reformed Church. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1967.

Ralph (Roelof) Janssen Case

Acta der Synode 1920 van de Christelijke Gereformeerde Kerk. Grand Rapids: M. Hoffius, 1920.
Acta der Synode 1922 van de Christelijke Gereformeerde Kerk. Grand Rapids: Grand Rapids Printing Co., 1922.
Acta der Synode 1924 van de Christelijke Gereformeerde Kerk. Grand Rapids: Grand Rapids Printing Co., 1924.
Berkhof, Louis, H. Danhof, Y.P. De Jong, W. Heyns, H. Hoeksema, H.J. Kuiper, F.M. Ten Hoor, and S. Volbeda. Waar Het in de Zaak Janssen Om Gaat. Grand Rapids: Commercial Printing Co., 1922.
Berkhof, L., W. Heyns, F. Ten Hoor, and S. Volbeda. Nadere Toelichting omtrent de Zaak Janssen. Holland, Mich.: np., 1922.
Boer, Harry R. "Ralph Janssen After Fifty Years ..." The Reformed Journal 22, no. 10 (December 1972): 17-22
________. "Ralph Janssen (2): The 1922 Loaded Court." The Reformed Journal 23, no. 1 (January 1973): 22-28.
________. "The Janssen Case: Aftermath." The Reformed Journal 23, no. 9 (November 1973): 21-24.
Bratt, James D. Dutch Calvinism in Modern America: A History of a Conservative Subculture. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1984.
Brink, Arnold. "College and Seminary: The Janssen Controversy." The Banner 84 (27 May 1949): 655.
Hanko, Herman. "A Study of the Relation Between the Views of Prof. R. Janssen and Common Grace." M.Th. diss., Calvin Theological Seminary, 1988. Available online at http://www.prca.org/janssen_and_common_grace/
Holwerda, David E. "Hermeneutical Issues Then and Now: The Janssen Case Revisited." Calvin Theological Journal 24, no. 1 (April 1989): 7-34.
Janssen, Ralph. De Crisis in de Christelijke Gereformeerde Kerk in Amerika. Grand Rapids: n.p., 1922.
________. Het Synodale Vonnis en zijne Voorgeschiedenis Kerkrechtelijk Beoordeeld. Grand Rapids: M. Hoffius, 1922.
________. Voorzetting van den Strijd. Grand Rapids: n.p., 1922.
Kromminga, D.H. The Christian Reformed Tradition: From the Reformation Till the Present. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1943.
Kromminga, John H. The Christian Reformed Church: A Study in Orthodoxy. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1949.
Manni, J., H.J. Kuiper, H. Danhof, and H. Hoeksema. The Instruction of Prof. Janssen: Report of the Majority-Section of the Investigation Committee. Grand Rapids: Commercial Printing Co., 1922.
Spalink, Lawrence K. History of the Christian Reformed Church in North America. Course Syllabus. Dyer, Ind.: Mid-America Reformed Seminary, 1997.

Frederick Wezeman Case

Acts of Synod 1936 of the Christian Reformed Church. Grand Rapids: Office of the Stated Clerk, 1936.
Acts of Synod 1937 of the Christian Reformed Church. Grand Rapids: Office of the Stated Clerk, 1937.
Acts of Synod 1938 of the Christian Reformed Church. Grand Rapids: Office of the Stated Clerk, 1938.
Kromminga, John H. The Christian Reformed Church: A Study in Orthodoxy. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1949.
Kuiper, H.J. "Editorial: Synod's Discussions and Work." The Banner 71 (7 August 1936): 724-25.
Kuiper, H.J. "Editorial: The Wezeman Case." The Banner 72 (8 July 1937): 652 ff.
Kuiper, H.J. "Editorial: The Third Week of Synod." The Banner 72 (5 August 1937): 733 ff.
Kuiper, Herman. "An Answer to a Communication of Dr. F.H. Wezeman." The Banner 71 (17 January 1936): 54-55.
Kuiper, Herman. The Chicago Situation: A Word of Warning to the Churches. Chicago: Chicago Calvin Press, n.d.
Swierenga, Robert P. Dutch Chicago: A History of the Hollanders in the Windy City. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2002.
Wezeman, Frances H. "Editorial: Rev. F.H. Wezeman Defends Himself." The Banner 71 (3 January 1936): 4-5.

Andrew Kuyvenhoven Case

All personal correspondence & manuscript sources, unless otherwise noted, in the hand of Doug Barnes, Hammond, Ind.

Acts of Synod 1961 of the Christian Reformed Church. Grand Rapids: Christian Reformed Publishing House, 1961.
Acts of Synod 1963 of the Christian Reformed Church. Grand Rapids: Christian Reformed Publishing House, 1963.
Acts of Synod 1985 of the Christian Reformed Church. Grand Rapids: CRC Publications, 1985.
Acts of Synod 1988 of the Christian Reformed Church. Grand Rapids: CRC Publications, 1988.
"An Open Letter to the Editor of The Banner." Christian Renewal 2, no. 19 (4 June 1984): 2, 15.
Boston Square CRC of Grand Rapids Consistory. Letter to First CRC of Orange City Consistory, 8 September 1986.
________. Letter to First CRC of Orange City Consistory, 17 November 1986.
Byl, John. "Regarding Bible and Culture." Outlook 34 (January 1985): 15-16.
Cape Coral CRC Consistory. Overture to Classis Florida of the CRCNA, 21 December 1984.
Classis Florida Stated Clerk. Letter to Boston Square CRC, Grand Rapids, n.d.
________. Letter to Synod of the Christian Reformed Church, Grand Rapids, 8 May 1985.
________. Letter to Synodical Interim Committee, Grand Rapids, 9 May 1985.
________. Open Letter, 25 September 1985.
________. Overture to Synod of the Christian Reformed Church (with explanatory appendix), Grand Rapids, 23 January 1985.
Classis Grand Rapids East Stated Clerk. Letter to First CRC of Orange City Consistory, 21 January 1987.
________. Letter to Ralph A. Pontier, Orange City, Iowa, 8 April 1987.
________. Letter and Minutes to Ralph A. Pontier, Orange City, Iowa, 31 July 1987.
________. Report Concerning Appeal of First CRC of Orange City Consistory, 17 March 1987.
De Kruyter, John A., Oak Lawn, Ill., to Ralph A. Pontier, Cape Coral, Fla., 2 April 1985.
First CRC of Orange City Consistory. Overture to Boston Square CRC of Grand Rapids Consistory, 6 August 1986.
________. Appeal to Decision of Boston Square CRC of Grand Rapids Consistory, 3 December 1986.
________. Appeal to Decision of Classis Grand Rapids East, 3 February 1988.
________. [Second] Appeal to Decision of Classis Grand Rapids East, 22 June 1988.
________. Letter to Boston Square CRC of Grand Rapids Consistory, 1 October 1986.
________. Letter to Classis Grand Rapids East, 1 October 1986 [unsent].
________. "Appeal of First Orange City Regarding the Views of Rev. A. Kuyvenhoven." Orange City, Iowa: n.p., n.d.
________. "Summary of the Requests of First CRC, Orange City to Boston Square CRC, August 6 and October 1, 1986." Orange City, Iowa: n.p., n.d.
Heerema, Edward. Letter to My Mother: Reflections on the Christian Reformed Church in North America. Freeman, S.D.: Pine Hill Press, 1990.
________. "Does the Form of Subscription Still Function?" Outlook 35 (April 1985): 10-12.
________, Cape Coral, Fla., to Cape Coral CRC Consistory, n.d.
________, Cape Coral, Fla., to Leonard Hofman, Grand Rapids, 22 December 1984.
________, Cape Coral, Fla., to Leonard Hofman, Grand Rapids, 1 February 1985.
________, Cape Coral, Fla., to Ralph A. Pontier, Orange City, Iowa, 24 April 1987.
________, Cape Coral, Fla., to various synodical delegates, 15 May 1986.
Hofman, Leonard, Grand Rapids, to Edward Heerema, Cape Coral, Fla., 27 December 1984.
________, Grand Rapids, to Ralph A. Pontier, 25 March 1985.
Kuyvenhoven, Andrew. "The Church and the Churches." The Banner 116, no. 41 (26 October 1981): 7-8.
________. "Open Letter to an Elder in the CRC." The Banner 119, no. 19 (14 May 1984): 6-7.
________. "Women in Office." The Banner 119, no. 3 (23 January 1984): 6-7
Minutes of Classis Grand Rapids East, 21 May 1987, 3.
McBride, Malcolm. "Banner Editor Plans to Resign in Fall 1989." The Banner 123 (6 June 1988): 23.
Pontier, Ralph A., Cape Coral, Fla., to John De Kruyter, Oak Lawn, Ill., 28 March 1985.
________, Cape Coral, Fla., to Leonard J. Hofman, Grand Rapids, 12 February, 1985.
________, Cape Coral, Fla., to Andrew Kuyvenhoven, Grand Rapids, 28 January 1981 [unsent].
Punt, Neal, Evergreen Park, Ill., to Ralph A. Pontier, Cape Coral, Fla., 26 Sept. 1985.
________, Evergreen Park, Ill., to Ralph A. Pontier, Orange City, Iowa, 2 July 1988.
Schaap, James C. Our Family Album: The Unfinished Story of the Christian Reformed Church. Grand Rapids: CRC Publications, 1998.
Smalligan, Sheryl Barlow. "Be Patient, Kuyvenhoven Says." Christian Renewal 5, no. 9 (26 January 1987): 4.
Ten Elshof, Phyllis. "Kuyvenhoven's Art of Quitting." The Banner 124 (3 July 1989): 21.

Footnotes

Cf. Idzerd Van Dellen and M. Monsma, The Revised Church Order Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1967), 38ff.
Those interested in a detailed study of any of the cases addressed should consult the extensive bibliography for sources.
At the time, seminary professors were recognized as holding a special office in the Church which required the signing of the Form of Subscription. Cf. Art. 2 of the 1905 and 1920 revisions of the Church Order.
Herman Hanko, "A Study of the Relation Between the Views of Prof. R. Janssen and Common Grace," M.Th. diss., Calvin Theological Seminary, 1988, chapter 2. [No page numbers.]
Harry R. Boer, "The Janssen Case: Aftermath," The Reformed Journal 23, no. 9 (November 1973): 24.
Arnold Brink, "College and Seminary: The Janssen Controversy," The Banner 84 (27 May 1949): 655.
Hanko, chapter 2.
J.H. Kromminga, The Christian Reformed Church: A Study in Orthodoxy (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1949), 76.
Harry Boer, "Ralph Janssen After Fifty Years," The Reformed Journal 23, no. 10 (December 1972): 19.
Hanko, chapter 2.
Harry Boer, "Ralph Janssen (2): The 1922 Loaded Court," The Reformed Journal 23, no. 1 (January 1973): 24.
Harry Boer, "Ralph Janssen After Fifty Years," 17.
Hanko, chapter 2, footnote 11. Cf. Harry Boer, "The Janssen Case After Fifty Years," 19.
Hanko, chapter 2.
Robert P. Swierenga, Dutch Chicago (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2002), 397 ff.
Ibid., 409.
Ibid., 410.
Herman Kuiper, The Chicago Situation: A Word of Warning to the Churches (Chicago: Chicago Calvin Press, n.d.), 96.
Swierenga, 412.
Acts of Synod 1936 of the Christian Reformed Church (Grand Rapids: Office of the Stated Clerk, 1936), 93-5 and 101-10.
Ibid., 140 and 146-7.
Acts of Synod 1937 of the Christian Reformed Church (Grand Rapids: Office of the Stated Clerk, 1937), 31 ff., 34 ff., and 115. Whether Wezeman's admission was genuine is a matter that deserves examination under separate cover.
Kromminga, 82.
"An Open Letter to the Editor of The Banner," Christian Renewal 2, no. 19 (4 June 1984): 2.
Andrew Kuyvenhoven, "The Church and the Churches," The Banner 116, no. 41 (26 October 1981): 8.
Andrew Kuyvenhoven, "Women in Office," The Banner 119, no. 3 (23 January 1984): 7; and "An Open Letter to an Elder in the CRC," The Banner 119, no. 19 (14 May 1984): 6-7.
Cited in Edward Heerema, Letter to My Mother: Reflections on the Christian Reformed Church in North America (Freeman, S.D.: Pine Hill Press, 1990), 62.
Cf. Letter of Leonard Hofman, Grand Rapids, to Edward Heerema, Cape Coral, Fla., 27 December 1984.
For a discussion of the reasons underlying the committee's decision, see Letter of John De Kruyter, Oak Lawn, Ill., to Ralph Pontier, Cape Coral, Fla., 2 April 1985.
Acts of Synod 1985 of the Christian Reformed Church (Grand Rapids: Christian Reformed Publishing House, 1985), 59.
Ibid., 727-8.
Boston Square CRC of Grand Rapids Consistory, letter to First CRC of Orange City Consistory, 8 September 1986.
First CRC of Orange City Consistory, letter to Boston Square CRC of Grand Rapids Consistory, 1 October 1986.
Minutes of Classis Grand Rapids East, 21 May 1987, 3.
Acts of Synod 1988 of the Christian Reformed Church (Grand Rapids: CRC Publications, 1988), 545.
Ibid.
Ibid., 612.
Ibid.
Ibid., 613.
Classis Florida, addendum to overture, n.d.
Heerema, Letter to My Mother, 67.
Van Dellen and Monsma, 40.
To the author's knowledge, the only URCNA deposition of an office-bearer on confessional grounds has been that of Allen Elder, a minister in Colorado who was deposed by Calvary URC in Loveland, Colo., with the concurring advice of Classis Southwest US in 2001. Elder had determined to depart from the URC to seek ordination by an Eastern Orthodox church in 2001. This, however, involved direct charges, rather than an inquiry under the Form of Subscription.
Cf. Church Order Arts. 29-31.