23 Apr GS 1974 art 29

GS 1974 ARTICLE 29 –  Response by the Rev. G. VanDooren

On behalf of The Canadian Reformed Churches and this Synod the Rev. G. VanDooren answers as following:

• Esteemed Reverend Cnossen,
• I consider it a great honour, now that we have for the first time in the life of our Churches an official representative of Sister-Churches abroad in our midst, to address you at the request of the moderamen and on behalf of Synod; and in you the Committee and Churches you represent.
• It is an additional pleasure for us that you are not a stranger, and that undoubtedly, during your stay here, the years of your ministry among us will come back to you strongly.
• Although the Mother of us all, Jerusalem, is above, and not in the Netherlands, not even in my birthplace Kampen, then called the Dutch Jerusalem, and although we as Canadian (American) Reformed Churches are in a modest way proud and careful with our independence as a federation of Churches, independent from any headquarters except the one in heaven, – yet the strong bond of unity which we feel and experience with your Churches, seems sometimes to adopt a mother-daughter relationship, for the simple reasons that our roots are in The Netherlands, not only historically but also ecclesiastically.
• It may sound paradoxical, but that relationship is, the way I feel it, even becoming stronger in recent times.
• “Paradoxical”, because the first years of our lives here were like that of “Displaced Persons”, a Dutch colony, speaking Dutch, thinking Dutch, and acting Dutch. In our first Synod we chose as “our” School for the training of future ministers “Kampen”! Could it be stronger?
• This has changed by now. We speak English, or try it; we have become Canadian Churches. We have our own life here, our own struggles and challenges which – it cannot be denied-fashion and mould the outlook of our Church life. Canadian demands and Canadian dangers exercise their influence in our reaction to them, and thus we may feel like becoming somewhat estranged from the life of the sisters in The Netherlands. Think only of a younger generation born and grown up in this, their, country.
• Yet, exactly among that younger generation a growing interest in the Dutch language and culture may be noticed. They are again proud to be able to speak Dutch, and a growing number want to see the country where their parents were born.
• Apart from this remarkable symptom, how could I say that the bond between your and our Churches seems to become stronger?
• Maybe in this respect I speak only for myself but I feel that we need each other, anyway that we need you, more than was felt in previous years, we need your talents.
• I think first (who can blame me?) of the benefit the understaffed department of Diaconiology in our College can harvest from Kampen. Indeed, we hope that we no longer need to depend on Kampen for candidates for the ministry, now that we have our own College, borne on the wings of loving prayers and loving sacrifices of our membership.
• But there is more. Your Churches are at the moment engaged in several endeavours for the upbuilding of the Church of Christ. I mention only, a revision of the Church Order, a new dress for the Heidelberg Catechism, a modernization of the Liturgical Forms. Except for the fact of the difference in language which prevents us from simply copying your results, we do hope to benefit richly from your endeavours. In the important matter of an English Genevan Psalter you could not help us but we are ever so happy that our Psalm book has become a required textbook in your secondary schools. Thus you benefit a bit from our labours. As to the Hymn Section, now that an expanded Hymn book will be submitted to your next Synod, I express the same hope as Dirk Jansz. Zwart recently expressed in our midst, that we may be of help to each other.
• These are just a few things that may prove my point and that, to me, are of more importance than just official, formal, correspondence.
• The strongest tie, however, still is the tens of thousands of letters which cross the ocean yearly in both directions.
• Because of this busy and cordial two-way traffic, living proof of our close relationships, the dissensions, struggles and splits your Churches went through in recent years, were witnessed by us from a geographical far but in fact very close distance. Relatives were involved. Ministers saw Churches which they had served in the past, and had learned to love, broken up or factually disappear from the Federation or Kerkverband.
• I think we know a bit of the grief and bitterness caused by such a struggle because we went through similar crises regarding faithfulness to the Creeds and Church Order, though our crises were not of such large dimensions.
• Consequently a multitude of prayers was sent to the throne of grace. Our feelings were and are a mixture of gratitude and of grief.
• Of grief because so many brothers and sisters with whom we were united in the Liberation, did not see the light and chose a way which will, unless the LORD forbids, lead farther and farther away from the Reformed path. Grief also because the “peace of Christ as arbitrator” did not succeed in restoring the unity of the body.
• Gratitude because, nevertheless, unity in Creedal and Church-political respect was chosen above a unity which would have undermined the Churches more and more.
• We did not, and could not, and ought not have opinions about the several local conflicls, but I am convinced that this Synod will leave no doubt as to what unity The Canadian Reformed Churches choose, and on what side of the fence we want to be and to live. We hope and pray that a similar conflict will be spared us, as much as we hope and pray that your Churches by their faithfulness in the bond of peace and love may win back those who chose to leave.
• As a transition to my final remarks I may state that The Canadian Reformed Churches, from the very start and by the grace of God, have taken the blessings of the Liberation along when they settled in our new home country. They did this, – not only in instituting Churches next and overagainst a former Sister-Church (the Christian Reformed Church): – not only in attempting to convince the Christian Reformed Church to annul their doctrinal statements on presumptive regeneration and common grace, which attempts were blessed; – not only in unceasingly insisting
• that this Church, which we love for the sake of the fathers, terminate their relationship with the synodical community in The Netherlands, thus further endangering their own Churches, which attempt has failed till now, – but especially, I may say, in retaining and maintaining the Liberated, i.e. the truly Reformed Church Polity pure and undefiled.
• We have, in our major assemblies, consistently guarded ourselves against any infringement upon the independence and freedom of the local Churches, and against any trespassing the limits set for major assemblies_
• When your colleague-deputy, the Rev. P. Van Gurp, in Rondom Het Woord, August 1974, states that the Australian Sister-Churches may even be more faithful to the Scriptures than the average congregation in The Netherlands, – I make bold to say that The Canadian Reformed Churches are even more faithful to Reformed Church Polity than their Dutch Sister-Churches. Anyway in this respect: while our Classes write and approve their own Acts before they pass away into the past, because we believe and practise that every next Classis is a completely new one, – the Dutch Classes, in majority, still write so-called “minutes” which are then read and approved in the “next meeting of Classis”, as though a Classis is a permanent body. If you wish, dear brother, you may take this hint home.
• Similarly, our Synods have always scrupulously tried to guard themselves against any crossing of their stringent limitations, and refused to take decisions on matters which were not fully and properly prepared and ripe for decision. This has not always pleased everyone, and – maybe – given occasion for a wrong impression. It seemed so negative, while it was, to me, positive.
• I mentioned the name and article of your colleague and alternate, the Rev. Van Gurp.
• I would not be honest in a Christian way, nor brotherly, if I would refrain from a word of warning born from my reading of what he wrote in the above mentioned magazine about our Churches. I understand that he did not do this in official capacity but I believe it cannot be denied that he was asked to write this article which deals with Churches abroad, because he is a member of the Committee for Correspon­dence. If you would have been unable to come here, he would have been here and I would have said exactly the same.
• We are all for a good mutual understanding and treatment. That is why what he wrote about our Churches has caused considerable consternation and indignation in many hearts.
• Although starting with the statement that in recent years The Canadian Reformed Churches have strongly sympathized with their Dutch sisters, he then proceeds by driving a wedge between Church members and their ‘leaders’ (Voorgan­gers). Of those leaders he says that they tried hard to keep the Dutch struggle at a distance, and (and I stress the following words) tried to keep the Dutch conflict outside The Canadian Reformed Churches.
• Then he constructs the history of the origin of Shield and Sword, stating that in The Netherlands a drive is held to support it financially. The reason? This Magazine “had to protest” against the leadership given in Clarion.
• That is all I want to say, leaving out many unpleasant things, the result of which will even be felt by this Synod.
• I only state with regret that such public statements by a deputy for correspondence can only do harm to a mutual relationship which does not exist between Churches in the one country with some members of Churches in another country, but between the two Federations or Kerkverbanden.
• I mentioned before that the strongest tie is the mail crossing the ocean.
• Maybe I should have put it this way: in recent years we were happy to welcome unnumbered visitors, just Church members, or office-bearers, ministers; we were even honoured with professional visits. They all expressed in our ears their gratitude for what they found here in our Church life and education, – while at the same time they urged us to do exactly what Rev. Van Gurp seems to blame us for: “try to keep the Dutch conflict outside your borders.”
• But let me conclude with better things:
  • Brother in the Lord, I am convinced that the coming years will increasingly prove how much we need each other, anyway that we need you. Instead of hurting each other (if we did, be it graciously forgiven), let us hope and pray for a close, Christian fellowship in which:
    • – the  peace of Christ may referee among us;
    • – the  Word of Christ may dwell among us richly, in wisdom;
    • – the  Name of Christ dominat.e us in all we do in word and deed.
  • And let us be thankful, admonishing each other with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs.
  • May your stay in our midst not only be a pleasant one for you (for us it is already) but more: may it contribute to such a fellowship in which we put off the old nature, put on the new nature and thus – such is the only glory of the Church – “Put On Christ.”

I thank you.

After this address Hymn 46:4, 5 is sung.