For the Truth, A booklet written in 1953 by Rev. J. Tamminga, (1907-1984) at the time of writing, minister of the Free Reformed Church of Chatham, Ontario.
The next scheduled (spring) classis meeting was set for April 22, 1953 in Hamilton. The Gospel Banner reported that two items of incoming correspondence were received. This is incorrect. There were three items.
1) a letter from Artesia, suggesting strongly to invoke ecclesiastical measures against St. Thomas, because they had not complied with the decision of classis. (the opinion prevailed that church discipline should be applied to the St. Thomas consistory)
2) Appeal from Chatham
3) Appeal from St. Thomas
It begs the question why the letter from Artesia, suggesting to invoke ecclesiastical measures, was not on the agenda. Considering that the Gospel Banner report was quite lengthy, it is not clear why this was not reported, especially because this letter was seriously considered.
The appeal of Chatham was dealt with first and rejected, maintaining the decision of the previous classis.
This decision at the same time disposed of the appeal of St. Thomas. You can understand how the St. Thomas delegates would now feel, since they were no longer allowed to call a pastor. Calling according to the Church Order had become impossible. The God given responsibility for the spiritual welfare of the church had been abrogated. The consistory had been declared incompetent.
The house needed to be “set in order” did it not?
They could now only come with the request for a home missionary. Since the financial position of the church was not such that they could call, the pastor would have to live in poverty. The call would also have to be done by another church on behalf of St. Thomas who would then send a man as a home missionary to St. Thomas.
There would of course be discussion, the consistory would be allowed some input, but they would not be allowed to call themselves.
Any self respecting consistory, stronger, any consistory who wanted to work in compliance with church order, would have acted the way the St. Thomas consistory did.
The next item to be dealt with was the letter from Artesia, which promoted church discipline, since St. Thomas did not heed the classis decision.
The Gospel Banner reports this as follows:
“The classis decides, that, if St. Thomas continues to ignore the decisions of the major assembly, she will be dealt with ecclesiastically forthwith.”
This is an absolute lie. How can this paper publish this? How do they dare to publish such a terrible untruth? Is it then permitted to lash out at the church? Is the 9th commandment not applicable to the Gospel Banner?
This is what really happened: when the letter from Artesia was discussed, it was clear that Artesia was right in saying that action was required, since St. Thomas had not kept the decision of classis January 14, 1953.
It was discussed, how far should we go? Three possibilities were considered:
Sharp disapproval of the actions of the consistory and a firm admonishment to heed the major assembly,
Temporary removal from office
Deposition from office.
To come to a correct decision, the consistory of St. Thomas was first asked if they would comply with the decisions of classis. When the consistory answered that, for the reasons outlined earlier, they could impossibly comply, the classis decided to depose the entire consistory from office.
This is the naked truth, which the Gospel Banner would not tell you. The decision was not, as they are trying to make you believe, that this would happen sometime in the future, if the consistory continued non compliance as the Gospel Banner stated:
“The classis decides, that, if St. Thomas continues to ignore the decisions of the major assembly, she will be dealt with ecclesiastically forthwith.”
But this was decided at the very same meeting. The whole consistory was deposed.
I will not enter into the question whether or not the classis had the right to do this. I only want to report this sad fact. The brothers from St. Thomas left the meeting as non – office bearers.
Chatham did not acquiesce or consent to this. That it was impossible to continue meeting with them one can understand.
A few days after the April 22, 1953 spring classis meeting the St. Thomas consistory met again and decided the following:
a) to continue functioning as the lawful consistory of the St. Thomas congregation, because the deposition was based on an unlawful decision, and thus itself is unlawful,
b) to remove the church from the Old Christian Reformed denomination, because, to their regret, there is no other course of action. Appeal to a major assembly is not possible, since there is no major assembly.
The St. Thomas congregation unanimously endorsed the actions and position of the consistory.
