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.
After the classis meeting the consistory of the Chatham church spent several meetings to intensively discuss the actions of the last classis meeting. The consistory of St. Thomas did the same. Independent of each other, both consistories decided to appeal the decision of classis of January 14, 1953.
The consistory of St. Thomas sent the following appeal to the calling church for the next classis meeting:
January 1953
To the classis of the Old Christian Reformed Church
Esteemed Brethern,
We have received your letter of January 26, 1953, advising us of the decisions of the extra classis of January 14, 1953. Our consistory has discussed your letter and decisions, but cannot accept your decisions, because they are contrary to Article 4 of church order, which in accordance with the synodical decision of 1925 reads as follows:
A) We do not observe “Handopening”* according to the original intent because it does not accord with Reformed Church order.
B) No congregation can be forced to ask permission from the classis before calling a pastor, because the Reformed Church order attributes the right to call to the local church.
C) A congregation that wants to call a pastor and is not able to pay the entire salary, can simply apply to classis for assistance. If the classis refuses, then the congregation still has the right to call the minister.
D) Even though we would never speak of “handopening”* we would advise the congregations, particularly those who are calling for the first time, to do this after receiving advice of the church counselor and of the classis. (Synod 1925)
We have decided to continue the work of calling a minister.
With brotherly greetings,
The consistory of the Old Christian Reformed Church of St. Thomas
J. Pennings, chairman
A. Pol, clerk
The consistory of Chatham submitted the following appeal:
To the calling Church Grand Rapids
C/o Mr. Frank Vanden Bout
149 Fuller Ave S.E.
Grand Rapids, MI
USA
Esteemed Brethern,
We inform you that we received on January 23rd in good order, the proposal proposed by the church of Grand Rapids and adopted by classis of January 14, 1953 regarding young immigrant congregations.
Our consistory has discussed this proposal, which has in the meanwhile become a decided policy of classis, in two meetings of the consistory.
The result of our discussion is that our consistory has determined, regarding the decision and the actions leading to the decision, to place the following objections before the consistory of the calling church and with this letter wish to appeal the whole procedure followed:
1) Formal objections
Having seen the classis’ agenda sent out by the calling church, you are well aware of the fact that the proposal submitted by Grand Rapids was not included on the agenda or with the agenda. There was no mention of a proposal anywhere.
This also applies to the proposal sent in by Artesia. What could be the reason for the non – mentioning we do not know. We can only determine what took place.
Several consistories, ours, and some others, were kept completely ignorant of what Grand Rapids and Artesia were going to propose. In this manner our consistory and others were not able, prior to the classis meeting of January 14, 1953, to review and discuss the proposals that would be presented.
This manner of proceeding is incorrect from a church orderly point of view. Article 30 of church order specifies: In these assemblies ecclesiastical matters only shall be transacted and that in an ecclesiastical manner. This ecclesiastical manner of acting does not consist of giving direction based on legalities, but on benevolent and godly leadership, and does not have a compelling and forcing, but a reasoned and guiding character. (Church Order commentary Joh. Jansen)
If this is to be the case, the calling church is to take care that the agenda will be received approximately 14 days prior to the meeting of the classis (this is the customary rule) containing specific mention of all business to be transacted.
The consistories need to be able to review, discuss and decide all items on the agenda, so that they will be well prepared for the decision making process at classis. (Bouwman-Reformed Church Order, Vol.II).
In no respect was this the case with the recent classical decision. By surprise the proposals of Grand Rapids and Artesia were put on the table and discussed and acted upon.
Substantive objections
Our objections do not only regard the formal aspect, but much more the substantial aspect, e.g. the content of the decision.
The doctrine of the independence of the local church prevails in our church order. The local church is to conducts her affairs independently, in accordance with the Word of God, the confessions, and the church order.
Of course the denomination is of importance, and should certainly be considered, but not in such a way, that one or several churches would be allowed to lord it over another church.
The principle of the independence of the local church has now been trampled underfoot by the decisions of the classis of January 14, 1953, because the congregations are no longer at liberty to call a pastor. No congregation will from now on be able to call, without first having provided a financial accounting to the committee of the USA churches, and the committee will need to provide a report to classis regarding the financial capabilities of the church. Subsequent to that the classis will have to provide its approval before any church will be allowed to call a pastor.
This is in flagrant contradiction with the spirit of our church order which is based on scripture and confessions, and places this authority solely in the hands of the local consistory.
No church can, or may be forced to obtain consent prior to issuing a call, because our church order places that legal authority squarely and exclusively in the hand of the local church. (See article 4 and 5 of Church Order).
When Aricle 5 C.O.D.speaks of “approbation of the classis”, this does not mean that this takes place prior to, but that classis, subsequent to the call, must examine the credentials, and if they are in order, accept them.
When article 4 C.O.D. speaks of the “advice of the by classis appointed counselor” then we understand
a) that classis, functioning as combined meeting of the churches, certainly does have involvement in the work of calling a pastor.
b) That this involvement has the character of providing advice, and not of providing a rule for behaviour.
As result of your decision, the churches in the denomination are denied their lawful right to call a pastor, if they have not first sought the approval the financial committee of the USA churches and the classis.
This is absolutely unjustifiable. Each consistory is entitled to this decision exclusively.
The above reasons have led the consistory to come to the following pronouncement:
a) that your decision is not in accordance with Scripture and Church Order
b) that this decision cannot be respected by us, in accordance with article 31 C.O.D., we will be unable to comply with it,
c) to advise you of this by sending this letter to the calling church, who is requested to place this on the agenda of classis,
d) to call the church to repent from her errors.
We pray that the Holy Spirit may lead you in your deliberations, and sign with brotherly greetings,
On behalf of the consistory of the Old Christian Reformed Church
J. Tamminga, chairman
H. Flootman, clerk
Verbally we have conveyed an additional practical objection to the classis, e.g. the objection that the decision lacks the possibility of practical execution.
If you have calmly read and considered what I have conveyed about the home missionary decision, you will immediately understand that reality is far different than the stories in the Gospel Banner try to make us believe.
Especially the Church of St. Thomas was in a predicament, because the lawful right of this church to call a pastor in accordance with church order, had been stripped away by classis. First the Financial committee and thereafter the classis would have to approve whether or not she was capable of calling.
St. Thomas had great difficulty accepting this.
Several consistory meetings were held to discuss this, and a meeting was called with the congregation to discuss this. Their final conclusion was that they would continue in harmony with church order, and could not accept this infringement.
Of course, the calling of a pastor continued. They could not have the care of, and work in the congregation halted in order to comply with an authoritarian and un-church-orderly ruling.
And so they called Rev. J.P. Geels of Rotterdam, who declined for the call.
Handopening* a Dutch term
In the Netherlands, before 1816, the state paid ministers salaries, since the Reformed Church was a state church. The state also approved each pastoral call, and not the congregation.
Handopening, initially, was the request from a church to the state, and later to the classis, to provide on behalf of the state (in the state run church) funding and approval of the call.
As indicated above, the Synod of the Christelijke Gereformeerde Kerk (Free Reformed Church) in the Netherlands, decided in 1925 with respect to Handopening: No congregation can be forced to ask permission from the classis before calling a pastor, because the Reformed Church order attributes the right to call to the local church.
