Every reader of these articles published in “The Gospel Banner” who is not informed about the complete developments, will immediately have the impression that the breach between our churches is caused by the fact that two churches do not want home missionaries and the remaining do. And that, when classis maintained its position, Chatham and St. Thomas stubbornly persisted, and then left and caused the rift.
I have received the allegation that “I have left without presenting lawful objections” and also that “It is unbelievably sad when a minister leaves his church for only a practical matter such as the appointment of home missionaries.” I strongly protest these statements as being in conflict with the truth.
The conflict was not about the possible appointment of home missionaries as such, and it is not true that
“I just left the meeting” and it is also not true that our churches have withdrawn from the denomination without presenting principled objections.
Everyone who is familiar with the sequence of events knows, and so does the author of these articles in “The Gospel Banner” that the problems that came about and ended in separation, were caused by the authoritarian approach of the classis, which, in the opinion of the dissenting churches, ignored the basic principles of church order: the independence of the local church and consistory.
I will relate the events leading up to these classis meetings, and this will make clear that the facts of the matter are entirely different than presented by “The Gospel Banner”.
Around the 1st of January 1953 the difficulties started.
In the beginning of 1952 Rev. J.H. Velema, minister in Zwolle, the Netherlands, was called by the church at St. Thomas, Ontario. Three congregations, Artesia, Hamilton** and Smithville, had serious objections to this call. They asked the calling church for classis, the Grand Rapids congregation, to call an extra meeting of classis, to discuss measures that could be taken with respect to the call of St. Thomas. The objections they had were the following: Some years ago Rev. Velema had voiced some questions about the Old Christian Reformed Church (Old C.R.C.) in an article in the publication of the classis Amersfoort . In this article it became clear that the writer, at that time, was not entirely favourable towards the church life in the Old C.R.C. This was also clear from his position taken at the Dutch Synod of 1950. Some here said that since Rev. Velema was in conflict with the Old C.R.C. he would be unable to labour with fruit in this denomination. To be honest, I also did not agree with some of his remarks. I would have liked it if he would have phrased his remarks in different terms. At the same time I would ad that, at a later time, he in many respects changed his opinion, and even served as deputy for correspondence with foreign churches, and assisted in granting approval for the institution of the Chatham and St. Thomas churches, and worked for the official recognition of the Old C.R.C. as sister church, which illustrates that he certainly did not “live in conflict” with the Old C.R.C.
Further, it was also apparent that he had real interest for the immigrant churches, in the fact that he considered the call to St. Thomas very seriously for a period of time, and did not immediately decline.
I would like to state, that the classis of the Old C.R.C. at the time of the article wrote to both the classis Amersfoort and the classis Zwolle under which he later resorted. They received no response from Zwolle because that letter never arrived, and Amersfoort responded that they should contact him directly, because he was responsible for his own writings. This was a reasonable reply.
Most remarkably, even though classis Amersfoort advised to contact him directly, the classis of the Old C.R.C. never made any effort to contact him directly. If there was any remaining issue with him, this was never resolved because he was never approached. Why not write to him directly? Holy Scripture and church order both point in this direction. But this was not done.
They continued to see Rev. Velema as being in conflict with the churches. Three churches requested an urgent special meeting. It is not likely that Artesia, in California, knew anything about this matter, but must have been hastily briefed, and thus joined with Hamilton and Smithville in requesting this extra classis meeting. In reality there was a real problem. In December of 1952 there were only two written requests for an extra classis meeting, and not three as required by church order. (At a later time I was assured that there was only one request on the table.)
The Grand Rapids consistory decides to not call an extra classis meeting. They did not want to meddle in the affairs of another church. Also they did not know all of the details surrounding this call. A few days after the consistory meeting, the third official request did arrive, and the chairman of the Grand Rapids consistory pushed the matter forward, and the consistory reversed its former decision.
I receive a letter dated December 31, 1952 about this planned extra classis meeting to be held on January 14, 1953, with as subject for the agenda: the call of St. Thomas to Rev. J.H. Velema. A letter of invitation is also sent to the St. Thomas church, while this letter is dated one day earlier, December 30, 1952. These dates are very significant, when we note the date of the meeting (below) on which the calling church prepared the agenda and sent invitations.
Developments become even more unusual. I dare say much worse, and I will quote a sentence from the letter of invitation to the meeting, addressed to the St. Thomas consistory:
By order of the protesting churches we advise you, that first a classis meeting must be held to remove this obstacle, (meant is the call to Rev. J.H. Velema) so that peace and unity will prevail between us as brothers, before you will be allowed to take any further steps in ecclesiastical matters.
Any further commentary on the last sentence is unnecessary. Have you ever heard such language between sister congregations? This is pure dictatorship. A consistory is commanded to cease all activities relating to calling a pastor on behalf of several other churches prior to a meeting. Church order has been abandoned.
Hierarchie prevails.
On Januari 5, 1953 another consistory meeting is held in Grand Rapids and the matter of an extra classis meeting is discussed. The agenda is now readied and sent to all churches. The earliest date a church could receive the agenda would be on the 8th of January 1953. The agenda has only one item of business on it.
Incoming correspondence:
Three consistories of the denomination are grieved about the call which the church of St. Thomas has issued to Rev. J.H. Velema of Zwolle, the Netherlands. They request a classical inquiry into this matter, since Rev. Velema lives in conflict with our churches. They also request good care for our immigrant congregations.
Take careful note of what the agenda specifies. It is clear that there is absolutely no mention of the proposal that will be introduced standing the meeting by the chairman. I want to categorically state that no notice of any kind was given of any instruction or proposal to either the St. Thomas consistory or the Chatham consistory, nor to an other consistory. They had no opportunity to review and debate the proposal. They were kept in the dark.
**(when Hamilton is mentioned in this document the present FRC of Dundas is meant. The Hamilton church was later called the Dundas FRC. At the end of this paper you will see that the present Hamilton FRC was instituted on June 24, 1953, and came into existence subsequent to the history described in this booklet. (note by CVD))
