Saturday, June 30, 2007

FOR THE TRUTH Chapter 2 What really happened

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.

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“I just left the meeting” and it is also not true that our churches have withdrawn from the denomination without presenting principled objections.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))


Thursday, June 28, 2007

FOR THE TRUTH Chapter 1 A Wrong Report

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.

A note about this booklet.

Sinful people make up our denomination, and it is by the grace of God that we are sustained. This shows in our history. Mistakes are made and goals are pursued that are based on tradition, or the opinions of man. Although there are rough spots in our history, we should take note of them and learn from them. The past contains important lessons for the future. I translated this booklet with the intention that we would be aware of important junctions in our past. Many questions find an answer in this booklet.

Did you know that our church was once called the “Old Christian Reformed Church?

Did you know that a church split took place surrounding the St. Thomas FRC, creating a new denomination called Free Christian Reformed Church?

Do you know what other congregations were involved?

Do you know why such a thing happened?

Did you know that the entire consistory of the St. Thomas Church was deposed (removed from office) by the classis?

Do you know what led to their deposition?

Do you know what happened after that?

Did you know that a new FRC was started in Hamilton because of this split?

Did you know that the differences were later resolved?

Read on, and you will know.
CVD


Rev. Tamminga writes:

You will know that the churches of Chatham and St. Thomas have decided to retract from the Old Christian Reformed denomination. We can assure you, that the decision tot leave was not taken lightly, but it was the only way we could continue to function as churches. We were forced to take this decision.

We really did not want to publicize these matters, rather, we would have preferred to have maintained silence and calmly followed our course. It is sad that there is distance between those who should be walking together. We need each other. Correspondence flying back and forth between parties only aggravates our separation. We are deeply grieved about this situation.

Since the publication of the Old Christian Reformed Church “The Gospel Banner” has seen fit to inform her readership, it is no longer responsible to maintain silence. In its issue of June 1953 a report of the classis meeting of April 22, 1953 is presented, containing the heading “CHURCH SCHISM”. With great amazement and great sadness I have read this report. With great amazement, because the question continues to occupy me: why would anyone want to publicize, in this manner, the rupture in a church?

With deep sadness, because I conclude, that the disagreement which culminated in a parting, was so one sidedly reported that it severely twists the truth, and even contains outright lies. Both articles are so inaccurate that I believe they sin against the 9th commandment. It grieves me to have to write this, but I can do no other.

That “The Gospel Banner” reports the position taken by the classis and reports its own perspective on this matter is understandable. It is the privilege of each party to make clear their side. It is obvious that the article “Church Schism” was written by Rev. Zijderveld, and it is also likely that he is the author of the classis report, and if he is not, as editor of the magazine he is responsible for the publication of this report.

I am saying, it is certainly his privilege to publish his opinion on the matter. No one would dispute that. But it is his Christian duty to report truthfully in publishing both sides of the conflict, and in a balanced manner publish the objections and positions of the other side. If this is not done, and certain facts are omitted or distorted, then the truth is not served. Half truths are lies.

It is my sincere conviction that this is what has happened in both mentioned articles. This is the reason why I feel compelled to distribute this booklet.

To do justice to the matter published in “The Gospel Banner” and to inform those who do not subscribe to this publication, I will quote those sections of the classis report that relate to this matter, as well as the article “Church Schism” in full.

The classis report quotes:

“Incoming correspondence:
Appeals from Chatham and St. Thomas. The delegates of these congregations cannot agree with the decisions of the previous classis meeting to call home missionaries for the young immigrant congregations in Canada. They are of the opinion that this type of care for the new congregations and groups in Canada is unbiblical and contrary to church order. For this reason they have submitted appeals to the classis.
It is indicated that other denominations in Canada, e.g. the Christian Reformed Church, have been taught by experience that the practice of sending home missionaries to fledgling congregations and small groups of believers is beneficial.
The classis pronounces that the decision to from now on call home missionaries is for the wellbeing of these groups and congregations. The care of the young immigrant congregations was already discussed earlier at the classis meeting of September 24, 1952, and has now been brought to our table by Smithville.
The representatives of St. Thomas are spoken to, because they have completely ignored the decision of the classis. They are asked if they, in the future, will submit to the decisions of the major assembly (classis).
They answer that they will never submit to the classical decisions regarding home missionaries, because they consider this decision to be in conflict with the scriptures and church order.

The classis pronounces that, if St. Thomas continues to disregard the classical decisions, they will immediately be dealt with according to church order.

Following this the delegates of the church of St. Thomas leave the meeting. The delegates from the Chatham church follow their example, because they do not agree with the decisions of the classis.”

End of the quotation from the classis report.

I continue with a quotation of the article “Church Schism”.

Rev. Tamminga has (together with the churches of Chatham and St. Thomas) torn these churches out of our denomination. He shouldered the responsibility to lead two churches in schism out of the denomination, without having lawful grounds.
Rev. Tamminga and the congregations he is leading are objecting, because our classis decided , that in the future young immigrant congregations in Canada will be served by home missionaries, until such time that they are able to look after their own finances. Rev. Tamminga said at the classis meeting that the appointment of home missionaries is unscriptural and un-church orderly. He declared that he did not have the least objection to the preaching in the Old Christian Reformed Church, but because of the adoption of the above decision no longer wanted to be associated with the denomination.

It is unbelievably sad when a minister leaves his church for only a practical matter such as the appointment of home missionaries. No one in the Old Christian Reformed Church has forced Rev. Tamminga to leave, he voluntarily took this step.

We lament very much that he has so superficially torn the church and attempts to begin a new denomination. It is our desire that he will return straightway from the path he has chosen.
The Lord himself cares for His church, and this is a consolation for all His poor and upright people. The Lord himself judges all our actions, particularly when we receive a place in the church, each shall, before God, give an account of his actions. Let us pray for the peace of Jerusalem and the unity of God’s Church.”

End of quote from “The Gospel Banner”.