FOR THE TRUTH Chapter 5 Classis Deposes St. Thomas Consistory

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.

FOR THE TRUTH Chapter 4 Response from St. Thomas and Chatham

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.

FOR THE TRUTH Chapter 3 Two Surprising Proposals

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.

These are the circumstances which surrounded the calling of the classis meeting which was held on January 14, 1953 in Hamilton. As first item of business the churches of Chatham and St. Thomas protested the manner in which the meeting was called, and indicated that the meeting was not a legal meeting. Grounds for this was the fact that at the time of the meeting of the consistory of the calling church of Grand Rapids, only two requests, and not the required three requests were received. The consistory of Grand Rapids decided at that meeting not to call an extra classis meeting.

This makes it obvious that the matter was pushed through at the consistory level, even contradicting the earlier decision. The Grand Rapids consistory met on January 5, 1953 to decide that the meeting should be held after all, while at that time the letters inviting the congregations of Chatham and St. Thomas had already been received by them.

Having heard these objections, the classis decides with a majority of votes to consider its meeting lawful, and the meeting continues.

Chatham and St. Thomas continue to protest, and ask that their protest be included in the minutes. They decide to remain in the meeting, under protest. The matter of the call is discussed. Much discussion was not possible, since Rev. Velema had, in the meanwhile, declined the call of St. Thomas. The classis expressed its pliancy in the matter. Nonetheless the consistory was sharply criticized for issuing this call. The first item was now finished.

A second item was now introduced. It was a proposal from the Grand Rapids consistory regarding the care of young immigrant congregations.

The content of the proposal is:

1) That immigrant congregations in Canada will from now on be served by home missionaries, sent by the congregations in the U.S.A., until such time, when these will be able to adequately support their own pastor.
2) That the financial committee, to which the care of home missionaries is entrusted, will of course consist of members of the U.S.A. churches and she is to issue advice to the classis if a young immigration church is able to support its own pastor.
3) That only the classis has the right, after having examined the financial capabilities of the immigrant congregation, to provide approval to allow the congregation to call a pastor from the U.S.A. or the Netherlands.

Earlier I have already noted that this proposal was not on the agenda, and that neither the consistory of Chatham or St. Thomas knew about it. (Some of the other consistories did not know about it either)
The consistories were not able to review or discuss it.

Rev. Zijderveld, had an envelope with him, and removing the contents, he surprised the meeting with this proposal. He read it, and gave it into discussion. The church of Artesia had also prepared a similar proposal, and this also was not on the agenda and was another surprise.

This makes it abundantly clear that Grand Rapids had contact with Artesia prior to the meeting. Also Hamilton also appeared to know about it. The consistories of Chatham and St. Thomas protested this manner of conduct at a classis meeting. We were of the opinion that the chairman did not have the authority to introduce items, while not lawfully on the table. The consistories were denied the opportunity to review the matter. It was the chairman’s duty to lay these items aside at this time.

The delegates from Smithville proposed to defer these items to the next meeting in the spring, so that all consistories would have prior knowledge and be able to discuss the matter. This was not accepted by the chairman. The proposals were to be acted upon at this meeting. “We need to address the emergency and get our house in order.”

It remained unclear what emergency would be prevailing, and what needed to be put in order. Neither Chatham nor St. Thomas knew of any emergencies. On the contrary, there was peace and harmony in our churches. Why then speak of an emergency? Or was it that the consistory of St. Thomas independently called a pastor and did not allow interference from other churches? Was that wrong? I believe that this is entirely according to our church order. One of the principal doctrines of Reformed Church order is the autonomy of the local church. A major assembly may not infringe on this liberty.

The proposal was acted upon. It was adopted with 6 votes in favour. (and 4 voices against.) The delegates of Chatham and St. Thomas did not vote because they believed that the proposal was not lawfully on the table.

Rev. Zijderveld attempted to find a precedent (Handopening*)for his actions in Dutch church history, but it did not apply to our situation.

Since it was considered necessary to “get our house in order” the consistories of the young immigrant congregations were now obliged to submit their calling activities to a financial committee in the U.S.A. and after that, also the classis would sit in judgment. This would give them total control.

An attempt was made to justify this regulation by comparing it to the situation in the C.R.C. The arrangement there is very different. Firstly, there it is not the case that one or a few churches lord it over another, but that a synodical committee, appointed by the entire church, involving members from Canada as well as the U.S.A., will respond to the requests of groups and send out home missionaries. The C.R.C. has very many such small groups requiring assistance, so that the committee can send help and redirect their substantial staff as requested, to places where the need is the greatest. Due to available manpower, a choice can be made by the church to obtain suitable assistance. The churches there are not dependent on a single person.

This would not be the case in our situation. Suppose this proposal would be worthy of acceptance. We do not have any personnel. In practice it is untenable.

The question how the classis would put the newly adopted policy into practice received no answer. No one had thought about that aspect.