With this article I begin a defense of the magazine Sword and Shield and of the organization that publishes it, Reformed Believers Publishing. This defense should not be necessary. It should not be any more necessary than a father should feel it necessary to defend the existence of a child whom he has begotten. It should not be necessary to defend the appearance of a Reformed organization started by believers in good standing in the churches, who love the Reformed truth, and who in that love for the Reformed truth publish a magazine to promote that Reformed truth. It should not be necessary to defend the existence of a magazine committed to instruction in the Reformed truth, to the application of the Reformed truth to every area of life, and to the defense of that truth against false doctrines repugnant to the truth. The right of the truth to exist, to rule in the church, to be heard, and to speak to every area of life in the church and world is the right of such an organization and magazine to exist. The calling of the Lord Jesus Christ himself to believers to confess him before men is the right for such an organization and magazine to exist. Conscious of their liberty in Jesus Christ and his calling to them, believers formed Reformed Believers Publishing and now publish Sword and Shield.

A storm of false, unjust, and unfounded criticism leveled publicly and privately against the magazine and organization necessitates a defense of Sword and Shield and its publishing organization. The criticism insinuates evil motives on the part of those involved in the production of Sword and Shield, denies the holiness and righteousness of the endeavor, stirs up unfounded fears of bad consequences from the existence of the magazine, and creates doubt in the minds of believers whether in good conscience they may support such an organization and read its magazine. These criticisms come privately in letters from individuals to the editors of Sword and Shield and from consistories to the board of Reformed Believers Publishing and to the editors’ consistories. And consistories publicly criticize and issue warnings in open letters to their congregations in the Protestant Reformed denomination.

These criticisms include serious charges—explicitly and implicitly—against the magazine, its editors, and the board that publishes the magazine and thus raise suspicions in the denomination regarding this righteous and worthy endeavor. This in turn necessitates a defense of Sword and Shield, its origin, its right of existence, and the cause in which it is engaged.

I begin with the criticism that the organization and magazine are committed to a schismatic principle because of a wrong understanding of article 31 of the Church Order. I begin with this criticism not because it is the most important. I regard it as a distraction from the main issues surrounding the appearance of the organization and magazine and from the main purpose of the magazine. Rather, I begin with this criticism because it is the most damaging when it casts the magazine, its writers, and its publisher as an unruly mob committed to disorder and schism in the churches. Without basis, this criticism casts as the purpose and main work of the magazine to criticize synodical decisions. It is also a common theme. Virtually every open letter sent by consistories to their congregations mentions disorder and schism in some form or other. Representative is a portion of the letter from one consistory:

Although we do not discourage you from reading good reformed biblical writing, we have concerns with statements expressed by the editor in the June, 2020 issue. In particular, on page 8, we read, “Sword and Shield is thus free to comment on the Protestant Reformed Churches. Sword and Shield may evaluate these churches and offer instruction to them. Sword and Shield is able to commend doctrines, attitudes and practices within these churches that are true. It is also able to condemn doctrines, attitudes, and practices within them that are false. This is true even regarding the ecclesiastical assemblies of the Protestant Reformed Churches.”

The consistory does not believe this to be in accordance with reformed church government. The Church Order in article 31, to which every office bearer subscribes upon signing the formula of subscription, states:

If anyone complain that he has been wronged by the decision of a minor assembly, he shall have the right to appeal to a major ecclesiastical assembly, and whatever may be agreed upon by a majority vote shall be considered settled and binding, unless it be proved to conflict with the Word of God or with the articles of the Church Order, as long as they are not changed by the general synod.

We caution the congregation not to be led astray by the false notion that one may voice objections with decisions of the broader assemblies in the way that the Sword and Shield proposes can be done. Rather, the proper, orderly and loving way to voice objections with any decision of an ecclesiastical body is by the way of protest and appeal to the appropriate ecclesiastical body.

By far this is the most fairly stated of the public criticisms. This consistory calls the position of the magazine it critiques a “false notion” and warns the congregation not to be “led astray” by it. The argument is that article 31 forbids voicing “objections with any decision of an ecclesiastical body,” except “by the way of protest and appeal.” Further, since every officebearer has subscribed to the Church Order and the Formula of Subscription, so to criticize an ecclesiastical decision is the profanity of breaking one’s vow.

Another consistory wrote to its congregation,

Finally, we warn you against disorder and rebellion in our churches. The magazine claims the right publicly “to condemn” decisions of church assemblies…While we agree that believers in our churches have the right to discuss these decisions and even to condemn these decisions by going directly to these church assemblies, we are required to do so in the proper manner…We remind you of the “settled and binding” nature of decisions by church assemblies (See Church Order Articles 31 & 35), and we remind you of the submission and order which God requires of us and to which we have vowed (See Formula of Subscription, and the third question of Confession of Faith). Be mindful that loving submission to God involves a recognition of His Spirit’s work in our church assemblies and in the hearts of all His people.

Like the other consistory, this consistory argues that article 31 allows for only protest and appeal and that submission to all synodical decisions is included in the vow of the Formula of Subscription.

Furthermore, the letters argue implicitly that the activity of criticizing an ecclesiastical decision, except by way of protest, is schismatic, a breaking of the unity of the church. So another consistory has told its congregation explicitly about the writers’ and publisher’s

maintaining the right to “condemn” in their magazine the decisions of “ecclesiastical assemblies of the Protestant Reformed Churches.” These statements threaten to promote disorder and a divisive spirit in our churches.

Still another consistory accuses that “rather than promoting the unity of believers in that truth, [the magazine and its writers] promote disunity and schism.” The consistory points for proof to the fact that the publication gives itself the authority to “‘condemn doctrines, attitudes, and practices within them (the PRCA), (Editorial pg. 8),’ that they perceive to be false, even if that criticism and condemnation is of the highest ecclesiastical assemblies of the church.”

Another consistory maintains that

this process [of protest and appeal while submitting and with no public criticism], as it has been followed throughout our history and the history of our mother church, begins at the consistory level, and proceeds, if necessary, to the Classical level, and then finally to the Synodical level.

The message is clear. Sword and Shield and Reformed Believers Publishing are a dangerous magazine and organization that are committed to and promote disunity, a divisive spirit, and schism because they have a false and misleading notion about article 31 of the Church Order, on the basis of which notion they claim the right publicly to criticize ecclesiastical decisions. The only way is by protest and appeal.

To all in the Protestant Reformed Churches who espouse this position, I say, “You have forgotten your own history.” It was precisely because the founding worthies of these churches would not agree to that understanding of article 31, but committed themselves to criticize publicly a synodical decision, that the Protestant Reformed Churches exist. Those men defended their public criticism of a synodical decision as being in harmony with article 31 properly understood and in harmony with their oaths of subscription. In harmony with their convictions about article 31 and their oaths of subscription, they wrote in the Standard Bearer and publicly committed themselves to criticize a synodical decision.

The argument used to cast aspersions upon Sword and Shield is the same argument that the Christian Reformed Church (CRC) used to discipline Herman Hoeksema and his consistory, Henry Danhof and his consistory, and George Ophoff and his consistory and to cast them all out of the church. The criticism against Sword and Shield is even more unjust because the magazine being so criticized came into being precisely to uphold a synodical decision, to elucidate it, and to instruct concerning it and the serious doctrinal issues involved in it. But such is the ignorance of the Church Order and of the history of the Protestant Reformed Churches that even a mild statement about an activity in which our fathers engaged and for which they fought and which was part and parcel of the Standard Bearer earns a serious charge. One would think that the critics would at least wait until the editors criticize an ecclesiastical decision before leveling charges at us and declaring before the world that we are schismatic.

The CRC’s erroneous understanding of article 31 can be proven by the words of the fathers of the Protestant Reformed Churches and by the decisions of their enemies in the CRC. They threw out of the church the ministers and their consistories on a false ground and a trumped-up charge by means of the most grotesque trampling of all ecclesiastical order and decency, so that while those enemies falsely charged our fathers with overthrowing all order and decency in the church, the enemies themselves were the guilty parties.

Hoeksema stated the situation in which he and the others found themselves after the Christian Reformed Synod of 1924 adopted the three points of common grace:

The two classes [Grand Rapids East and Grand Rapids West] considered it their duty to bring the three pastors and their consistories into subjection under the ecclesiastical yoke that had been manufactured by the Synod of Kalamazoo, i.e. to elicit from them a promise of fidelity to the three doctrinal statements regarding common grace that had been adopted by that synod; or, in case these ministers and consistories should appear to be stubbornly recalcitrant, to impose the proper penalties and apply the necessary discipline.*

That determination of those two classes arose out of their understanding of article 31. Their understanding of the article was made plain by the classical decisions to depose the ministers and their consistories and by overtures to the classes by other consistories. The consistory of Dennis Avenue CRC and the consistory of Creston CRC each wrote an overture to the classis “demanding that the pastor of the Eastern Avenue Church [Hoeksema] be requested to promise that he would abide by the ‘Three Points’” (148). Classis Grand Rapids East then decided “to demand of the consistory of the Eastern Avenue Church, that they ask their pastor whether or no he would abide by the three points of doctrine as adopted by the Synod of Kalamazoo, 1924” (149).

In defense of this demand, the classis wrote, “Obviously it was the duty of the consistory to interpellate [demand an explanation of] the pastor as soon as he publicly opposed the doctrinal decisions of the Synod in the The Standard Bearer” (155).

Particularly the writings of Hoeksema and Danhof in the Standard Bearer roused their enemies to move against these ministers. As proof of Hoeksema’s public opposition, the classis referred to the first issue of the Standard Bearer, in which the editors had written,

Our views underwent no change and we do not think of retreating. The editorial staff of this paper judges, that no Reformed person is able to sign the declarations of Synod (the reference is to the “Three Points”), according to their real import and tendency. It will attempt, therefore, to make the reader understand the real sense of these declarations; in order that, after sufficient study, each and everyone may act with true knowledge of his act and its consequences. (131)

The classis grounded its judgment that Hoeksema was guilty of schismatic behavior on “Art. 31, ‘…Whatever may be agreed upon by a majority vote in the major ecclesiastical assembly shall be considered settled and binding…’ …And the formula of subscription.” (156)

The classis explained its understanding of article 31 when it decided the following:

The classis informs the Consistory that these brethren [Hoeksema and Danhof] had the right to protest, but to protest does not include nor involve the right to propagate views opposed to the doctrinal decrees of Synod 1924. In case their opposition should be or should become of such a character as to call for disciplinary action, Reformed Church polity requires their respective consistories to initiate such action. (157)

And the classis decided

that according to Reformed Church polity, the decisions of our major ecclesiastical assemblies are binding for all the officers and consistories within its jurisdiction and, therefore, also for Rev. H. Hoeksema and his consistory…In case an officer or consistory gives reason to doubt his or its adherence to these decisions, such officer or consistory may be called upon to explain their position. (Cf. the Formula of Subscription). (157)

The body also decided that classis should

require of Eastern Avenue’s consistory to require of its pastor, Reverend H. Hoeksema, that he state whether in the matter of the three points…he will submit with the right of appeal to the Confessional Standards of the Church as interpreted by the Synod of 1924, i.e., neither publicly nor privately propose, teach or defend, either by preaching or writing, any sentiments contrary to the Confessional Standards of the Church as interpreted by the Synod of 1924, and, in case of an appeal, whether in the interim he will acquiesce in the judgment already passed by the Synod of 1924. (158–59)

Hoeksema called the whole classical report “a concoction of truth and sophistry” (159). It was. Using language that sounded correct, church politically, the classis undermined good church polity and used church polity to destroy the truth. The truth must bow to the decrees of men! Sounding like high-minded defenders of church polity, the classis used polity as a weapon to silence the truth and ran roughshod over its principles. Hoeksema explained,

In its report the committee [of classis], evidently, takes the stand that agreement with the Confessions on the part of any office-bearer in the Christian Reformed Churches implies agreement with all the doctrinal interpretations by any synod. In this case synod had composed and adopted three points of doctrine, which it chose to call interpretations of the Reformed Confessions but which are in a very real sense additions to and corruptions of those Confessions. Synod had adopted these three doctrinal declarations without first consulting the churches in general. And now, according to the report of the committee of Classis Grand Rapids East, all must accept the faith of synod as their own, profess it and teach it, until another synod may be willing to listen to their grievances! All this is supposed to be sustained by Article 31 of the Church Order. (161–62)

Hoeksema summarized and criticized classis’ view of article 31: “According to the stand assumed by the report of the Classical Committee, however, an office-bearer in the Christian Reformed Churches is bound unconditionally to submit to all the decrees of any synod. And this is popery” (162).

The view of article 31 that a Christian Reformed classis enforced with its discipline was that article 31 forbade public militancy against the decision of Synod 1924, that synodical decisions fall under the vow of the Formula of Subscription, that Hoeksema’s only legitimate recourse was an appeal, and that in the meantime he was not allowed to militate publicly against those decisions. That the eye of the classis was not merely on Hoeksema’s disagreement with the three points, but was especially on his intention to preach and write publicly against them, became clear on the floor of the classis that deposed him. 

Hoeksema wrote,

Accordingly the chairman solemnly asked the pastor of the Eastern Avenue Church, whether or not he could declare himself in agreement with the Three Points adopted by Synod 1924; and whether or not, with the right of appeal, he would promise to acquiesce in these decisions of Synod and not agitate against them in speaking or writing. (204)

To which Hoeksema replied that the classis already had his answer in written form.

Thereupon some of the members of the classis began to exercise all their powers of persuasion to make the pastor submit…It was urged…Even if the pastor of Eastern Avenue could not declare himself in agreement with the Three Points, he certainly would not force his conscience by the promise to keep still about them and not to make public propaganda against them. In the meantime he could appeal to the synod of 1926 and bring his objections against the “Three Points” before that body in an orderly and legal manner. (204)

It must be stated that the origin of the Protestant Reformed Churches has as much to do with opposition to a popish understanding of article 31 as with the error of common grace. The contention of Hoeksema, Danhof, and Ophoff that they had the sacred right, the moral duty, and the divine calling publicly to oppose common grace in harmony with article 31 and the Formula of Subscription was the reason they were cast out of the CRC. In the classical grounds for Hoeksema’s suspension, the classis decided “that he had refused to promise not openly to teach, in preaching or writing, anything repugnant to the ‘Three Points’” (206).

The deposition of Henry Danhof by Classis Grand Rapids West was even more blatantly hierarchical. Hoeksema called it “the official classical bull” (244). It read: “The Classis Grand Rapids West…hereby deposes Reverend H. Danhof…on the following grounds: (a) Insubordination to ecclesiastical authority…(b) Public Schism.” The classis explained:

Through his association with The Standard Bearer, Reverend H. Danhof participates in organized propaganda against the officially accepted doctrine of our Church, propaganda which is making inroads upon our denominational solidarity. (245–46)

Here, as plain as day, is proof that the ground for deposing Hoeksema and Danhof was their intention to preach and write against a synodical decision, their actual preaching, and especially their association with and writing in the Standard Bearer. Such the classis declared to be insubordination and public schism, and the reaction of the ecclesiastical bodies was swift and brutal.

The actions of those Christian Reformed classes smack of the wicked actions of the Persian princes, who when they could not condemn Daniel on his behavior trumped up a charge to kill him on his convictions. The synod of the CRC had declared Hoeksema and Danhof to be fundamentally Reformed and had rejected the advice to discipline them, so their opponents came after the ministers regarding their convictions of the truth and their determination to teach the truth and oppose the lie.

This same false understanding of article 31 was present in Hoeksema’s own congregation. In a schismatic protest circulated among the congregation without consistorial approval and signed by fifty members of the congregation, the first demand was that “the Consistory…demand of our pastor, Reverend H. Hoeksema, the promise that henceforth, both in preaching and writing, he shall abide by the Word of God and the Confession, especially by the three points recently established by the Synod of Kalamazoo” (119–20).

Here is another example of the hypocrisy that characterized the whole movement against Hoeksema and Danhof: their enemies charged the ministers with schism and disorder in violation of the Church Order, while the enemies felt free to break or bend a rule of the Church Order whenever it suited their purposes.

The enemies of Hoeksema and Danhof in the two classes focused on that particular point regarding article 31 because Hoeksema and Danhof had made it abundantly plain at Synod 1924 that they did not intend to submit to that decision and that they would militate publicly against common grace. Hoeksema wrote,

Both the accused pastors had plainly and emphatically declared (the Reverend Hoeksema during his one speech he was allowed to make), that they did not agree with the contents of the three points and would never abide by them. Nor was the synodical decision altered when the Reverend H. Danhof delivered a written protest to synod, in which he expressed elaborately his objections against the declarations and decisions of synod regarding the three points, and plainly stated that he would employ every means at his command to oppose them. (79)

Knowing this, the synod decided not to discipline the ministers but only to admonish “the two brethren to abide in their teaching and writing by the standpoint of our Confession regarding the three points…and to express themselves carefully and with sobriety and modesty” (87–88).

The question, then, is, why did Hoeksema and Danhof consider it their duty and calling to militate against the decision of Synod 1924? What was their interpretation of article 31, an interpretation that made them write in the Standard Bearer against a decision of synod, which led to their ejection from the CRC and formed a vital part of the beginning of the Protestant Reformed Churches?

Hoeksema gave his interpretation of article 31:

The committee [from classis, which quoted only one part of article 31 in its charge against Hoeksema for violating the article] forgot to quote the rest of this article: “Unless it be proved to conflict with the Word of God or the articles of the Church Order, as long as they are not changed by a General Synod.” This addition means that ecclesiastical decisions shall not be considered settled and binding, not even till the next general synod, if they can be proven to conflict with the Word of God. (162)

Hoeksema explained this understanding elsewhere: “When decisions of the major assembly are plainly contrary to the Word of God one may not and cannot submit to them even for two years” (163).

Rev. George Ophoff was of the same conviction concerning article 31. In a series of articles in the Standard Bearer entitled “Dr. Ridderbos and Article 31,” a series that I highly recommend reading, he wrote:

As we saw, according to the exponents of the hierarchy, though it has become the settled conviction of that officebearer that the classical (or synodical) decision is in conflict with the Word of God, he must nevertheless allow himself to be bound by it, until the major assembly on its next meeting sets him free. But that officebearer may not wait with rejecting the decision. He is in duty bound before God to reject the decision immediately, seeing that it has become his conviction that the decision militates against the Scriptures. For God must be obeyed rather than men. That aggrieved officebearer does that very thing. It being impossible for him to obey man—the sovereign classis (synod)—he rejects the article, openly repudiates it. The wrath of the classis (synod) now kindles, and it deposes the man. (Standard Bearer 23, no. 17 [June 1, 1947]: 397)

Hoeksema, Danhof, and Ophoff grounded their actions in article 31’s exception clause: “unless it be proved to conflict with the Word of God or with the articles of the Church Order.”

This clause is extraordinarily important, and its importance may not be minimized. The proper understanding of that clause is crucial.

Ophoff pointed out that his opponents by their interpretation really changed the wording of the article. He wrote,

Let us first notice that the exponents of the hierarchy, in order to make the article (31) say what they wanted it to say, had to change the article as to the form of its words. In its last section the article reads, “and whatsoever may be agreed upon by a majority of vote shall be considered settled and binding, unless mark you unless (so the article reads) it be proved to conflict with the Word of God…” But the exponents of the hierarchy have removed that word unless and placed in the room thereof the word until—it be proved (to the major assembly) to conflict with the Word of God. They did so, not, of course, black on white, but in their minds. And when they go to explaining the article they reason as if the article read until instead of unless. (Standard Bearer 23, no. 17: 396)

I would contend that an explanation of article 31 should begin with this clause because it must temper the understanding of every other word of the article. The clause establishes the principle that only the word of God, never the word or decisions of man, may rule in the churches and in the consciences of the church members.

Hoeksema and Ophoff evidently were convicted that an individual proves this to himself, and at that moment a decision cannot be considered settled and binding without obeying man rather than God. They evidently had the opinion that proving that a decision is contrary to the word of God is done not only by means of protest and subjection to the decision of the church, but also by means of preaching and writing against that decision.

Article 31 was designed to give peace and order to the churches, so that the members will consider decisions of the majority at the broader assemblies settled and binding. But a church that departs from the word of God cannot have peace. And if there is a faithful prophet among the members, his calling is to give the people no peace by pointing out their departure from the word of God, calling them to repent quickly, and warning them that if they do not repent God will take away their candlestick. The CRC had three such courageous and faithful prophets. Instead of heeding their warnings, the church cast out those prophets in order to achieve a superficial and earthly peace at the expense of the truth of God.

The position of Hoeksema and Ophoff was not only that decisions contrary to the word of God may be publicly criticized, but also that those decisions must be criticized. Such criticism is a moral obligation in love for the truth and in obedience to the vow of subscription.

About the position of some delegates of Classis Grand Rapids East who urged him that a promise to abide by the three points without preaching and writing against them while he protested through the ecclesiastical channels would not bind his conscience, Hoeksema wrote,

Let it here be stated, eleven years after that memorable session of Classis Grand Rapids East, that if such a promise could, indeed, have been made without a violation of the truth and the dictates of conscience before God and the Christian Reformed Churches, the pastor of Eastern Avenue would certainly have made it…

He felt, however, that this was impossible.

He was convinced that it was absolutely impossible to preach and teach in his own congregation, without touching upon and contradicting the principles expressed in the Three Points.

And he also felt that it would be a breach of promise on his part if he should refrain from publicly warning the churches against the false doctrines adopted by the Synod of Kalamazoo. For, when he signed the Formula of Subscription he promised, that he would maintain and defend the Reformed doctrine as expressed in the Formulas of Unity. (204–5)

Therein is the key to understanding Hoeksema’s position. He did not advocate willy-nilly that synodical decisions may be militated against; but he advocated that when synodical decisions are plainly contrary to the word of God and touch the doctrine of the creeds—contradicting and militating against them—then to submit to these decisions without immediately and publicly opposing them is a violation of the oath of subscription. Publicly to oppose these decisions is a great keeping of the oath.

All those who have the view of article 31 espoused in the many open letters to Protestant Reformed congregations against Sword and Shield have forgotten their history. I urge them to study Hoeksema’s position as he plainly explained it in his book, The Protestant Reformed Churches in America.

I also point out that one of the very first decisions of the Protestant Reformed Churches as a newly formed denomination was the Act of Agreement, in which these churches said, 

Whereas the Synod of 1924, assembled in Kalamazoo, Mich., adopted three points of doctrine which, according to our most sacred conviction, are in direct conflict with our Reformed Confessions and principles;

…Whereas, by the actions of Classis Grand Rapids East and Classis Grand Rapids West, we are denied the right to discuss and interpret said three points of doctrine of said Synod. (250)

The Protestant Reformed Churches as combined consistories decided that Hoeksema’s view of article 31 was theirs.

Is it yours?

Did the founding worthies of our churches have a wrong view of article 31? Were their actions on that basis schismatic, unloving, and destructive of concord and unity? Did their actions promote disorder and a divisive spirit? Are they to blame for the split between the Christian Reformed Church and the Protestant Reformed Churches? Was their insistence on the right and obligation publicly to oppose that synodical decision insubordination, rebellion, and contrary to decency and order? Were the editors of the Standard Bearer schismatic in writing such criticism? Was the Reformed Free Publishing Association schismatic in publishing that criticism? Did Hoeksema, Danhof, and Ophoff make themselves ringleaders of a mob in the churches committed to ecclesiastical rebellion? For remember, the Christian Reformed Church never denied these men the right of appeal. But the CRC insisted that according to article 31 and the Formula of Subscription, appeal was the only right and obligation these ministers had.

For carrying out their calling according to the proper understanding of article 31 and of their oaths of subscription, they were cast out of the church.