A Comparison

No, not as Dickens’ classic novel begins: “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times.”

Rather, this tale must begin: It was the best of times. It became the worst of times.

What made it the best of times? What makes it the worst of times?

A comparison.

A comparison that must be made between two examinations that, to my knowledge, were the only two examinations undertaken in the history of the Protestant Reformed Churches (PRC) for the purpose of examining an ordained minister’s profession of doctrine. These two examinations had to do with the requirement of the Formula of Subscription. In one respect a minister commits himself to such an examination when he signs the Formula. He agrees in advance to submit himself to such an examination of his views should it be deemed necessary by an ecclesiastical assembly. In another respect the Formula itself requires such an examination of an ordained officebearer who is suspected of teaching or maintaining doctrines that are contrary to the three forms of unity: the Belgic Confession, the Heidelberg Catechism, and the Canons of Dordt.

It should be noted that the Formula of Subscription has to do with the doctrines of the three forms of unity, not with the decisions of deliberative assemblies. An examination is not undertaken to see whether or not an individual officebearer’s teachings are in harmony with the decisions of ecclesiastical assemblies. But an examination is undertaken to determine whether the officebearer in question upholds and maintains the Reformed creeds.

How do these two examinations, the 2018 examination of Rev. David Overway and the 1953 examination of Rev. Hubert De Wolf—the only two examinations of their kind undertaken in the Protestant Reformed Churches—compare to each other?

The examinations were similar regarding their cause. Both examinations were deemed necessary because in each case the officebearer’s teaching and preaching were suspected to be not in accordance with the doctrine of the unconditional covenant as maintained by the three forms of unity. With the case involving Rev. David Overway, there were additional concerns about his compromise of the doctrines of justification by faith alone and the sufficiency of God’s grace.

How fearful that the similarity ends with the cause of the examinations. 

Great, serious, and fearful differences comprise the bulk of this tale.

One difference is so significant that this tale might never have been told at all. The second examination was never meant to be part of Protestant Reformed history, a history that could be told and examined. The tale was not meant to be told. In fact, one’s telling the tale of the exam conducted by Synod 2018 may have been a ground for charges of schism and slander and for deposition on the same charges according to articles 79 and 80 of the Church Order. That ground and action would surely have been invoked, were it not that the teller of this tale is no longer under the authority of a church in the denomination which this tale concerns.

Had the authors of the 2018 examination determined that the reporting and publishing of the examination would be grounds for charges of schism and slander? Hard to say. There is no record. In sharp contrast to the examination of Rev. Hubert De Wolf, no questions were published. No answers were recorded, let alone published. 

At the very least, the subtlety of the seminary professors must be noted. No record means no specified grounds for the decision taken, in the 2018 case the exoneration of a minister whose “uniformity and purity of doctrine” were suspect.¹ No specified, published grounds means that it was impossible to protest the decision regarding the outcome of the examination. It was impossible to determine whether synod’s decision to exonerate Reverend Overway was in conflict with scripture and / or the Church Order. It became impossible to argue that Reverend Overway had failed his examination. What examination? What questions? What answers?

With no examination recorded or published, how could the tale of two examinations be told?

Is the tale of only one examination, that of De Wolf, valid to tell?

However, the tale must be told of two examinations. Let it be told by one who was present for the second examination and heard the questions and answers with his own ears.

What a difference there is between the contents of these two examinations!

The questions in the examination of Rev. Hubert De Wolf were sharp and to the point. The questions worked with exactly what De Wolf had taught and preached. They worked with what he had taught and preached in the light of the development of the entire controversy taking place in the PRC over conditions. In the most direct manner, the questions brought the three forms of unity to bear as a standard on his teachings.

There are two outstanding features about the questions used in De Wolf’s examination. The first is that the questions were woven tightly together to ensure that either De Wolf had to acknowledge that his teaching and preaching were indeed contrary to the three forms of unity, or he had to be evasive in his answers. (As is evident from his answers, he chose the latter.) The second feature was that the questions controlled the examination. At no point did the questioner, Rev. Cornelius Hanko, try to chase down De Wolf with a string of questions. At no point did Reverend Hanko ask friendly, helping questions, trying to exonerate De Wolf.

So very different were the questions addressed to Reverend Overway.

The questions drawn up by the seminary professors, who were given control of the examination, had an entirely different purpose. The purpose of the questions was not to find orthodoxy or heterodoxy in Reverend Overway. Instead, their purpose was to exonerate him. The questions did not include quotations from the creeds or implications of their teachings in order to determine whether the minister could explain his specific teaching in their light, as was so often done in the examination of Reverend De Wolf. Reverend Overway was asked simply to explain what he believed to be the truth of justification, sanctification, good works, and obedience in the light of the doctrine of salvation by grace. He was asked merely if he felt that any of his preaching and teaching was out of harmony with scripture or the creeds. He was gently guided by the questioner into certain pathways. Where Reverend Overway was reluctant to go, he was not required to go.

The questions asked of Reverend Overway made it clear that the professors, who had been given the right to “conduct the examination,”² were at fundamental odds with the decisions of Synod 2018 regarding the protested sermons. Were matters as serious as Synod 2018 had decided? Was it true that the minister’s preaching and teaching had compromised the sufficiency of Christ’s merits? Was it true that his preaching and teaching had compromised the doctrine of justification by faith alone without works? Was it true that his preaching and teaching had compromised the doctrine of the unconditional covenant? The questions themselves said no. The questions led the way to clearing the minister.

The tale of two examinations must also set out the difference between the answers of each man who was at the center of his respective, similar doctrinal controversy.

De Wolf’s answers demonstrated a thorough, careful preparation. To the evident chagrin of Synod 2018—the questioner and some of the delegates—Reverend Overway’s answers did not demonstrate careful preparation. De Wolf had his material at his command, ably answering the questions addressed to him. Though terribly evasive in his answers, he understood his doctrinal position and was highly capable of explaining it. Reverend Overway did not understand and was incapable of explaining his doctrinal position. His answers demonstrated confusion that sometimes could be characterized as deliberate ambiguity. He also committed some unorthodox blunders in his answers. Those blunders were painful for me to hear and were certainly grounds for deposition for heresy (spoken in front of an entire synod), but the blunders were spoken against the backdrop of woeful confusion. One example was when Reverend Overway based the necessity of good works for the Christian upon the commandment of the law, and he entirely left out of view the wonder of gracious sanctification. Another blunder was when the minister could not bring himself to agree that anything he had taught or preached in the protested sermons was contrary to the Reformed creeds. Yet another was one that would result in more controversy and confusion not only with Reverend Overway but also with other ministers. Reverend Overway answered one question with the agreement that, yes, our good works are indeed fruit, but they must be more than fruit. The reason good works had to be more than fruit was because believers really do them.

A great difference between these two examinations was their outcomes.

One outcome of De Wolf’s examination was the understanding that the views represented and maintained by him were to be rejected by the Protestant Reformed Churches as contrary to scripture and the three forms of unity. De Wolf had been guilty of violating his subscription to the three forms of unity. Another outcome was that the Protestant Reformed Churches maintained the truth of salvation by sovereign grace alone and drove out as heretical the doctrine of the conditional covenant.

The outcome of Overway’s examination was that the Protestant Reformed Churches maintained his views. Though Reverend Overway requested and was granted resignation from the ministry, his doctrines were maintained and defended by subsequent assemblies in a number of ways. Strangely, those who were vigorously opposed to his preaching and teaching and his defense by the assemblies of the churches were divided. Some turned from opposition to support. Others, remaining faithful to the truth, were branded as schismatic and slanderous and often charged with the doctrine of antinomianism. They were driven out of the denomination in different ways, but the force of authority was clear: the unity of the denomination was to be preserved at all costs, even the cost of the truth.

Another point of difference must be identified. The examination of Rev. H. De Wolf was clearly under the control of the consistory of First Protestant Reformed Church, the examining deliberative assembly. Rev. C. Hanko, as the questioner, demonstrated in behalf of the assembly a thorough control of the examination. He asked the questions on the prepared list. After De Wolf had finished answering a question, Reverend Hanko moved along with the next question. The questions were sharp and incisive, requiring De Wolf to give answers that related to them and making it very evident when he did not. When the examination was finished, there could be no question whether De Wolf was orthodox or heretical according to the Reformed standards of doctrine. (Which, by the way, makes the recent matching doctrinal declarations of Professor Engelsma all the more reprehensible and shameful.)

The above was most evidently not the case during the examination of Rev. David Overway, which was conducted by a Protestant Reformed seminary professor. A year after Overway’s examination, in a meeting with the editors of the Standard Bearer, two of whom were seminary professors, I spoke to them about the examination. I spoke to them about their lack of leadership in the controversy as editors of the unofficial denominational periodical. I told them, concerning the examination of Reverend Overway, that Professor Cammenga was not in control of the examination. I told them that neither the seminary faculty nor the synod was in control. I told them that only one man was in control of the proceedings: the man who was being examined. I testified to them that Overway knew their purpose was to exonerate him and that he went out of his way to make his exoneration as difficult as possible. In the end he made it perfectly clear that synod passed him on his examination not because of his answers but because the synod and the professors were already strongly committed to the course of exonerating Reverend Overway of all error.

How committed?

Committed to making it the worst of times. Committed to a pathway of emphasizing man’s responsibility; what grace can make of a man; if a man would be saved, there is that which he must do; making a good use of available grace; obedience and walking in the way of good works for obtaining promised, conditional spiritual benefits. Committed to a certain sense in which man’s actions precede God’s. Committed to confusion in which the error becomes powerful to drive out the truth of salvation by grace alone. Committed to taking the joy and peace of assurance by faith alone out of the hearts of believers and making that joy and peace dependent instead upon their pursuit of good works.

Doubling Down

There are two lessons to be learned from this tale of two examinations.

The first lesson is the truth about doubling down. The term doubling down is best understood in the context of wokeism and cancel culture. The leaders in a society formulate a narrative, or story, by which they control society. This narrative is intended to take the place of what truly happened because the truth of what happened is viewed as harmful to the carefully controlled society. The leaders speak the narrative. Those indiscriminately submissive to these leaders take up the narrative as their own. However, from time to time either God’s truth itself threatens to destroy the narrative, or those testifying of God’s truth threaten the narrative. Doubling down is the attempt to drive out the force of the truth and to establish more firmly the lie in its place. In the context of cancel culture and wokeism, the attempt continues to enjoy success, often to the astonishment of those who know and love the truth.

One example of doubling down was the attempt of the United States’ presidential administration to claim that the withdrawal of American troops and citizens and their Afghan assistants from Afghanistan was a tremendous success, when it was truly a dismal failure. Against the clear testimony of raw footage and eyewitness testimony, the administration published irrelevant statistics and past reports to bolster its opinion. 

Another example was the attempt of the Canadian prime minister’s office to portray the “Freedom Convoy,” a grassroots movement of truckers protesting COVID vaccine mandates, as “a fringe minority” holding “unacceptable views,” funded by money flowing from outside the country.³ The movement was also deemed a threat to national security, requiring the invocation of a national emergency granting special powers to the government. Again, though actual footage and testimony declared the truth about the movement, the prime minister’s office and the media maintained their narrative that the movement was a powerful threat to Canada’s well-being.

Doubling down, in the present context of narrative and wokeism, is not just the effort to maintain the lie against the truth. Doubling down is also God’s judgment upon rebellion against the truth that is always God’s, his special revelation or his general revelation. God judges the lie with men’s doubling down, in which they move further and further into absurdity and irrelevance. Similar is the term found in the Bible, the hardening of the heart.

What is the doubling down in the case of this tale of two examinations?

Doubling down is the way that the leadership of the PRC has worked itself into a self-contradiction. The leadership of the PRC has been confronted with so much testimony to the truth of God’s word—the truth of God’s word that the denomination had maintained in its history for so many years. The material of the doctrinal examination of Reverend De Wolf was a small part of that testimony to the truth. The labor of Hope Protestant Reformed Church’s consistory, Classis East, and the special committee appointed to help Hope was all toward creating, nurturing, and sustaining the narrative that Reverend Overway was indeed preaching the truth of God’s word and that all criticism sprang out of antinomian, that is, heretical, sources. When Synod 2018 broke that narrative with its decisions, the denominational leadership responded by doubling down. The Protestant Reformed synods of 2019 through 2021 continued the work of doubling down.

But this doubling down has now led to this consequence: by launching an organized assault on the testimony coming from Sword and Shield and its editors, a stalwart professor of theology in the Protestant Reformed Churches has come out in agreement with statements made by Rev. Hubert De Wolf in his defense of conditional covenant theology.

This tale of two examinations is a lesson!

It cannot be mere analysis. It cannot be mere criticism. It cannot be merely the basis or reason for calling God’s faithful people out of a denomination that can only double down on its narrative, sliding further and further from the truth.

See what is underneath. See the pride of men who want to be lords, who suppose that their voices cannot but be the voices of the truth. See the pride of despotic, tyrannical leaders who must be right and are so fearful of being wrong that correction becomes impossible. How hard it is to let go of a position when one has staked a claim on it. How hard it is to listen when “little people” criticize, confront, or even protest. How hard it is to be simply a servant of the Lord, to listen to his voice whenever he speaks, even through the lips of those who are considered lesser but who are bringing the truth of God’s word. How easy it is to deplore them, find flaws in them, and outright reject the truth they bring.

That pride lives in the heart of every officebearer. So easily it mounts up in the minds of leaders. It is the enemy against which the believer must fight his whole life long. It is one of the reasons the church must be the church of Christ, every member part of the body. It is one of the reasons article 31 of the Church Order is formulated the way it is. Yes, officebearers and deliberative assemblies can be wrong. They can be grievously wrong. The delegates can be hard of heart. They can double down. They can do so at any time and under any circumstances. They need the office of every believer for their correction. They need to pay particular heed to that office and be servants to the Lord and his truth, as well as servants to the Lord’s people in that same truth.

Nothing without the Truth

The second lesson to be learned from this tale of two examinations is that a denomination is nothing if it does not have the truth. This tale of two examinations is so sad because it so clearly demonstrates that the Protestant Reformed denomination has abandoned her doctrinal heritage. In truth, that heritage was not only the doctrine of the covenant of grace as entirely and wholly unconditional. But that heritage was also the truth of complete salvation by grace alone without works. That heritage of the unconditional covenant and salvation by grace alone without works was maintained and consistently held in the PRC with great care and even at great cost. The examination of De Wolf and its result bear powerful testimony to that cost.

Yes, the Protestant Reformed Churches have abandoned their doctrinal heritage.

Let there be no doubling down! Let there be no distractions from the issue in the controversy—not about antinomianism, not about schism and slander. Let there be no grand remonstration about doing justice to the Bible, to man’s responsibility, or to what grace can indeed do for a man. Let there be no appeal to these or those statements as professions of orthodoxy. It has all been compromised. Let the tale of two examinations speak for itself.

How did this sad state come about?

What must be seen within this second lesson if it is to be understood as well as applied?

What is so critical about this lesson is that between these two examinations there was a slow erosion and corrosion of the truth within the Protestant Reformed Churches. There was no attack from without. The walls were maintained very high. We were assured over and over that the high walls would keep the denomination safe in her orthodoxy. On the other side of those walls, the PRC could spot all kinds of heresies. Those heresies could be identified in their beginnings, their infiltrations, and their fruits of destruction in other churches and denominations. But we were assured that all was healthy and well in the Protestant Reformed Churches. The Lord would surely see to it that the walls would keep us safe and secure from all enemies. Within those walls we had the truth. That truth made us strong in our homes and families, in our good Christian schools, and in our Christian businesses and societies.

We kept looking at the walls and no longer considered the foundation, where the damage was taking place. Emphasis on doctrine and truth changed to emphasis on appearances. Good homes, good marriages, good children, good Christian schools, good businesses, good societies, good ministers, good consistories, and good magazines were signs of God’s blessings upon his elect people, believers and their seed. The solid foundation of the truth of the gospel of salvation by grace alone in the cross of Jesus Christ became merely a given. That box was always checked. Christian living, behavior, and conduct became the material of the pulpit. The clamor, aroused and gratified by the leaders in the churches, was for practical preaching. Members needed to know how to live and walk as Christians. So behavior—not regeneration—came to make Christians. Walking and conduct—not Christ—was to make God’s people. No wonder conditional covenant theology came to dominate.

So the tale of two examinations.

The change occurred slowly and steadily, but greatly nevertheless. Depth fell out of favor, and superficiality won the day. Truth came to be replaced with action, doctrine with conduct. Grace came to be replaced with works. The orthodoxy of the PRC in its beginning that resulted in De Wolf’s examination with its particular questions became the antinomianism and hyper-Calvinism rejected by the present leadership of the PRC in favor of conditional theology. De Wolf’s answers have now become the orthodoxy of the Protestant Reformed Churches.

But this same lesson must be broader, much broader.

Its breadth is that the truth may not be exclusively identified with any denomination. Had it been true in this particular case—that all the truth was in the PRC, that there was no truth outside the PRC, and that the PRC were the sole stewards and guardians of the truth—the earth this day would be bereft of the truth at all. Part of the reason for maintaining the denominational walls in their height and thickness was that all outside was only darkness and corruption, no truth whatever. (Never mind what abuses were being carried on under the carefully maintained veneer in the PRC.) For some of us, being under unjust decisions of deposition and discipline was the hard-taught lesson we needed to learn that the truth was truly free, that it could not be bound up with a particular denomination or found only in submission to certain decisions of assemblies. It was the only way we could learn that truth was first with God alone, and then it was his gift to the hearts of his people by his word and Spirit, and that we were free to join ourselves to the church we could adjudge to be most faithful to our God, without regard to fear of men or respect of persons.

This lesson must be engraved deeply on the hearts and minds of God’s people. That church is useless which does not constantly lay open its foundation in its preaching and teaching for God’s people to rest upon by a true and living faith. That church is a liability that covers over that foundation with a sense of shame, finding the doctrines of grace offensive to man’s pride. Even worse is the church that pretends in some respect to stand for grace alone, yet insists on the necessity of the believer’s good works for further, as yet unreceived, spiritual and material blessings and benefits. How can the believer rest upon his Lord when he must be busy working for additional wages (all by grace, of course)?

What is the lesson? History does not matter. Denominational identity does not matter. Meetings of consistories, classes, and synods do not matter. Men with suits and ties do not matter. Theological degrees from accredited institutions do not matter. Church polity does not matter, albeit based on God’s word. They are all subject to abuse. They can all be distorted to serve the lie instead of the truth, works instead of grace. The believer must walk by faith, seeking the truth. He must not be distracted by all the claims of men he hears. He must listen for one thing: the voice of his shepherd calling him by name. It is that voice that he must hear and that he must continue to hear. If that voice falls silent in his church, he must depart. His obligation is not to apostasy, compromise, or confusion but only to the truth. So must faithful officebearers follow their master Jesus Christ and his voice. The officebearers must not feel obligated by a misguided loyalty to promote and stand for a denomination characterized by apostasy, compromise, or confusion. They might feel compelled to stand for the truth, but then they must stand for the truth. Their loyalty must not lead them to be silent when they ought to speak in behalf of the truth when it is attacked. The virtue of loyalty may not become the vice of compromise.

Most broadly, this second lesson is a stunning reminder of the freedom of God with his truth. He is indeed sovereign, sovereign in judgment as well as in grace. Sober indeed is the truth that in sovereign judgment God can and does righteously remove his truth from a denomination of churches. The PRC can be no exception. The members of the Reformed Protestant Churches must never think that the denomination must forever be exempt from divine judgment. How long can abuse of God’s truth go on before he acts?

But God delights in grace. So he graciously preserves a remnant according to his gracious election. He may even see fit to begin churches and denominations that are faithful to his word. He may also work repentance in denominations and churches, in officebearers and members. He may also bring about development, so that churches grow in faithfulness rather than decline into apostasy. The Lord is always at work. How necessary are his gracious gifts of eyes to see, ears to hear, and hearts to understand!

This freedom of God and his truth is a powerful force in this lesson. One of the most striking aspects of this force is its liberation for faithful members and officebearers who have long borne with darkness in a languishing denomination, especially one that has been based on appearances. One simply does not need to bear the burden of turmoil; oppression; criticism based on false narratives; the misuse of church polity for the sake of garnering power; the doctrinal confusion that creates ignorance, which in turn shuts out the truth. He can leave it all behind and keep the truth in order to serve the truth alone.

So the tale must continue. It cannot end with it having become “the worst of times.” There can be and ought to be true reformation. But the best is yet to come: God’s truth wholly vindicated with the perfect redemption of all his own, all by grace, not at all by works!