In this editorial I resume my answer to the charge of public schism made against me by the Protestant Reformed Churches (PRC), for which the denomination deposed me from the ministry of the gospel in their midst and for which the congregation of Byron Center Protestant Reformed Church was in the process of excommunicating me from membership in their midst.

As noted last time, there are several distinct sets of grounds for my deposition, because each assembly that faced the question of my suspension and deposition wrote its own grounds. Byron Center’s consistory had its set of grounds. Trinity Protestant Reformed Church wrote its own new set of grounds. And Classis East wrote its own new set of grounds. These shifting grounds are a powerful indication that the charge against me was false, for it is characteristic of false witnesses that they cannot agree in their testimony against a man.

And yet, to give an answer to the charge against me, I must start somewhere. Therefore, let us take hold of the grounds that Classis East wrote and adopted. I suppose this could be considered the definitive set of grounds for the charge against me. First, because they are the grounds that both classis and the synodical delegates of Classis West agreed to, and therefore these grounds represent the entire denomination’s judgment. Second, because they are the grounds that have been circulated widely in the denomination and that most people have heard by now in one way or another.

Classis’ Decision and Charge

Classis’ decision was that I should be deposed. “That Classis East concur with Byron Center’s decision to depose Rev. A. Lanning and advise Byron Center’s Consistory to proceed with the deposition of Rev. A. Lanning from the office of the word and sacraments.”¹

Classis advised that I be deposed for the sin of public schism.

Rev. Lanning’s actions in the sermons he preached on Jeremiah 23:4, 14; 2 Timothy 4:1–4; and Ecclesiastes 7:2–6 constitute the sin of public schism. With statements made in these sermons, Rev. Lanning has sinfully divided the congregation and the churches into factions. These statements are not false doctrine, but his own wrong applications of the teaching of the texts, by which he divided the church and churches. (II.A)

And classis advised in article 38: “The sin of public schism is listed in Church Order Article 80 as ‘among the gross sins which are worthy of being punished with suspension or deposition from office’” (amendment to add a ground D).

Deposed for Preaching

Classis’ decision makes it clear that I was deposed for my preaching. The issue before Classis East and the synodical deputies was the content of my sermons. This point has been obscured by a narrative within the PRC that I was deposed for my behavior but not for my preaching. This narrative maintains that the content of my preaching was sound but that my manner of dealing with the controversy in the PRC was sinful. The watchwords of this narrative are “manner,” “tone,” and “behavior.” This narrative makes a distinction between my preaching and my behavior in order to affirm my preaching but to condemn my behavior.

This narrative is deceitful, and it has allowed many Protestant Reformed people who should know better to go along with my deposition. Many of them, including some elders of Byron Center church who deposed me, have testified repeatedly that my preaching is sound. They have acknowledged to me and to others that they love the doctrine that I preached to them and that through my instruction they have grown in their knowledge of the truth and their ability to detect the lie. How is it, then, that those who make such a testimony can go along with my deposition? This way: through the false distinction between my preaching and my behavior. They console themselves and others that my deposition was not for my preaching or for my doctrine but for my manner or my behavior or my tone. “We like Rev. Lanning’s preaching. We just wish he had addressed his concerns in a different way.”

This narrative is deceitful because the issue in my deposition was strictly my preaching. The issue that classis judged was the content of my sermons. Let everyone who doubts this read the actual decision of Classis East to advise my deposition. What is the decision about? Sermons! In classis’ own words, the decision was about “sermons he preached on Jeremiah 23:4, 14; 2 Timothy 4:1-4; and Ecclesiastes 7:2–6.” The decision was about “statements made in these sermons.” The decision was about “Rev. Lanning’s actions in the sermons he preached.” From beginning to end the case was about my sermons.

This makes the false narrative that the case was about my behavior a very dangerous narrative. Protestant Reformed people are being told that they may dismiss my preaching of the word of God as merely my behavior. They are being told that my preaching of the word of God was the sin of man. The false distinction between my preaching and my behavior means that Protestant Reformed people are being taught to call my preaching of the word of God sinful and schismatic. They are being taught to call the word of God sin! How dreadful for a denomination!

Does the denomination know how precious God’s truth is to him? Does the denomination know how precious the preaching of that truth is to him? And does the denomination know how dreadful is the sin of labeling the preaching of the truth as schism? When the Jews spoke against those things spoken by the apostle Paul, the Bible calls it “contradicting and blaspheming” (Acts 13:45). Blaspheming! In calling the word of God that I preached schism, the PRC have aligned themselves with godless Ahab, who charged Elijah’s rebuke against him as the troubling of Israel. “It came to pass, when Ahab saw Elijah, that Ahab said unto him, Art thou he that troubleth Israel?” (1 Kings 18:17). Like Ahab, the denomination has declared about my preaching of the word of the Lord that it troubles and divides Israel. Schism!

However, the PRC could have easily tested whether my preaching was truly schismatic or not. It is possible, after all, for preaching to be schismatic. Preaching is schismatic when sermons divide the congregation away from Christ. Preaching is schismatic when sermons divide the congregation away from Christ’s truth and Christ’s doctrine. “I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple” (Rom. 16:17–18).

Classis never evaluated my sermons from this viewpoint. Classis never even asked whether my sermons brought the congregation and the denomination to Christ or whether my sermons divided the congregation and the denomination away from Christ. Classis could only think and speak about men and the honor and reputation of men. But what about Christ? What about his truth? I maintain that my sermons did not divide from Christ but brought the congregation and the denomination to Christ. My sermons did this by exposing the denomination’s sin and by calling the denomination to repent and to believe in Jesus Christ alone for her salvation from her sin. You can test this for yourself. The sermons are available on the website of First Reformed Protestant Church at https://firstrpc.org/sermons. These sermons, in accusing the PRC of sin, testify “repentance toward God.” And the sermons, in pointing the PRC to Jesus Christ, testify “faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ” (Acts 20:21). This preaching is not schism but the faithful preaching of the word of God.

First Ground: Public Charges of Sin

Classis based its charge of schism on three grounds. Although classis added a fourth ground from the floor, the charge of schism is explained in the first three grounds. Let us take each of these grounds in turn.²

Classis’ first ground for deposing me was that “in these sermons he publicly charges ministers and office-bearers of the PRC with unrepentant sin.” “Rev. Lanning’s schismatic actions of publicly charging office-bearers with sin are contrary to Scripture.” “Rev. Lanning’s schismatic actions of publicly charging office-bearers are contrary to our Confessions.” “Rev. Lanning’s schismatic actions of publicly charging office bearers with sin are contrary to the teaching of the Church Order in Article 74, which is built on the foundation of the Scriptures and Confessions quoted above” (II.A.1–4).

This ground misrepresents my sermons. They were not public charges of sin against officebearers, but public rebukes of the church for her sins. My sermons exposed the gravity of the denomination’s sin of false doctrine. They exposed the denomination’s wickedness of minimizing and denying its sin. They called the congregation of Byron Center and the denomination as a whole to repentance before God and to faith in Jesus Christ.

When classis construed my public rebukes against the church as public charges against officebearers, it built a straw man. When classis proceeded to knock down its straw man as contrary to scripture, the confessions, and article 74 of the Church Order, it was not truly dealing with my sermons but only with its straw man.

My sermons themselves make clear that they were directed to the church as public rebukes against the church’s sins. From the introduction to my sermon on Jeremiah 23:4, 14, “Shepherds to Feed You”:

There’s something so dreadfully wrong in the Protestant Reformed Churches and in Byron Center Protestant Reformed Church. And what’s so dreadfully wrong is the same thing that happened in the days of Jeremiah: the word of God was perverted, corrupted, twisted. And there are those who will look around and say, “Where is that? I don’t recognize that. I don’t see that. We’ve got everything we always did. Where is that corruption you’re talking about?” But it’s there.

And we this morning must not think that because we don’t look like Rome that everything’s well. It’s not well. The word of God has been perverted! There is one calling for the congregation and the denomination: repent! Repent.

Clearly, the sermon is directed to the congregation and to the denomination. Clearly, the sermon is rebuking the church for her sins. Classis was wrong to construe my public rebukes against the church as public charges against officebearers.

Public Rebukes Required

But what shall we say about my public rebukes of the church? My sermons did, after all, publicly expose the church’s sins. My sermons did publicly explain the gravity of those sins. My sermons did publicly rebuke the church for those sins and publicly call the church to repent of those sins. May a minister of the gospel do this? May he publicly rebuke the church for her sins?

The narrative in the PRC is that there is only one church orderly way for a minister to address sin in the church. This is the way of bringing his grievance to the consistory, classis, and synod. If he is going to make a charge of sin, then he comes to the consistory in the way of article 74 of the Church Order. If he is going to address ecclesiastical decisions, then he comes in the way of article 31. Either way, he addresses sin in the church through the assemblies. The narrative is that the assemblies are the only way to address sin in the church and that the pulpit is not at all the place to address sin.

This narrative is simply wrong. Jesus Christ calls his ministers of the gospel to address the church’s sin from the pulpit. He calls his ministers of the gospel to preach the church’s sin and to call his church to repentance for her sin.

God commanded Isaiah and thus all prophets and ministers: “Cry aloud, spare not, lift up thy voice like a trumpet, and shew my people their transgression, and the house of Jacob their sins” (Isa. 58:1).

Paul commanded Timothy and thus all ministers: “Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.” (2 Tim. 4:2).

The Form for the Ordination of Ministers of God’s Word requires the Reformed minister to rebuke the church for her sins. 

First. That they faithfully explain to their flock the Word of the Lord, revealed by the writings of the prophets and the apostles; and apply the same as well in general as in particular to the edification of the hearers; instructing, admonishing, comforting, and reproving, according to every one’s need; preaching repentance towards God and reconciliation with Him through faith in Christ; and refuting with the Holy Scriptures all schisms and heresies which are repugnant to the pure doctrine. (Confessions and Church Order, 284–85)

The Church Order in article 55 requires the Reformed minister to preach against error, whether in the church or without.

To ward off false doctrines and errors that multiply exceedingly through heretical writings, the ministers and elders shall use the means of teaching, of refutation or warning, and of admonition, as well in the ministry of the Word as in Christian teaching and family-visiting. (Confessions and Church Order, 397)

Let everyone who bemoans my manner of dealing with the church’s sin as schismatic and disorderly take heed that my manner is the biblical way, the confessional way, and the church orderly way for a minister to deal with the church’s sin. My manner is Christ’s way. When you bemoan my manner, you complain against Christ and against his calling for a minister of the gospel.

Showing God’s People Their Transgression

What shall we say about my quotations of public documents in my sermons? It is true that in my sermons I proved my accusation against the denomination by quoting from public documents that represent the popular mind and the official position of some Protestant Reformed churches. I quoted from heretical sermons of a minister that classis had failed to deal with in early 2018 and that Synod 2018 had condemned. I quoted this to dispel the popular notion that there has been no false doctrine in the PRC. I also quoted passages from two Standard Bearer editorials that minimized the false doctrine and that made threats against those who would call it heresy. I quoted these to demonstrate that the popular view in the denomination, as represented by the denomination’s unofficial magazine, was that the false doctrine of the sermons was not heresy and that it did not truly contradict the Reformed confessions. I also quoted from letters of two consistories to their congregations that denied that there was error in the PRC. I quoted these to demonstrate that even officially at the consistory level, Protestant Reformed congregations were unable or unwilling to acknowledge the denomination’s sin of false doctrine, which failure would prevent the denomination from repenting.

The narrative in the PRC is that these quotations constitute public charges of sin against individual officebearers in the denomination. However, by this narrative the denomination shows itself to be consumed with the honor of man. The denomination labors to make the sermons about men. The denomination labors to make the sermons into public charges against men. What the denomination does not see is that these quotations were not public charges of sin against men but were demonstrations and proofs of the denomination’s impenitence. The materials quoted represent either the popular mind of the churches (Standard Bearer) or the official position of churches (letters from consistories). Instead of wringing its hands about the wounded honor of men, the denomination should have been pricked by its own impenitence as represented by its magazine and its letters.

Furthermore, when I quoted from these materials in order to prove my rebuke against the denomination, I was doing exactly what the Lord Jesus Christ called me to do as a minister of the gospel. Especially when a congregation and a denomination do not believe that they are sinning, the minister’s calling is to show them their sin and prove to them the Lord’s accusation.

Isaiah was called to “shew my people their transgression” (Isa. 58:1). The people had to be shown their transgression because they did not see it. They behaved outwardly as the people of God. “Yet they seek me daily, and delight to know my ways, as a nation that did righteousness, and forsook not the ordinance of their God: they ask of me the ordinances of justice; they take delight in approaching to God” (v. 2). Isaiah had to demonstrate the people’s sin to them by pointing them to their own public behavior. “Behold, in the day of your fast ye find pleasure, and exact all your labours. Behold, ye fast for strife and debate, and to smite with the fist of wickedness” (vv. 3–4). So also, when the Protestant Reformed Churches are denying that they have walked in the lies of false doctrine and that they are currently minimizing those lies, the minister’s calling from God is to “shew my people their transgression” from the pulpit.

Timothy was called to “reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine” (2 Tim. 4:2). The doctrine of the word of God that Timothy was to preach had to be applied to the congregation in reproofs and rebukes. The word “reprove” means to convict someone of their sin by proving their sin. So also, when the Protestant Reformed Churches are denying their sin or minimizing it, the minister’s calling from God is to “reprove” them—to prove it to them—so that they are convicted and repent.

Classis’ misconstruing my preaching as public charges against officebearers is a straw man. All of classis’ subsequent arguments in this first ground only knock down their straw man, but these arguments do not prove that I was schismatic.

Second Ground: Slander

Classis’ second ground for deposing me was that “Rev. Lanning’s actions in the sermons he preached and in his subsequent defense of these actions constitutes public schism when he slandered the office-bearers in the churches through his characterizations, accusations, and charges, which is a violation of the 9th commandment” (II.B).

This ground fails to deal with the actual texts that I preached and expounded. This is so important because the applications in sermons arise out of the texts and the doctrine of the texts. The minister is called to “reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine” (2 Tim. 4:2). The doctrine itself is the material from which the reproofs and rebukes spring. When a minister faithfully expounds the doctrine of the text, that doctrine will demand a certain application to the life of the congregation in its actual circumstances. The question is not how the application makes the congregation feel. The question is whether the application is faithful to the word of God.

Everything that I said came out of the text of God’s word, was in harmony with the text of God’s word, and was demanded by the text of God’s word. When the word of God is brought faithfully in both doctrine and application, that word of God is not slanderous or schismatic. This can be demonstrated in each instance that classis mentions.

First, classis said, 

In his public accusations of office bearers of Classis East Rev. Lanning dealt with brothers in the Lord as if they were his enemies going so far as to imply they were unbelievers. He does this when he portrays the men of Classis East as homosexuals deserving the punishment of Sodom. Such a horrible accusation against the office bearers of Classis East could not possibly come out of a proper exegesis of Jeremiah 23:14 (II.B.1; II.B.1.a).

However, my portrayal of the events of Classis East in February 2018 as homosexual fornication comes directly out of the text of Jeremiah 23:14. God accused the prophets of Jerusalem of walking in lies. Their lies were false teachings that contradicted God’s word and God’s will. God said about all of the prophets who walk in lies, “They are all of them unto me as Sodom, and the inhabitants thereof as Gomorrah.” By this God taught the spiritually sleepy inhabitants of Jerusalem how abhorrent false doctrine is to him. By such a startling comparison, God shook them awake from their spiritual slumber. The application of that word to the PRC leaps off the page. The churches committed the gross sin of false doctrine, which is to walk in lies. They taught, defended, and tolerated the devil’s lie among them for years. But even after Synod 2018 exposed that error, the churches remain spiritually sleepy. The constant refrain in the churches is that there was no false doctrine and that the churches have always been united in one holy theology. The text of Jeremiah 23:14 shakes the churches awake by teaching them how much God abhors false theology. When the delegates to Classis East in February 2018, representing all of the churches and all of the members of Classis East, officially excused the devil’s theology by refusing to uphold an appeal against that theology, God abhorred what the denomination did as much as he abhorred the homosexual depravity of Sodom and Gomorrah. This is God’s own word about it: “They are all of them unto me as Sodom, and the inhabitants thereof as Gomorrah.”

This is further confirmed in Lamentations 4:6: “The punishment of the iniquity of the daughter of my people is greater than the punishment of the sin of Sodom.” Jesus also made this comparison when he contrasted the punishment of Sodom and Gomorrah to the city that will not receive the preaching of God’s word: “Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment, than for that city” (Matt. 10:15).

The point of the comparison was not to judge the men of Classis East as unbelievers. Rather, I made the point, faithfully from the text, that God abhors false doctrine, and the comparison to the abhorrent sin of sodomy was made to drive that point home to the church.

My application of the text has nothing to do with the fact that I am not an inspired prophet like Jeremiah. Amusingly, classis felt the need to remind me that I do not have direct revelation: “Jeremiah was able to say this because the God who knows the hearts of the prophets of Jerusalem gave this to Jeremiah by direct revelation. Rev. Lanning may not make this same claim” (II.B.1.a).Well, let me say that I know the difference between Jeremiah and myself. I know that Jeremiah was inspired and that I am not. I do not imagine that my preaching is done by direct revelation of the Spirit, the way that Jeremiah’s preaching and writing was done by direct revelation of the Spirit. I have never claimed inspiration or direct revelation of the Spirit. However, I do claim to preach the word of God. I do claim that my preaching of the word of God, in both its doctrine and its application, when it is faithful to the text of God’s inspired word, is indeed the word of God and not the word of man. “For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe” (1 Thess. 2:13). The question is not whether I receive direct revelation but whether my preaching was faithful to the inspired word of God.

In my sermon I was faithful to the doctrine and application of the text that those who walk in lies are unto God as the men of Sodom and the inhabitants of Gomorrah.

Second, classis said, “Also in his sermon on Jeremiah 23 he denounced rashly and unheard by consistory, classis or synod, a professor of our seminary and editor of the Standard Bearer as minimizing and covering up the sin of false doctrine” (II.B.1.b). However, as noted above, the quotation of the Standard Bearer article was not a charge against an individual man but a demonstration of the denomination’s mindset, as represented by a popular publication within the denomination.

Third, classis said, “In standing behind his sermon on Jeremiah 100%, Rev. Lanning informs the elders of BCPRC that they ‘have gone to the prophets of Egypt for understanding by going to the Church Visitors.’ And, ‘the Church Visitors will not counsel you to your profit, but to your shame’” (II.B.1.c).

However, my characterization of the church visitors as the counselors of Egypt was made faithfully from the word of God in Isaiah 30, as that word was applied to the actual situation in Byron Center church and to the church visitors. In Isaiah 30 God rebukes his people as “rebellious children.” The rebellion of God’s people was that they took “counsel, but not of me.” Instead of seeking counsel from God, they “walk to go down into Egypt, and have not asked at my mouth; to strengthen themselves in the strength of Pharaoh, and to trust in the shadow of Egypt” (vv. 1–2). The rebellious children of Israel sought counsel and strength in Egypt, even though God had sent his word to Israel through his prophets. When the prophets came to Israel, the people silenced them.

8. Now go, write it before them in a table, and note it in a book, that it may be for the time to come for ever and ever:

9. That this is a rebellious people, lying children, children that will not hear the law of the Lord:

10. Which say to the seers, See not; and to the prophets, Prophesy not unto us right things, speak unto us smooth things, prophesy deceits:

11. Get you out of the way, turn aside out of the path, cause the Holy One of Israel to cease from before us.

The application of the passage, which I did not make publicly in my preaching but privately to the elders of Byron Center church, leaps off the page. God sent his word and his prophet to the congregation in my preaching. I faithfully labored for three years in Byron Center church, preaching repentance toward God and faith toward the Lord Jesus Christ. I did not preach smooth words to the congregation. I regularly exposed the sins and the errors of the congregation and denomination. By the time I preached on Jeremiah 23:4, 14, I was infamous in the PRC for preaching the controversy and for not preaching smooth words.

During the three years of my preaching to the Byron Center congregation, the consistory never charged that word with sin. Even when I preached a view of the controversy that was unpopular in the denomination, no one could ever accuse me of not bringing the word of God. My preaching had been the counsel of God to the congregation. (Not because of me, but solely by the grace and mercy of God, to whom belongs all the glory for his word.)

Instead of heeding that word, the majority of the elders decided to look elsewhere. They turned to the church visitors of Classis East, who already had told the consistory that the problem in the congregation and in the denomination was not false doctrine, but me. When the consistory turned away from my preaching and turned to the church visitors to judge that preaching, the elders already knew that the church visitors would put a stop to my preaching. In turning away from the counsel of God in my preaching, the consistory refused the counsel of God. In turning to men who would bring them contrary counsel, the elders went down to Egypt. They became rebellious children, and the church visitors indeed brought the counsel of Egypt to stop the mouth of Byron Center’s minister.

The point of this comparison is not to judge the salvation of the consistory or of the church visitors. Rather, the point is that Byron Center’s elders refused to hear the counsel of the Lord and said to her prophet, “Prophesy not unto us right things, speak unto us smooth things, prophesy deceits.” The church visitors played the part of the counselors of Egypt by helping the rebellious children of Byron Center to silence their prophet who had brought to them the word of the Lord.

For me to say these things was not slander but a faithful application of God’s word to the actual condition and situation in the churches.

Fourth, classis said, 

Later in his sermon on Ecclesiastes Rev. Lanning does not promote the honor and good character of the church visitors when he says, “Beloved congregation, we stand at a crossroads. We stand before that calling: go to the house of mourning. Do not go to the house of feasting as a church, as a congregation. Will we go to the house of mourning, or will we be a house of feasting? The essence of the church visitors’ advice to this church is that the rebuke against our sin as a church and as a denomination of displacing the perfect work of Christ is not allowed in this pulpit. That is the essence of this advice”…This rash accusation is aimed at office bearers in the church in order to discredit them as enemies of the cause of Christ, without the congregation even knowing that the church visitors gave advice to the consistory or proving that this advice was in error. (II.B.1.d)

However, my contradiction of the church visitors’ advice in my sermon on Ecclesiastes 7:2–6 had nothing to do with the honor or the character of the church visitors themselves. My statements in the sermon were strictly about the advice the church visitors had given. It is not true, as classis stated, that “this rash accusation is aimed at office bearers in the church in order to discredit them as enemies of the cause of Christ” (II.B.1.d). The statements in the sermon were not aimed at officebearers in the church but were aimed at the advice that was sitting on the consistory’s desk. The statements were not made to discredit the men but were made to discredit the advice as detrimental to the cause of Christ.

The sermon is crystal clear on this. There is nothing whatsoever in the sermon about the church visitors’ character or honor. The only thing the sermon dealt with was the advice. 

Beloved congregation, we stand at a crossroads. We stand before that calling: go to the house of mourning. Do not go to the house of feasting as a church, as a congregation. Will we go to the house of mourning, or will we go to the house of feasting? The essence of the church visitors’ advice to this church is that the rebuke against our sin as a church and as a denomination of displacing the perfect work of Christ is not allowed in this pulpit. That is the essence of this advice.

Furthermore, I faithfully applied the text that I was preaching to the church visitors’ advice. The preacher in Ecclesiastes instructs the church that the house of mourning is better than the house of feasting because “it is better to hear the rebuke of the wise, than for a man to hear the song of fools” (7:5). In the house of mourning, which is the house of worship, God’s people hear the rebuke of their wise God. If the people reject that rebuke and demand that it be replaced with the empty song of fools, they will perish in their empty folly. The church visitors’ advice was that I had sinned in bringing the rebuke of God’s word to the congregation and denomination. The advice was that I be suspended from the ministry for this rebuke. The effect of that advice would be to remove that specific rebuke from the congregation of Byron Center and from the denomination. The effect of that advice would be to bring the denomination to the house of feasting and the song of fools.

My exposition of the passage and my application proved to be true. The church visitors’ advice put me out and ensured that no Protestant Reformed congregation may hear a rebuke from the pulpit against the sin of false doctrine committed by the PRC.

For me to preach those things was not slander but a faithful application of God’s word to the actual condition and situation in the churches.

Fifth, classis appealed to the minutes of the assemblies of the PRC as proof that the denomination was not walking in lies and was not minimizing and excusing the lie (II.B.1.e). However, my sermons demonstrated that walking in lies can happen in many places in a denomination, including sermons, letters from consistories, and a denomination’s unofficial magazine. Whether a lie can be found in the minutes of the assemblies is beside the point.

Classis’ charge of slander against me cannot stand. By God’s grace, I faithfully brought the word of God in its exposition and application, which can never be slander. Rather than charging the word of God with sin, the denomination should have humbled itself under the reproofs and rebukes of that word.

Third Ground: Insubordination

Classis’ third ground for deposing me was that “Rev. Lanning’s actions in the sermons he preached constitute public schism by insubordination to the authority in the church in violation of the 5th commandment” (II.C).

This ground misrepresents my sermons. I did not preach in opposition to the authority in the church, but I was careful and deliberate to honor that authority, even as I warned and rebuked the denomination for its sin. This can be demonstrated in each example used by classis.

First, classis said, “Rev. Lanning expressed grievances which contradict the decisions of Classis East at its Sept. 12, 2018 meeting” (II.C.1). I marvel at this charge against me, because so far from contradicting the decisions of September 2018, my sermons called the denomination to live up to those decisions and warned the churches about the danger of contradicting those decisions. Although I did not mention Classis East September 2018 by name, my sermons took hold of the doctrine of that classis and pressed it home to the churches. How could classis then charge me with insubordination to Classis East September 2018 and depose me for it?!

Classis’ error in January 2021 was that it continued to misconstrue my preaching as public charges of sin against officebearers. “In his sermon on Jeremiah 23, Rev. Lanning charges that the office-bearers of Classis East remain guilty for the wrong decisions they made and must repent; that they continue to walk in lies, twist, pervert, and corrupt the truth, commit spiritual fornication, and strengthen the hand of the evildoer” (II.C.1.a).

As shown above, my sermons were not public charges of sin against officebearers but were public rebukes of the church. As part of those public rebukes, I demonstrated—for the sake of those who still did not know about that sin—that the sin of false doctrine had actually been committed. I instructed—for the sake of those who were indifferent to that sin—how evil the sin of false doctrine is in the eyes of God. And I called the denomination to repentance for her sin—for the sake of the recovery of the entire denomination.

In doing all of this, I was preaching exactly in harmony with Classis East September 2018. That classis, after a tremendous struggle to the contrary, had finally agreed with Synod 2018’s declaration that there had been doctrinal error that gave to man’s works a place and function out of harmony with the confessions. My pointing out the dreadful evil of the decisions of Classis East February 2018 does not militate against Classis September 2018. Rather, it lives up to Classis September 2018. It says the same thing as Classis September 2018. It is good that Classis September 2018 declared the decisions of February 2018 to be in error. How is it now schismatic for me also to say that February 2018 was in error? It is exactly in harmony with September 2018 for me to instruct the congregation in the error of what happened in February 2018 and to show the perverse wickedness of the lie.

Second, classis said, “Rev. Lanning expressed public disagreement with the decision of his consistory to the congregation and denomination through the pulpit, thus showing insubordination to his overseers, the elders” (II.C.2). Classis said, “Rev. Lanning’s sermon on Jeremiah 23:4, 14, was a public expression of his disagreement with the Nov. 1, 2020 decision of his consistory that required him to resign as editor-in-chief of the Sword and Shield, and about which decision the congregation had just been informed” (II.C.2.a).

I acknowledge that the consistory’s decision was an occasion for the sermon on Jeremiah 23. However, I was careful and deliberate in the sermon not to mention that decision. Nowhere in the sermon did I criticize or repudiate the decision of my consistory. The sermon was not about my being an editor of a magazine. Rather, the sermon was about the controversy as a whole in the PRC.

At the time I preached the sermon, I was privately working on a protest against the consistory’s decision requiring me to resign as editor of Sword and Shield. In that protest, following the way of Church Order article 31, I privately opposed the elders’s decision and asked them to rescind the decision. All of that private opposition I deliberately kept out of the sermon on Jeremiah 23, as is evident from the actual content of the sermon.

The charge has repeatedly been made against me that my sermon on Jeremiah 23 was militancy against the elders’ requirement that I resign as editor. This charge alone seems to be a stumbling block for many. So let everyone ask themselves what that sermon on Jeremiah 23 was actually about. Was it about being an editor? Search the sermon front to back, and one will find nothing in it about being an editor or not being an editor. Rather, the sermon was about the controversy as a whole. Search the sermon front to back, and one will find that the whole sermon was about the controversy and nothing more. The sermon on Jeremiah 23 was not about the meaningless, indifferent matter of editing a magazine. Rather, the sermon was about the all-important, denomination-consuming matter of false doctrine in the PRC.

Third, classis said that in the sermon on Ecclesiastes 7, “Rev. Lanning expressed publicly his disagreement and condemned the advice of the church visitors, and urged both his consistory and church to reject it before it was decided upon” (II.C.3). Classis said that I made “public in that sermon what had not yet been decided. The only explanation can be an attempt to sway the consistory and set the congregation against the advice the church visitors gave to the consistory” (II.C.3.b).

Classis is correct in this. I did publicly disagree with and condemn the advice of the church visitors, and I did so in an attempt to instruct the consistory and to set the congregation against the advice the church visitors gave to the consistory. However, this was not insubordination. The church visitors’ advice was not the settled and binding decision of an ecclesiastical assembly. It was merely advice, and advice without the “teeth” of an assembly. Neither had the consistory of Byron Center yet voted on the advice. It is the right and the duty of the pulpit to cry a warning even regarding private dangers that will scatter the flock of Christ. When a watchman is placed on the walls by being put into office, Christ gives him a position to see things that others might not see. For example, he can see the private advice of the counselors of Egypt that will destroy the congregation. When he sees these things, he must cry the alarm, lest the citizens of the city perish. “Son of man, I have made thee a watchman unto the house of Israel: therefore hear the word at my mouth, and give them warning from me” (Ezek. 3:17).

My warning against the church visitors’ advice appears to be a stumbling block for many. Many have a hard time seeing how it is right for a minister to bring to the pulpit a private matter from the consistory room. In response, first, the fact that the church visitors were giving advice to Byron Center was public. The elders had announced to the congregation that they had called in the church visitors exactly to give advice. Second, even though the church visitors’ advice had not yet been made public to the congregation, their advice was merely their advice and was not settled and binding. Let all who stumble at this look through the sermon from front to back to see what settled and binding decision I contradicted. One will not find anywhere such a contradiction. I was careful and deliberate not to criticize a settled and binding decision. And then let all who stumble at this imagine what a minister should do if the church visitors had brought advice to approve divorce and remarriage, for example. Would the congregation really want the minister to wait and see whether the consistory would adopt the advice, and only then have the minister silently protest once it was adopted? Rather, the minister’s calling is to cry out as a watchman on the walls to the consistory and to the congregation that danger threatens. So also when I saw the danger of the rebukes of the word being silenced by the church visitors’ advice, I cried out with the deliberate purpose of instructing both consistory and congregation in the right way.

In all of my preaching, I was careful and deliberate to honor the authority in the church, even as I cried out the warning of God’s word against the sin of the congregation and denomination.

The work of answering my deposition must continue for one more editorial. Next time, let us look at some of the grounds used by Byron Center and Trinity Protestant Reformed churches.