With this editorial I conclude my answer to the Protestant Reformed Churches’ suspension and deposition of me from the ministry of the word in their midst. Last time I answered all of the charges and grounds used by Classis East. This time I turn to a couple of the grounds used by Byron Center Protestant Reformed Church and Trinity Protestant Reformed Church. Byron Center is the church that suspended me from the ministry, with the advice of Trinity’s consistory as a more or less neighboring church. These two churches brought their judgment to Classis East to seek my deposition.

In searching for the grounds of Byron Center’s consistory, one is immediately struck by the fact that one is actually dealing with the grounds of the church visitors of Classis East: Rev. Michael DeVries, Rev. Carl Haak, Rev. Kenneth Koole, and Rev. James Slopsema; and, added by the classical committee at the request of the church visitors, Rev. Clayton Spronk. The work of Byron Center’s elders consisted largely of adopting documents and advice that the church visitors wrote and later that Rev. William Langerak and Trinity’s elders wrote. Therefore, the grounds of Byron Center are really the grounds of the church visitors. To those grounds of the church visitors we now turn.

The Raggedy Scarecrow

The first ground that the church visitors used in my suspension was that, in my sermon on Jeremiah 23:4, 14, I made public charges of sin against individual consistories and ministers.

Rev. Lanning committed the sin of public schism when in violation of Articles 74 and 75 of the Church Order he publicly charged consistories and ministers of the PRCA with failing to repent of the devil’s theology that he claimed they embraced in the January-February 2018 meeting of Classis East and instead have minimized their great sin. (agenda for Classis East January 13, 2021, 143)

Rev. Lanning committed the sin of public schism when…In violation of Articles 74 and 75 of the Church Order he brought charges of public sin against officebearers in the PRC from the pulpit rather than to their consistories. (agenda, 147)

The church visitors’ charge against me simply is not true. My sermon on Jeremiah 23:4, 14 did not make public charges of sin against individual officebearers. Rather, the sermon was a public rebuke to the congregation of Byron Center Protestant Reformed Church and to the Protestant Reformed denomination for minimizing their false doctrine of displacing the perfect work of Christ. In the sermon I demonstrated the denomination’s sin by quoting from its popular magazine, the Standard Bearer, and by quoting from public letters that consistories had written to their congregations. All of this is in harmony with the minister’s calling according to the word of God and the Reformed confessions, the liturgical forms, and the Church Order, as I demonstrated in the previous editorial. The church visitors’ charge against me is a straw man.

Over here is my actual sermon, which was a public rebuke of the denomination and a congregation. Over there is the church visitors’ mischaracterization of my sermon, that it was a public charge of sin against individuals. This makes the church visitors’ mischaracterization of my sermon a straw man—a great scarecrow stuffed full of straw to look like the real thing, but not at all the real thing.

When the church visitors proceeded to demolish the scarecrow as a wicked thing, they were not anymore dealing with my actual sermon but were only thwacking away at their scarecrow. The thing about a scarecrow is that no matter how many sticks you whack it with and no matter how you make the straw fly and no matter how much you sweat and labor in the demolishing of it, what you have demolished was only a scarecrow. So also when the church visitors gathered around their scarecrow and flailed away at it with all the sticks they could find in the Church Order, all they were left with was a battered scarecrow. They still had not touched my actual sermon, nor had they touched the public rebuke of the congregation and denomination in my sermon.

For all the fact that the church visitors’ mischaracterization of my sermon was only a raggedy scarecrow, it has proved to be a very popular scarecrow. Every time my sermon came before an assembly in the denomination, the church visitors’ scarecrow would come along with it. Each assembly would stuff some more straw down the scarecrow’s shirt and pants and then biff away at it.

Church visitors: “In violation of Articles 74 and 75 of the Church Order he brought charges of public sin against officebearers of the PRC from the pulpit rather than to their consistories” (agenda, 147).

Byron Center: “Motion to adopt the 1st recommendation in the advice of the church visitors” (agenda, 130).

Trinity: “In a sermon on Jeremiah 23:4, 14, Shepherds to Feed You, preached in Byron Center PRC on 11/15/20, Rev. Lanning made serious public charges of unrepentant sin against ministers and officebearers of the Protestant Reformed Churches, and against the entire denomination” (agenda, 160).

Classis East: “In these sermons he publicly charges ministers and office-bearers of the PRC with unrepentant sin” (minutes of Classis East January 13, 2021, article 37). All the while, I have been pointing out to those gathered around the scarecrow that it is nothing more than a straw man and that my actual sermon did not publicly charge individuals with sin but rebuked the denomination and a congregation. I pointed this out in my protest to Byron Center’s consistory. I pointed this out in my comments on the floor of Classis East. I pointed this out in my writing in Sword and Shield. For example, from my December 8, 2020, protest to Byron Center’s consistory against my suspension:

However, illustrations or warnings about a congregation’s or denomination’s sins must not be construed as formal charges of sin against individuals. Rather, these warnings and illustrations are part of the prophet’s calling to show God’s people their transgressions from the pulpit (Is. 58:1). These warnings and illustrations are part of the minister’s calling to reprove, rebuke, and exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine (II Tim. 4:2). When the minister preaches the Word and reproves and rebukes a congregation for her own specific sins (II Tim. 4:2); when the minister shows God’s people their own personal and corporate transgressions (Is. 58:1); and even when the prophet illustrates the sin of a congregation or denomination by quoting from sermons or documents of office-bearers within the denomination (Jer. 23:16-17); the minister is faithfully fulfilling his calling. The sermon on Jeremiah 23:4, 14 did not bring a formal charge of sin against office-bearers to the pulpit, but rather reproved, rebuked, and exhorted the congregation and the denomination with all long-suffering and doctrine (II Tim. 4:2).

In spite of this, the church visitors’ straw man has prevailed as a stand-in for my actual sermon. By now it is a reflex in the Protestant Reformed Churches when explaining my deposition to restuff and rebuff the scarecrow: “He made public charges of sin.”

I have written and said just about all that I can say about that, except to note this curious thing about the church visitors’ scarecrow: There are many office-bearers in the denomination who have indeed been publicly charging their Protestant Reformed brethren with sin. For example, the consistory of Georgetown Protestant Reformed Church wrote a public letter to its congregation on June 6, 2020, regarding Sword and Shield. In its letter the consistory freely and openly charged me with disorderliness, schism, and lying.

We object to the content of the editorial appearing in this magazine. We find that it lacks candor and transparency in stating the reasons for the publishing of another magazine in our denomination. No mention is made of the criticism and dissatisfaction with the Standard Bearer out of which this magazine arose. Rather, the editorial leaves the impression of a cordial relationship existing between these two magazines. This is misleading.

Further, we object to statements in the editorial which allude to “the lie” present in our churches, and declaration of the magazine’s intent to set aside good order in the churches in addressing this supposed “lie”, even 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.

Several other Protestant Reformed consistories wrote similarly. And yet the minister of Georgetown church, who was also a church visitor and who himself had publicly charged me with sin, helped build the straw man that I had publicly charged office-bearers with sin. He and other office-bearers of the Protestant Reformed Churches all assembled at classis, having made public charges against me themselves, and proceeded to depose me for what I had not done but they had. Oh, how they flogged their scarecrow, never pausing to consider that they themselves wore the scarecrow’s shirt and pants. They rolled up their own public charges into a baton and said to me, “You (whack) mayn’t (whack) make (whack) public (whack) charges (whack).”

I can only leave that brutality and injustice with the Lord.

The Formula of Subscription Heist

The most alarming ground of the church visitors was their misrepresentation of the Formula of Subscription. The beautiful truth of the Formula of Subscription is that every officebearer who signs it vows before God that he heartily believes that the doctrine of the confessions fully agrees with the word of God. He promises to teach the doctrine of the confessions and never to contradict it. He promises to reject all errors that militate against the doctrine of the confessions and to exert himself to keep the church free from any doctrinal error that contradicts the confessions. He promises that if he himself ever comes to disagree with the doctrine of the confessions, he will not teach that disagreement but will reveal his disagreement to the assemblies for their judgment.

Throughout, the officebearer’s vow is about the doctrine of the Reformed confessions. It is about the doctrine of the three forms of unity. The Formula is crystal clear on this.

We…do hereby sincerely and in good conscience before the Lord declare by this, our subscription, that we heartily believe and are persuaded that all the articles and points of doctrine contained in the Confession and Catechism of the Reformed Churches, together with the explanation of some points of the aforesaid doctrine made by the National Synod of Dordrecht, 1618-’19, do fully agree with the Word of God. (Confessions and Church Order, 326)

When the Formula afterward repeatedly refers to the “aforesaid doctrine,” it is unambiguously referring to the doctrine of the Reformed confessions just mentioned.

The officebearer’s vow in the Formula is only about the doctrine of the Reformed confessions. The officebearer’s vow is not a vow to abide by every decision of the ecclesiastical assemblies. In fact, the officebearer’s vow in the Formula is his vow to contradict and oppose the assemblies if they ever depart from the doctrine of the confessions. This is why Herman Hoeksema, George Ophoff, and Henry Danhof were right to start the Standard Bearer in 1924 to write publicly against the settled and binding decisions of common grace, adopted by the 1924 Synod of Kalamazoo. Even though Hoeksema, Ophoff, and Danhof were all ministers in the Christian Reformed Church at the time, and even though their own synod had adopted common grace, their Formula of Subscription vows required them to contradict and oppose the synod in the interest of maintaining the doctrine of the confessions.

If the Formula of Subscription were a vow by every office-bearer to abide by every decision of the assemblies, it would jeopardize the doctrine of the confessions. If an assembly ever contradicted the confessions, every office-bearer would be bound by his vow to uphold the assembly. His vow to uphold the assembly would bring him into contradiction with the doctrine of the confessions, which means he would be in contradiction with the word of God. It is critical for the maintenance of the doctrine of the confessions that the officebearer’s vow be strictly a vow to uphold the doctrine of the confessions.

But the church visitors taught that the Formula of Subscription is the officebearer’s vow regarding every decision of the ecclesiastical assemblies in a denomination. After quoting a portion of the Formula, the church visitors maintained, “The aforesaid doctrine mentioned in this statement refers not only to the Three Forms of Unity but also to all settled and binding decisions of the church’s assemblies” (agenda, 144).

The church visitors are guilty of a monstrous misrepresentation of the Formula. The church visitors called attention to the Formula’s language “aforesaid doctrine,” which clearly refers strictly to the three forms of unity: the “points of doctrine contained in the [Belgic] Confession and [Heidelberg] Catechism of the Reformed churches, together with the explanation of some points of the aforesaid doctrine made by the National Synod of Dordrecht, 1618-’19.” The church visitors made that language “aforesaid doctrine” refer “not only to the Three Forms of Unity but also to all settled and binding decisions of the church’s assemblies” (agenda, 144).

By this monstrous misrepresentation, the church visitors abducted the Formula of Subscription from the Three Forms of Unity. The Formula of Subscription belongs to the confessions as the safeguard of the doctrine of the confessions. The church visitors stole the Formula of Subscription from the confessions and gave it to the ecclesiastical assemblies as the safeguard of the decisions of the assemblies. It was a heist, a devastating heist, that robbed the confessions of their protection and instead gave that protection to the ecclesiastical assemblies.

The result of this Formula of Subscription heist will be the exposure of the Protestant Reformed Churches to any false doctrine that militates against the confessions. As long as the assemblies have spoken, no officebearer will be permitted to contradict that false doctrine. Indeed, every officebearer will be required to defend that false doctrine as the “aforesaid doctrine” of the assemblies that he supposedly vowed to uphold.

The church visitors’ heist of the Formula of Subscription is as alarming as can be for a Reformed church. When the Formula is stolen from the confessions and given to the assemblies, that church institution has already lost her battle against false doctrine and has already sold out the truth. Her officebearers should vow to defend the truth above all and against all, but she has taken the officebearers’ vow for herself, that they defend her decisions above all and against all. Instead of the officebearers being sworn to the truth of God’s word as set forth in the Reformed confessions, the officebearers are now sworn to the decisions of the church’s men, regardless of whether those decisions are according to the truth or the lie. Whether an assembly ever officially adopts false doctrine or not, once she has robbed the Formula from the confessions, she has already abandoned the truth.

When the church visitors stole the Formula of Subscription from the confessions and gave it to the assemblies, it was up to Byron Center’s consistory, Trinity’s consistory, Classis East, and Synod through its deputies at Classis East to restore the Formula to the confessions and to repudiate the church visitors’ heist of the Formula. And yet no assembly did so. These assemblies either approved or ignored the heist. The assemblies went even further by adding their own misrepresentations about what the Formula requires. One staggers at the dishonesty of the assemblies in this whole matter of the Formula of Subscription. One grieves at it too, for the Protestant Reformed Churches have proven themselves to be incapable of dealing honestly and seriously with the Formula of Subscription.

Byron Center’s consistory adopted wholesale the church visitors’ advice. The church visitors’ advice: “The aforesaid doctrine mentioned in this statement [of the Formula of Subscription] refers not only to the Three Forms of Unity but also to all settled and binding decisions of the church’s assemblies” (agenda, 144). Byron Center’s decision: “Motion to adopt the 1st recommendation in the advice of the church visitors” (agenda, 130).

I protested Byron Center’s decision and thus the church visitors’ advice.

My vow in the Formula of Subscription is not a vow to abide by every decision of consistory, classis, and synod. Rather, it is a vow to uphold the doctrine of the Three Forms of Unity. The language of the Formula is crystal clear on this: “We promise therefore diligently to teach and faithfully to defend the aforesaid doctrine, without either directly or indirectly contradicting the same, by our public preaching or writing.” What is the “aforesaid doctrine” that I have vowed to teach and defend? “All the articles and points of doctrine contained in the Confession and Catechism of the Reformed Churches, together with the explanation of some points of the aforesaid doctrine made by the National Synod of Dordrecht, 1618-’19….” The Formula of Subscription can not be used as proof that a man has militated against this or that decision of the assemblies, because the Formula has nothing to do with this or that decision of the assemblies. It has to do only with the confessions. Even when the Formula brings up the assemblies, it does so only in the case of a man who deviates from the confessions, not in every case that an assembly decides. (agenda, 174)

Byron Center’s elders responded with a lie and further confusion regarding the Formula of Subscription.

Rev. Lanning errs in his contention that the consistory cannot appeal to the Formula of Subscription as a ground for its charge that he is guilty of public schism (Ground 4).

a. Ground: The consistory did not use the Formula as a direct ground for the charge, or proof he vowed “to abide by every decision of consistory, classis and synod.” The consistory cited the Formula to demonstrate

1. the right meaning of “settled and binding” in Art. 31;

2. that it implies the minister is bound to submit to the Church Order, inasmuch as it is a creed, reformed doctrine, and based on Scripture, which vow is made explicit by the minister in the Form for Ordination. (agenda, 178)

This response of Byron Center’s consistory is a lie. The truth is that the elders at Byron Center had accused me of militating “against settled and binding decisions of the ecclesiastical assemblies.” The consistory had appealed to the Formula as its proof that I may not militate against the assemblies: “Rev. Lanning committed the sin of public schism, when in violation…of the vows made when signing the Formula of Subscription, he militated against settled and binding decisions of the ecclesiastical assemblies.”

Byron Center’s consistory was perfectly wrong in its appeal to the Formula, but it was perfectly clear that the elders understood the Formula to be my vow to abide by every decision of the assemblies.

The…Formula of Subscription…clearly define[s] the settled and binding character of the decisions of ecclesiastical assemblies…The vow made by signing the Formula of Subscription honors the settled and binding character of ecclesiastical assemblies…The aforesaid doctrine mentioned in this statement refers not only to the Three Forms of Unity but also to all settled and binding decisions of the church’s assemblies. (agenda, 144)

But in response to my protest, Byron Center’s elders lied and said, “The consistory did not use the Formula as a…proof he vowed ‘to abide by every decision of consistory, classis and synod’” (agenda, 178).

By this Byron Center’s elders held two flatly contradictory grounds in the course of my deposition.

The aforesaid doctrine mentioned in this statement refers not only to the Three Forms of Unity but also to all settled and binding decisions of the church’s assemblies. (agenda, 144)

The consistory did not use the Formula as a…proof he vowed ‘to abide by every decision of consistory, classis and synod.’” (agenda, 178)

In addition to their outright lie, the elders of Byron Center confused the issue by introducing the Church Order into the Formula.

I love the Church Order, and I abide by it; but the Church Order is not in the Formula of Subscription. Anyone can test this by simply reading the Formula.

The purpose of introducing the Church Order into the Formula was for the sake of finding another way to introduce the ecclesiastical assemblies into the Formula. Article 31 of the Church Order establishes that the decisions of the ecclesiastical assemblies are “settled and binding.” Therefore, so the dangerous reasoning goes, a minister who signs the Formula of Subscription is vowing to follow the Church Order, which means he has vowed to abide by every decision of the ecclesiastical assemblies. The confusion of introducing the Church Order into the Formula stands in service of the heist of the Formula from the confessions in order to give the Formula to the assemblies.

So much for Byron Center’s consistory. But what about Trinity’s consistory?

As a neighboring church, Trinity had the opportunity to put a stop to the heist of the Formula. Alas, Trinity’s elders and minister continued the heist of the Formula by also introducing the Church Order and by insisting that the Formula has to do with the minister’s submission to the assemblies.

In the Formula of Subscription he vowed to submit to the “aforesaid doctrine,” which includes the doctrine in the minor creeds, such as the Church Order, and vowed “cheerfully to submit to the judgment [decisions] of the consistory, classis, and synod,” which submission is also explained in the Church Order. (agenda, 164)

By this point the church visitors and the consistories of Byron Center and Trinity Protestant Reformed churches had well and truly stolen the Formula for their own purposes. Their grounds were confusing and contradictory, but it was clear that they viewed the Formula of Subscription as an office-bearer’s vow to submit to the decisions of the ecclesiastical assemblies.

All of this material would go to Classis East and the synodical deputies to be judged by them.

And what did Classis East and synod’s representatives do? How did they rule on all of the material regarding the Formula of Subscription? Did they finally put a stop to the heist of the Formula?

They did not.

Classis East and synod through its deputies did not even mention the Formula of Subscription in their grounds to depose me. Classis East and synod through its deputies ignored the whole issue of the Formula. This was gross negligence on the part of Classis East and synod through its deputies, because the consistories of Byron Center and Trinity had come to classis and synod’s deputies on the basis of the Formula of Subscription. The Formula of Subscription was a significant ground in the judgment of the consistories of Byron Center and Trinity. It was a ground that had convinced both consistories that I was worthy of deposition. Both consistories were asking Classis East and synod through its deputies to depose me on the basis of the Formula of Subscription. But Classis East and synod through its deputies said nothing about the Formula.

It was also gross negligence for Classis East to say nothing about the Formula of Subscription because a false view of the Formula has now been established as settled and binding in the Protestant Reformed Churches. The Formula has been stolen from the confessions, leaving the denomination open to any false doctrine that contradicts the confessions. And yet Classis East and synod through its deputies said nothing. By their silence they connived at the heist of the Formula. By their silence they tolerated the heist of the Formula.

This is all the more egregious since Classis East and synod through its deputies had an opportunity to put a stop to the heist of the Formula. One minister on the committee of preadvice at Classis East presented a minority report. In this minority report he competently set forth the truth of the Formula and rightly exposed the misuse of the Formula by the consistories of Byron Cen- ter and Trinity Protestant Reformed churches.

Byron Center’s application of the Formula of Subscription in connection with this sermon and subsequent sermons, as adopted in the advice of the church visitors (p. 144) and the advice of Trinity (p. 166), is erroneous. The claim on p. 144 that the “aforesaid doctrine mentioned in the statement refers not only to the Three Forms of Unity but also to all settled and binding decisions of the church’s assemblies” is patently false. The “aforesaid doctrine” refers only to the doctrine of which mention is before made by the Formula, namely, the “articles and points of doctrine contained in the Confession and Catechism of the Reformed churches, together with the explanation of some points of the aforesaid doctrine made by the National Synod of Dordrecht, 1618-’19.” In addition, the Formula cannot be used to interpret the “‘settled and binding’ nature of ecclesiastical decisions” generally (p. 166), since the context of the Formula is exclusively the Three Forms of Unity, and it strictly concerns decisions made by assemblies regarding “difficulties or different sentiments respecting the aforesaid doctrines.” (minutes of Classis East January 13, 2021, article 37, minority report)

But Classis East and synod through its deputies would not have it. They did not adopt the minority report but by an overwhelming majority adopted the advice that does not even mention the Formula.

Let the Protestant Reformed denomination take note that the false view of the Formula is now settled and binding law in the churches, adopted by two consistories and allowed by the classis and the synod.

Conclusion

The rest of the grounds of the consistories of Byron Center and Trinity are of a similar character. Throughout my deposition it became clear that the assemblies were not interested in dealing honestly or seriously with the issues. Their interest was to depose me, and any argument to hand would do, regardless of how hypocritical it made them and regardless of how it jeopardized the truth.

If anyone is interested in seeing a point-by-point rebuttal of Byron Center’s grounds, I have included my protest to Byron Center following this editorial.

With that, I come to the conclusion of my answer to my deposition.

By God’s grace, I say again with the apostle, “Wherefore I take you to record this day, that I am pure from the blood of all men. For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God” (Acts 20:26–27).