Dear Uncle Screwtape,

Much time has passed since our former, regular correspondence, but my assignment from Lower Command reunites us again. I will try to avoid displeasing you with my infantile rhapsodies and by appearing singularly obtuse. Your warning to “bring us back food, or be food yourself” still rings in my ears.

I freely admit that I am thrilled with my current task, as I can really sink my teeth into it, and the work is far more rewarding than when I was a young fiend kept out on temptation duty for my mistakes. (Years ago, you said that I must learn to pay for my blunders; and oh, how I have paid! It is a tiresome business to provide pleasures for temptations.) To get a man’s soul and to give him nothing in return—this is what really gladdens our Prince.

I recall that you once speculated that there would come a time when we would have no need to bother about individual tempters at all, except for a few. Catch the bellwether, and his whole flock will come after him. I believe this has proven to be true. Since I have been tasked with the whole Protestant Reformed denomination, I have put that idea into practice. Thus my work has been primarily focused on her professors, ministers, and elders.

This is why I am anxious to report the spectacular wickedness displayed at the meeting of Classis East in February of this year. It was an event years in the making. (I remember your words that the safest road to Hell is the gradual one—the gentle slope, soft under foot, without sudden turnings, without milestones, without signposts.) Colleagues such as Glubose and Scabtree and even Spirits far deeper in the Lowerarchy had a vested interest in the proceedings and joined me in the merriment. I know our policy is to conceal ourselves, but I almost wish that the delegates could have seen us.

You are correct when you wrote that the classis did not condemn the minister or his doctrine. Quite frankly, neither he nor his doctrine even ended up being on trial that day. And I am pleased to document that the Protestant Reformed Churches (PRC) are still afraid to even use the words false doctrine! So much so, that what the classis ended up eliding from the committee’s recommendation was the only mention of false doctrine in the entire document.¹ Yet whether the PRC uses the term false doctrine or not, the false doctrine remains, and our strategy to perpetuate the false doctrine is perhaps even more effective due to its continuing subtlety. The most delicious part about false doctrine is that it is lies about what we loathe the most, the gospel. And these lies are so inoffensive in the PRC, we have rendered the lies virtually innocuous.

Allow me to recapture some of the scrumptious affairs of the day for your reading enjoyment. I intend to be specific for the most part so that you can observe in detail the mischief that I have wrought, and I believe it is important that you know exactly what was said in order to gauge the state of the PRC. I think you will be quite pleased to note that much of what was said echoed our own fork-tongued dialect.

The morning’s work had barely begun when Rev. D. Noorman, far from condemning the doctrine taught by Rev. K. Koole, shot right out of the gate with the kind of concern we relish the most: concern for man and man’s reputation. Ha! I could hardly contain myself when he said,

When we’re dealing with a matter of false doctrine and a charge of false doctrine, we’re dealing with a man’s ministry and livelihood, and we need to have that high standard [the confessions].

I recognized the train of thought in his mind that it would be best to get in front of any issue of doctrine by reminding the assembly that poor Reverend Koole was in the hot seat, and everyone should tread carefully. You and I both understand the importance of promoting the notion that false doctrine in theory is bad, but never bad enough to risk a man’s “ministry and livelihood.” And I have been working hard to sow that seed in various contexts over the last several years.

I might have been slightly exasperated when the chairman, Rev. J. Smidstra, opened the morning session with the words, “We love the gospel of grace,” but I need not have worried. What hollow words! Man and man’s reputation were of great importance that day. So much so, that Reverend Koole, himself a visitor, never had to say a word. Delegates fell over themselves to defend him or at least to make distinctions between the writer and the words he wrote. Reverend Koole sat in the back row, crossed his arms, and watched his victory unfold. I postured myself the same. While the day might have had some uncomfortable moments for Reverend Koole, personally the day was marked as the most pleasant part of my duty thus far. Even when one delegate tap-danced around the notion that a Formula of Subscription exam is a general way to test a man’s orthodoxy, not one man could bring himself to suggest that Reverend Koole be hauled up to the front right then and end the matter of whether or not he is orthodox. (Which, as even I can identify, he is not.) Man is god in the PRC. Man and his reputation rule in the PRC. All according to plan!

Speaking of a Formula of Subscription exam, I found it very entertaining that several other delegates present that day spoke such blatantly false doctrine that, were the denomination not so thoroughly decayed, those delegates too should have been subjected to the test of their orthodoxy. The absence of any exams of that nature is a testament to the corruption of the denomination. Two delegates who are personal favorites of mine, Elder Pete VanDer Schaaf and Rev. M. McGeown, demonstrated (both verbally and through their appeals) the doctrine that I have been nurturing in them for years. Some highlights were Reverend McGeown’s man-centered interpretations of Canons 5.5–6, 5.9, and 5.12–13. I will not recount all his thoughts here, as he is nothing if not prolific, but I am certain you have read his delightful prevarications elsewhere.

It made not a bit of difference when Rev. J. Mahtani responded to the comments of McGeown by saying,

Words mean something…a statement like this [statement #1] is made to be true. It’s not only a reasonable interpretation. It’s what the statement says. That good works does [sic] in some sense obtain, are means to receive some experience or enjoyment of some aspect of salvation. I know it has been said that we’re not talking about justification, but any aspect of salvation is received only by faith alone in Jesus alone…Those who possess Jesus Christ through faith have complete salvation; they have complete salvation.

I say it made no difference because Mahtani prefaced his comments “by saying very clearly here that I’m not saying that Reverend Koole is Arminian or that the appellant is Arminian,” kicking his own feet out from under himself before he even began. I think statements such as his are quite helpful to our cause, as a matter of fact, because both sides can appeal to them. One can argue that Reverend Mahtani did not condemn anyone as Arminian, and therefore Reverend Koole and his doctrine are acceptable; and another can argue that Reverend Mahtani made a stand for the truth of salvation by faith alone. But even you and I know that failure to condemn the lie, as they say, is to condone the lie. How amusing!

It has been of utmost importance to my work that man’s reputation be elevated to epic proportions. And as I mentioned before, the delegates were very concerned with Reverend Koole’s reputation. The delegates always felt obliged to qualify any statements they made that seemed to be in direct contradiction with the teaching of Reverend Koole or seemed to be against the Reverend himself, thereby making those statements less absolute.

Elder VanDer Schaaf was eager to reply:

Yes, words mean something. It is the falsification of words to construe “there is that a man must do that he may be saved” into a prerequisite: “there is something that a man has to do to be saved.” That is to take words that mean one thing and turn them into an entirely different meaning, which was not only not meant and rejected by the person who wrote them and the person who quoted them, but which violates the meaning of the sentence….The original writer [Witsius] and the editor [Koole] who quoted the statement not only meant that a man must do good works with the purpose of entering into covenant fellowship with God and finally into glory, but according to scripture that is what those words mean!…The sentence was not careless. It was not a slip on the part of either Herman Witsius or on the part of the Standard Bearer editor…This was not careless language.

Just in case anyone thought that Reverend Koole was careless with his choice of words, his collaborator let everyone know that he wrote carefully. And I applaud VanDer Schaaf for his bold defense of our doctrine that good works merit. I also applaud him for twisting the words of their own Book, as if that Book too teaches that man’s good works merit fellowship with Him. I really could not have invented the dialogue of the day! The delegates were practically doing my work for me!

I chuckled when VanDer Schaaf sullenly complained,

The consistory of Grandville should not have characterized my discussion of these terms and my protest as either wordiness or as trying to talk the crooked straight.

But between you and me, that is a very accurate characterization. Between the amount of material related to his protest and the unbearable tedium of Pete’s waxing eloquent on the floor of classis, yes, what an accurate characterization. Though, I will not complain myself. This in itself lends to our cause. Remember our old friend, the Vicar, a man who was so long engaged in watering down the faith to make it easier for a supposedly incredulous and hard-headed congregation that it was he who shocked the parishioners with his unbelief, not vice versa. I am reminded of him because Pete has so long been engaged in his—and our—cause of finding a place for man in salvation, that when he finally spoke that heresy on the floor of classis, no one was shocked or offended or called for an exam of his orthodoxy.

VanDer Schaaf then went on to say,

A statement cannot be properly understood outside of its context. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought that’s why ministers were taught exegesis.

Now, this directly contradicts VanDer Schaaf’s own dear Synod 2018; but again, I will not complain. This line of thinking I have been smuggling into the people’s minds for a considerable amount of time. It allows a man to say almost anything in public, so long as he can explain it away in private. (I am sure you have not forgotten the notorious Professor Cammenga and the remarkable sentiment he preached more than twenty years ago, “Jesus Christ is not enough.”)

But it pleases me to relate that VanDer Schaaf was not alone in his false doctrine. Elder Jim Lanting also strongly defended Koole:

The editor’s SB articles were not essentially written for the average PR person. They were written against antinomians. The context, the tone, the subject matter is polemical against the antinomian view and error…What they [antinomians] essentially say, in my estimation, and I am no theologian: “Works are inconsequential; all our works are but filthy rags; we can do nothing in our salvation; we are inactive; faith is a gift; Christ has done everything for us; there is nothing we can do; we just, as they used to say, ride on a Pullman car to heaven; works are insignificant and meaningless, and they do not please God because they are polluted with sin.”

So, the editor of the SB, in my opinion, is opposing those heretical notions. Works are consequential; works are important; works are pleasing to God; of course, they don’t earn or merit our salvation, but they are an integral part of our sanctification…

Page 189: “Works are the fruits of salvation, not causes. Salvation is by faith alone.” And here is what I have double-underlined in my agenda: “This includes sanctification. It also is by faith, not by works.”

And I would say, “Sanctification is by faith and ‘not’ by works? Works are ‘excluded’ from our sanctification?”

Lanting’s comments might have been the most wonderful thing since the sliced loaf! While I typically prefer a more subtle approach, this man unabashedly promoted salvation by faith and works! He practically spat out those words, “Sanctification is by faith and not by works?”

And he said all this in opposition to those pesky antinomians! Now, we both understand who those antinomians really are: the Reformed Protestants. And I despise what is preached off their pulpits. So what I really enjoyed is how Elder Lanting painted those “antinomians” as believing that works are insignificant and meaningless. (Even I can attest that the Reformed Protestants do not believe that about good works. They just refuse to teach— infuriatingly so!—that good works have consequences regarding a man’s salvation. They actually believe that His Son accomplished everything for salvation!) Lanting also ridiculed the doctrine of faith as a gift and scorned our Enemy by freely saying that it is antinomian doctrine to believe that “Christ has done everything for us.” You will hear no objections from me. It behooves our cause to slander as much as possible those Reformed Protestants and the One they serve.

And the cherry atop the Lanting sundae: what then ensued were actual arguments on the floor about whether sanctification is by faith alone! I could hardly contain my glee! Is that not supposed to be a cardinal doctrine of any church that claims to belong to Him? That included in the order of salvation is the doctrine of sanctification? So much for that garbage known as the gospel of grace. Oh, how far the PRC has gone, and I hope that my efforts in this regard will not go unnoticed. As you once mentioned to me, the PRC is “heading right away from the Sun on a line which will carry [her] into the cold and dark of utmost space.”

I have been working to bend the people’s minds back to themselves so that even in our Enemy’s great plan of salvation, they insert themselves. It is exhilarating to hear the Prince’s words on the mouths of these men. The flavor is old, vintage Pharisee. We demons enjoy distracting men’s minds from who He is and what He did, and the delegates at Classis East helped us immensely in this regard.

What I found ironic was the amount of discussion on the floor that there was not a doctrinal issue, yet most of the protests and the discussions were regarding doctrine. What was it you told me once—if something is stated as fact enough times, people will begin to believe it? Thank you for that advice, Uncle, as I believe it could be effective in this situation. Rev. Bill Langerak stated, “And the thing that also bothers me here, we talk about a doctrinal controversy, but it’s really not.”

Rev. Dave Noorman said,

We talked frequently within our committee that we enter into the work with an understanding that there is no doctrinal disagreement here. This is a matter of applying the doctrine which we all subscribe to, to the case at hand.

Ah, there is no doctrinal disagreement; it is just a matter of applying the doctrine. Whatever that means! Again, you will not hear one protest from me, as this all serves our purpose. The fog is so thick!

I hesitate to share the following comments of one delegate but do so only to point out that even when any smidgen of truth reared its ugly head on the floor of classis, it was of no effect. In actuality, I believe the victory was all the greater, for whatever truth was spoken lay in tatters by the end of the day. Rev. M. Kortus spoke against the doctrines espoused by VanDer Schaaf and McGeown on behalf of Reverend Koole. Kortus stated the following:

What I’m hearing is there are some who are in favor of this language, who want this language. And I don’t want this language in our churches, that there is that which man must do that he may be saved. And I do not believe that there is a falsifying of words that’s taking place here. I agree, we need to understand the statement…and we can work with Rev Koole’s explanation of it.

So there’s the question he himself proposes; the question is “done” in what sense? Is saved in what sense? That would be the context of the articles. And it’s clear that the “done” is referring to good works. I know there’s language later on about a positive, submissive, obedient response to the call of the gospel, but the overall context is about the utility of good works. So what needs to be done? I believe the answer is good works. “That he may be saved.”

Well, he [Koole] goes on to make the distinction between the right to life and the possession of life…So he’s talking about the possession of life, and then he goes on to define that as experiencing and enjoying salvation. So if we take those different parts, Koole’s own explanations of them, you put that together and the statement reads this way: man must do good works that he might experience and enjoy salvation. That’s using his own definitions, his own terms: the believer must do good works that he may experience and enjoy salvation.

I do not believe that’s falsifying a man’s words. And I believe if we pass this, we are sending a very different message to our people than Synod 2018…I think if we adopt this, we are sending two different messages to our people about the place of good works in our salvation. I am uncomfortable with that language regardless of what aspect of salvation we are talking about… Any aspect of salvation, we receive it by faith and by faith alone. Sanctification is by faith. Preservation is by faith.

Now, I will acknowledge that these sentiments disgust me. But be assured, they disgusted many of the delegates too. For by the end of the evening, the committee’s fourteen-page document of recommendations passed, and the PRC now officially says that one can rightly explain the phrase “there is that which man must do to be saved.” Just the successful outcome for which we have been working.

If I could, I would pay a tribute to that committee. The committee and the other classical delegates raised man’s reputation to incredible heights, along with false doctrine. They toed the party line, and false doctrine and men’s reputations dominate their lives. They embraced ambiguity! And at the same time, Reverend Noorman even stated on the floor,

If you condemn an ambiguous statement, that is as much an attack on the truth than anything else. We are for the truth; we don’t want the truth condemned. That means we deal carefully with ambiguous statements.

Throughout the day men tried to appeal to both sides, and the result was deliciously diabolical. Devilishly diabolical, if I do say so myself.

And the false doctrine in the PRC has been spreading like a disease among the members. I have induced them to enthrone at the center of their lives a good, solid, resounding lie. And that lie is ubiquitous in the PRC.

Professor Dykstra (that classic bellwether) has preached that when His people walk in sin, they are departing from Him and that He in His righteous judgments and wrath begins to separate from His people.

[God’s] goodness is very real upon his people, and they are the ones who are waiting for him, hoping. They are the ones who are seeking him. But how does one experience this divine goodness? The answer is plain—in the way of seeking him, in the way of waiting and seeking. Now understand that God is good to his people always, always. That’s evident in the cross, that God loves us and therefore sent his Son to die for us. That’s evident. His goodness is clear there. Nothing stops that goodness from flowing to us. Nothing can change God’s love or his mercy or his grace toward us. Jeremiah said that already: “It is of the Lord’s mercy that we are not consumed.” His compassions fail not. His mercies are new unto us every morning. But we cannot expect to experience that goodness of God if we walk away from him. Walking away from God is the very opposite of seeking him. That does not make seeking God a condition; that’s not what this text is giving us at all, that somehow we earn the right to God’s goodness. Absolutely not. God is good and gracious to his people always, unconditionally. Nevertheless, when we walk in sin, we are departing from God and God in his righteous judgments begins to separate from us because God is good; he is holy; he cannot abide with evil; he cannot fellowship with iniquity. Someone who continues to walk in sin is departing from God…

God will maintain our relationship [the covenant], but the reality is if we refuse to seek the Lord, if we seek instead the idols of this world, if we seek instead to immerse ourselves in the pleasures of this world for our flesh, you will not experience the joys of life with God. You will not. On the contrary, you will experience his anger. That’s the first twenty verses of this chapter [Lamentations 3]. You want to see the wrath of God on a believer, on believing people? This is what these verses testify. God was angry with his people because they were not seeking him. They were walking in the ways of the world. That’s drawing away from God.²

It is remarkable that Dykstra can preach that even though it directly contradicts that despicable Lord’s Day 10 of the PRC (that nothing shall separate them from the love of God) and Psalm 73:27 in their own Book (which says that separation from Him is death!).

And even more pleasing to me is a sermon that Dykstra preached recently about how His people obtain His mercy and evade His wrath and judgment:

The text [Prov. 28:13] is saying that the one who confesses and forsaketh them [his sins] shall have mercy. And the sense is almost as if he didn’t really have it in a certain sense before, but after confessing and forsaking, now he has it. Now, again, eternally God has been merciful; I know that; you know that. But this is the reality, that God shows mercy in the way of God leading us to confession and forgiveness, and then showing us his mercy. In the way of.

In the Old Testament the man putting his hand upon the animal, confessing his sins, those sins went away; they were taken away from him. And so do we know that all of our sins are imputed to Jesus Christ. Every time we confess them, they are taken off from our account, they’re put on Jesus, and God says once again, “I forgive you. I forgive you.” He shows us mercy. “I forgive you for Jesus’ sake.”

That’s the only way we should ever dare to come to the table of the Lord. Do that this week. Do that every day of your life. Confess with grief. Forsake the sins by the power of God’s grace, and you shall have mercy. This is God’s beautiful promise to sinners.³

Distinctions, begone! I did follow your advice to me to multiply distinctions within the Protestant Reformed theology in a cunning effort to confuse the people, and my main endeavor was to distinguish between the forgiveness of sins and justification, but it appears that Dykstra ran a bit ahead of me and rid himself of the distinction here by teaching outright that imputation—justification—is by repentance! I will monitor the situation closely in the doubtful case that any members are roused by this sermon. And as you can see, the little phrase we machinated at Synod 2018 is alive and well. (Or shall I say nefarious and deadly?) Those four trivial words work deception in the sermon to denigrate the Enemy’s counsel and election, leaving the people with what they are doing to be the controlling factor.

Regarding another recent propagation of the lie, I am quite happy to report that the infamous, slippery Reverend McGeown, who is ever helpful and rarely sets down his pen, has responded to a letter concerning his article in the Standard Bearer regarding faith.⁴ He answered the correspondent by writing,

That union [the spiritual, living connection between Jesus Christ and the sinner], however, is not faith. It is a confounding of concepts to call it faith. We should reserve the language of faith for the activity of believing.⁵

And even more fiendish, McGeown wrote,

Faith is, before it becomes an act of man, a quality or gift infused by God. The Arminian error was not to teach that faith is an act of man—it is an act of man—but to teach that it is only an act of man and to deny that, before it becomes an act of man, it is primarily a divine gift or a power infused into man.⁶

Now that is a doctrine I recognize, as it comes directly from Lower Command, our very own Kingdom of Noise. If I were an empathetic creature, I would almost feel sorry for the man who wrote in to Reverend McGeown: there is such a thing as getting more than you bargained for!

As for the general population of the PRC, I have exploited in them the vanity that they can be complete, balanced, complex men and women who love everyone! Therefore, I take care that they see a lot of their families and friends in other denominations and keep their minds off the plain antithesis of True and False.

I agree with what you wrote to me last time, that the world’s goods are a potent tool for us. I recount what you once wrote me long ago: “Prosperity knits a man to the World. It also knits a man to the False Church. His reputation, his widening circle of acquaintances, his sense of importance, build up in him a sense of really being at home in the False Church, which is just what we want.” But contented worldliness is not so hard a state to muster anymore, even in Reformed circles.

Many of the people in the PRC are lukewarm and complacent, and I have made it my business to soothe them to sleep. Some are prone to faction, and it is my business to inflame them. Everything that the Protestant Reformed person says about his or her own sinfulness is all parrot talk. Once we dismantled the doctrine of total depravity and then dusted off that trusty, old doctrine of justification by faith and works, at bottom, they believe that they have run up a very favorable credit balance in the Enemy’s ledger!

I take care to direct all their malice toward the Reformed Protestant Churches (RPC). (If ever there were a bunch of tall stalks who need their tops knocked off, it is surely they!) And do not let anyone tell you otherwise; that malice is wholly real. I understand the sentiment; those Reformed Protestants make me vomit. The RPC shouts for a victory that the people believe is already theirs! They believe that their warfare is accomplished! It is maddening. We would have had them in the arena in the old days. That is what their sort is made for.

Before I conclude, please know that I have persuaded many in the PRC that the members of the RPC are unloving, intolerant, and (of course!) schismatic. In my diligent guiding of what the average Protestant Reformed member reads, I have heeded your advice to ensure that there is not an interest in reading about doctrine. That is a devious tactic you recommended, to make doctrine cold, abstract, and divisive; and I report that it is working. Long gone are the days when the Protestant Reformed man exclaimed that doctrine about our Enemy was life! We need not worry that the Protestant Reformed person is reading about right doctrine, and they would never waste their time reading what they call the Sword and Slander! It is humorous how the mortals always picture us putting things in their minds, when in reality some of our finest work is done by keeping things out! But best of all is to give them a grand, general idea that they know it all and that everything they happen to pick up in casual conversations about the RPC is the truth. The record office can share its findings with you: the people are steady and consistent scoffers of the RPC and the contemptible truth preached and taught there.

Also, the 2024 Protestant Reformed Synod is fast approaching. Perhaps there is a dim uneasiness for some, as there are a few appeals to the synod regarding the decisions of the February meeting of Classis East. But I am confident that the PRC will stay the course.

And where that repugnant RPC continues to plead to the members of the PRC, “Do not linger! Flee!” I continue to whisper in their ears, “Stay.” A far more appealing pathway.

I will have to end this letter in medias res. Until next time, dear uncle.

Your devoted nephew,

Wormwood