Last time I began a defense of Sword and Shield and Reformed Believers Publishing, the organization that publishes the magazine, by explaining from the history of the Protestant Reformed Churches (PRC) the position of Herman Hoeksema, George Ophoff, and Henry Danhof and their consistories concerning article 31 of the Church Order. A storm of false and unjust criticisms of the magazine and publisher delivered by open consistorial letters to some Protestant Reformed congregations necessitated this defense. These letters branded the magazine, its editors, and its publisher before the world as schismatics committed to rebellious activity in the churches for holding to what these consistories understand to be a schismatic and rebellious understanding of article 31, which allows Sword and Shield to criticize ecclesiastical decisions. My defense began with article 31 not because this is the most important criticism. It is not. It is a distraction. But the opponents of Sword and Shield have made article 31 their bulwark from which to heap aspersions on the magazine, the writers, and the publisher and to instill doubt in the minds of believers whether they may with good consciences support the magazine.

These criticisms are false and unjust. The position of Sword and Shield that these consistories criticize was the position of the fathers of the PRC, as clearly laid out in their writings, not only in the heat of controversy but also years after the events and after much reflection. If the criticisms of these letters are applied to the beginning events of the PRC, this means that the denomination had its origin in schismatic and rebellious activity on the part of the ministers, consistories, and congregations involved. Besides, the criticisms are doubly unjust because Sword and Shield began in part to uphold a synodical decision. Unjustly and without evidence, the letters cast as the main activity of Sword and Shield to criticize decisions of Protestant Reformed ecclesiastical assemblies, while in reality, at present, the editors are intent on explaining a synodical decision for the benefit of the reading public. We have never yet exercised our right that is criticized so fiercely, openly, and unjustly. 

Another criticism in some consistorial letters to congregations betrays ignorance of sound Reformed church polity and the history of the Protestant Reformed denomination. Closely related to these consistories’ wrong understanding of article 31 is their wrong understanding of the Formula of Subscription in relation to article 31. Representative is the position of one consistory:

The Church Order in article 31, to which every office bearer subscribes upon signing the formula of subscription [emphasis added], states: If anyone complain that he has been wronged by the decision of a minor assembly, he shall have the right to appeal to a major ecclesiastical assembly, and whatever may be agreed upon by a majority vote shall be considered settled and binding, unless it be proved to conflict with the Word of God or with the articles of the Church Order, as long as they are not changed by the general synod.

The position of this consistory is evidently that article 31 has such bearing on the issues of the appearance of Sword and Shield and the editor’s claim to be able to criticize decisions of the broader assemblies because every officebearer subscribes to the Formula of Subscription.According to this consistory, when an officebearer signs the Formula he subscribes to the Church Order and thus especially to article 31. But the consistory is patently wrong in its assertion that the officebearer subscribes to the Church Order when he signs the Formula of Subscription.

I urge every reader to read the Formula of Subscription and article 31 of the Church Order, found on pages 326 and 390 of The Confessions and the Church Order of the Protestant Reformed Churches. A cursory reading of the Formula shows that the officebearer who signs it does not subscribe to the Church Order but to the three forms of unity—“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 Church Order is binding on the churches and thus on the officebearers in the churches because the articles “have been so drafted and adopted by common consent” (Church Order 86). The officebearer’s subscription to the Formula has nothing to do with the Church Order. Signing the Formula is strictly subscribing to the three forms of unity, and officebearers do so because they “heartily believe and are persuaded that all the articles and points of doctrine…do fully agree with the Word of God.” In the end, with subscription to the Formula, the “Word of God” alone rules in the church of Christ. The creeds have their authority in the churches, and officebearers can subscribe to them without being profane because the creeds “fully agree with the Word of God.”

Another consistory wrote to its congregation,

While we agree that believers in our churches have the right to discuss these decisions and even to condemn these decisions by going directly to these church assemblies, we are required to do so in the proper manner…We remind you of the “settled and binding” nature of decisions by church assemblies (See Church Order Articles 31 & 35), and we remind you of the submission and order which God requires of us and to which we have vowed (See Formula of Subscription, and the third question of Confession of Faith).

It appears that this consistory’s position is that all decisions of church assemblies are settled and binding and that every officebearer who signs the Formula with that oath unconditionally promises not to contradict these decisions publicly or privately by teaching or writing until he appeals to consistory, classis, or synod. I do not know what other interpretation can be put on these words. What the Formula of Subscription applies to the creeds, this consistory applies to every decision of the church assemblies. This consistory does not even limit the oath of the Formula of Subscription to doctrinal matters but arbitrarily extends it to all ecclesiastical decisions.

Still another consistory wrote,

This is the Reformed and orderly way of resolving controversy and disagreements which orderly way is laid out in our Church Order, Art. 31. This process, as it has been followed throughout our history, begins at the Consistory level and proceeds, if necessary, to the Classical level and then finally to the Synodical level. Every office bearer promises to follow this way of decency and good order when he signs the Formula of Subscription [emphasis added] which says, “whenever we shall believe ourselves aggrieved by the sentence of the consistory, the classis or the synod, and until a decision is made upon such an appeal, we will acquiesce in the determination and judgement already passed.”

This consistory is even more explicit and forceful than the previous one. Its position is that article 31 makes every decision of the ecclesiastical assemblies settled and binding and that these decisions may only be appealed. In the meantime the officebearer must acquiesce. Then the consistory contends that every officebearer promised to follow this way when he signed the Formula of Subscription. The consistory also equates the language of the Formula with the requirements of article 31 of the Church Order. The mighty oath of the Formula of Subscription—and that logically means the penalty of the Formula too, namely, immediate de facto suspension—is now applied to every decision of the church assemblies. This consistory, too, does not limit the application of article 31 and the Formula to doctrinal matters of the Reformed creeds, or even to doctrinal matters generally, but applies it to all decisions.

The positions of these consistories are obvious. These positions are based on their wrong understanding of article 31. These consistories do not understand properly the exception clause of article 31. Their references to the Formula of Subscription are simply attempts to bolster that wrong understanding of article 31 by tying it with the sacred oath of the Formula of Subscription. This ends up vitiating the real significance of the solemn act of signing the Formula and the real calling of every officebearer by that vow to uphold the creeds. Instead, the vow of subscription is pressed into the service of enforcing a calling that is exactly the opposite of what that vow calls for in certain instances.

The positions espoused by these consistories and publicly proclaimed to their congregations—and by which the editors of Sword and Shield and officebearers who are members of Reformed Believers Publishing are declared before the churches and world to be profane for breaking their oaths of subscription—are patently and egregiously wrong regarding both the Formula of Subscription and its relationship to article 31 of the Church Order. The consistories simply quoted phrases that seem to make their cases and in so doing changed the proper meaning and precise application of those phrases from the Formula of Subscription.

In order to examine the positions of these consistories regarding the Formula as it relates to article 31 of the Church Order, I turn again to the beginnings of the Protestant Reformed denomination during the doctrinal controversy over common grace in the Christian Reformed Church (CRC). I treated this history in the previous article in connection with the proper understanding of article 31. This time I look at the history from the viewpoint of the Formula of Subscription. Because the view of these Protestant Reformed consistories is exactly the position of the two Christian Reformed classes that deposed the founding fathers of the PRC and their respective consistories, I will let Herman Hoeksema tell us what he thought of this position.

Hoeksema explained that after the Christian Reformed synod of 1924 adopted the three points of common grace, Classis Grand Rapids East decided “to demand of the consistory of Eastern Avenue Church, that they ask their pastor whether or no he would abide by the three points of doctrine as adopted by the Synod of Kalamazoo, 1924.”¹ In defense of this demand, the classis wrote, “Obviously it was the duty of the consistory to interpellate [demand an explanation of] the pastor as soon as he publicly opposed the doctrinal decisions of the Synod in the The Standard Bearer” (155). The classis at least waited until Hoeksema opposed an ecclesiastical decision before applying its invented interpretation of article 31 and the Formula of Subscription. The classis at least limited the application to doctrine and even to the doctrine of the creeds.

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

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

And the classis decided that

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

That body also decided that classis should

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

Hoeksema called the whole classical report “a concoction of truth and sophistry” (159). Sophistry is a superficially plausible line of reasoning that collapses under close scrutiny as being false. The classis referenced or used phrases from the Formula of Subscription and the Church Order and so seemed to have a great concern for proper church polity. However, in reality the classis gave to those phrases an interpretation that they cannot bear, in order to twist the Church Order in pursuit of its agenda to silence and finally drive out the truth. The classis concocted out of thin air an interpretation of church polity that was sophistry at every level and especially in its interpretation of article 31 and the Formula of Subscription. Hoeksema explained,

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

The classis said, “According to Reformed Church polity, the decisions of our major ecclesiastical assemblies are binding for all officers and consistories within its jurisdiction” (157). The classis obviously meant decisions about the confessional standards as interpreted by the synod. The classis grounded its meaning in the Formula of Subscription when it wrote, “Cf. the Formula of Subscription” (157) and when it stated that Hoeksema’s duty, in the language of the Formula of Subscription, was “neither publicly nor privately [to] propose, teach or defend, either by preaching or writing, any sentiments contrary to the Confessional Standards of the Church as interpreted by the Synod of 1924” (159).

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

The viewpoint of the Christian Reformed classis was that the oath of the Formula of Subscription bound an officebearer to submit to all decrees of the synod. This Hoeksema rejected. And he rejected this viewpoint not only in its application to the decrees of synod generally but also in his specific case, where the matters were doctrinal and involved the doctrine of the creeds as interpreted by synod. The CRC said that the three points were explanations of the creeds. But with this Hoeksema had two problems: the churches in general had not been consulted, and those interpretations were in fact additions to and corruptions of the confessions.

His belief that the decisions of the Christian Reformed synod were additions to and corruptions of the creeds explains his conviction to oppose those decisions publicly. About the attempt by the classis that deposed him to extract from him a promise to be silent about common grace while he appealed, Hoeksema said,

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

He felt, however, that this was impossible. 

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

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

Not only does the Formula of Subscription have nothing to do with article 31 of the Church Order regarding the decisions of ecclesiastical assemblies generally, but also its oath does not bind an officebearer to silence in the face of departure from the creeds while he appeals. Rather, should a synod corrupt the creeds by its doctrinal decisions, which synod would call interpretations of the creeds, his oath demands him “to refute and contradict these, and to exert [himself] in keeping the church free from such errors.” The oath of subscription is strictly a subscription to the three forms of unity. When I signed the Formula of Subscription, I signed the creeds. Any and all decisions of the assemblies, whether consistory, classis, or synod, do not fall under that oath. Not even all the doctrinal decisions of the consistory, classis, or synod fall under that oath. Decisions that touch the purity of doctrine contained in the creeds fall under that oath. My oath requires me to endeavor that the churches make decisions in harmony with the creeds, but if the churches should corrupt the creeds by their decisions, then I am called to oppose that with all my might.

Banished forever from the proper understanding of the Formula of Subscription should be the idea that the oath of subscription has anything at all to do with synodical decisions generally. One of the consistories quoted above made this connection explicitly and forcefully when it wrote,

Every office bearer promises to follow this way of decency and good order when he signs the Formula of Subscription which says, “whenever we shall believe ourselves aggrieved by the sentence of the consistory, the classis or the synod, and until a decision is made upon such an appeal, we will acquiesce in the determination and judgement already passed.”

The way of decency and good order that the consistory mentions is the “orderly way…laid out in our Church Order, Art. 31.”

I agree that the way of article 31 is the orderly way. But the exception clause, “unless it be proved to conflict with the Word of God,” may never be left out of the explanation of that orderly way. That exception ought especially to be understood by the members of the PRC because it was instrumental for the beginning of the Protestant Reformed denomination. The exception clause and the implied duty not to consider a decision settled and binding if it clearly conflicts with the word of God belongs to the orderly way. This exception clause with its implied duty also harmonizes perfectly well with the calling of the officebearer to oppose decisions that corrupt and militate against the Reformed doctrine of the creeds.

Further, the way of appeal in article 31 is not what the Formula of Subscription refers to when it says, “Whenever we shall believe ourselves aggrieved by the sentence of the consistory, the classis, or the synod, and until a decision is made upon such an appeal, we will acquiesce in the determination and judgment already passed.” This is not an interpretation of article 31, as this consistory makes it. The Formula of Subscription refers to a consistory, classis, or synod requiring an examination of an officebearer’s beliefs concerning specific articles of the creeds “upon sufficient grounds of suspicion.” The officebearer is to comply with that requirement but reserves for himself the right of appeal when he believes himself aggrieved by the decision, and he promises to acquiesce in the judgment already passed while he appeals.

This was the importance of Hoeksema’s insistence that the Christian Reformed synod had faced and settled the question of his orthodoxy and had refused the demand for his discipline in light of the Formula of Subscription for opposing common grace. The synod did not recommend discipline and instead declared Hoeksema to be fundamentally Reformed. He acquiesced in that decision, but two classes of the CRC would not acquiesce and insisted on pursuing discipline on the grounds of the Formula of Subscription, against good order and by means of corrupt church polity.

Once again, I ask whether Hoeksema’s understanding of the Formula of Subscription and its relation to article 31 is your understanding. Were Hoeksema, Ophoff, and Danhof profane violators of their promises when they insisted not only that they had to oppose common grace by means of a protest, but also that they were required by their oaths of subscription to the creeds to exert themselves to keep the churches free from errors that militated against the creeds and to do so publicly? Did they break their oaths of subscription when they publicly opposed a synodical decision that corrupted the creeds under the guise of interpreting the creeds?

Every reader should know that if a classis or synod of the PRC should corrupt the doctrine of the creeds by adopting dogmas that contradict and militate against the creeds, the editors of Sword and Shield will exercise their right and calling to oppose those dogmas, in harmony with their oaths of subscription. But mark well, the false arguments drawn by these consistories from the Formula of Subscription and article 31 of the Church Order are being leveled before the church and world against believers who are committed to explaining a synodical decision that they believe is in harmony with the creeds, and to doing so in obedience to both article 31 and the Formula of Subscription.