The lecture promised by the Reformed Free Publishing Association this past September, entitled “2021 in the PRC: Whom the Lord Loveth, He Chasteneth,” garnered my attention. It held a great deal of promise. The controversy in the Protestant Reformed Churches (PRC) and the recent departure of many from the denomination would be directly addressed. These events would be addressed critically and viewed as the Lord’s chastening of the denomination. Lessons from that chastening would be considered. Was the denomination to learn something? What place would there be in the churches for correction? What corrections would the speaker suggest? Would a professor in the denomination be willing publicly to question the denomination’s direction and behavior?

As I listened to and thought about the lecture, I felt that something was wrong.

Something did not add up. The math was off. The equation was wrong.

The speaker, Prof. Brian Huizinga, presented one side of the equation as the Lord’s chastening. That chastening was represented as the sovereign act of God. What has been going on in the Protestant Reformed Churches was reckoned to be a sharp, severe blow. The professor recited a litany of past events. As that litany was recited, a theme emerged—the theme of separation. Separations had happened in four Protestant Reformed churches in different ways and at different times.

But there was a commonality in those separations that was not mentioned. The unmentioned commonality was that all these separations (and more separations could be added) were due to the same reason. However, that reason was the proverbial “elephant in the room.” The reason, though not mentioned or explained directly, was identified in the most indirect manner.

The professor insisted that the denomination has been and is faithful to the doctrines of scripture and the three forms of unity. He insisted that some mistakes have been made, but the denomination has corrected them and made the appropriate apologies. Further, he insisted that all the decisions taken by the broader assemblies were according to God’s word and that the assemblies truly answered all the protests and appeals.

However, if you would listen to those who are departing from the denomination, you might hear the exact opposite of this insistence. Maybe, just maybe, this opposite explanation could be the reason for these departures. Maybe this opposite explanation could be the reason for what is viewed as so much trouble for the PRC in 2021. 

Professor Huizinga continued by emphasizing the trouble, grief, and sorrow that members of the faithful PRC have experienced. So much toil on the part of the assemblies became necessary. So many conversations—some unpleasant, others heated, and still others burdensome—carried their effects of alienation and hostility. Families and marriages became divided. These issues carried their effects into the Christian schools, among boards, faculties, and students. The year 2021 is unprecedented in the hearts and minds of every living member of the PRC. So the lecture maintained.

This side of the equation, the professor maintained, was the chastening of the Lord.

This side of the equation, the professor maintained, could not possibly be the Lord’s judgment. It could not possibly be a sign of the Lord’s judgment upon apostasy. It could not be a sign of judgment that the denomination has grown cold toward the truth of salvation by grace alone, without works. It could not be a sign that the denomination acted maliciously against those individuals and officebearers who had called attention to doctrinal deviation borne out of this coldness. It could not be a sign that the denomination has been straying from the path of its own precious heritage of the truth of the unconditional covenant. It could not be a sign that the denomination is straying into the territory of the heresy of the federal vision.

Why not?

Because the PRC is faithful. And because the PRC is faithful, the Lord must love her. And because the PRC is faithful, the Lord can only be chastening her. He could not possibly be judging her.

What lies on the other side of the equation?

What lies on the other side is the lesson to be learned from this chastening of the Lord. What lies on the other side is what the Lord is lovingly trying to show to the denomination.

What is the Lord trying to show with his chastisement sent in love?

According to the professor, the denomination needs to be more faithful.

He mentioned some specifics where the denomination had not been as faithful as she should have been. He admitted that ecclesiastical decisions could have been more clearly written. He admitted that more scripture could have been used. The professor admitted that he could have written more on the subject of the controversy and been less concerned about the toll his writing might have taken on the psyches of persons involved.

Regarding becoming more faithful in the future, members of the denomination must be reading and studying scripture more. They must be more well-read and educated about doctrine. They must also learn to proceed with objections in the way explained in Matthew 18, privately and not publicly. They must be more knowledgeable about protesting to consistories and appealing to broader assemblies according to the Church Order. They must learn to be more patient with the way of protest and appeal. Members must learn how better to formulate materials submitted to the ecclesiastical assemblies. And officebearers, on their part, must practice better hearing and reception of aggrieved members.

So, the two sides of the equation.

Does it compute? Does it add up? Is this a correct calculation?

It is not.

It is not at all.

It is impossible that 20x equals 3x.

The chastening is all out of proportion to the need to be “more faithful.”

There are three ways to address this inequality.

One way is to realize that one side of the equation or the other is wrong.

Perhaps the professor over-emphasized the chastening. There have been separations, but the burdens of separation and toil are not as great as presented. There is not this level of disruption in the life of the churches. Only some complaints here and there, business as usual. Things are really just fine.

The argument could be made that the professor’s assessment was completely wrong. There has been no chastening of the Lord. The controversy and separation are simply the effects of faithful labors to clear the denomination of its radical element. This radical element has long bothered and troubled denominational efforts to attain greater holiness by a greater emphasis on good works and the true believers’ activities of faith, conversion, and repentance. The radical element, having its tendencies and errors of hyper-Calvinism and antinomianism, needed to be shown the door and even ushered out. Such efforts were bound to result in short-term toil and pain. But these results could not be chastening. It is simply the cost of discipleship, of purging the foreign, corrupting element for the sake of faithfulness to God and his word. Such faithfulness is bound to be rewarded, not chastened.

Or, perhaps, the other side of the equation is to be considered. Maybe more is necessary than to be “more faithful” in the future. Maybe the lessons to be learned are far deeper and more probing. Maybe more than just a few slight “mistakes” were made. Maybe more apologies were required. Maybe more repentance; maybe more sorrow; maybe more protests and appeals should have been upheld.

There is another way to address this inequality.

It is the way of truly understanding the Lord’s chastening as a form of judgment. It has to do with the passage the professor used, Hebrews 12:6, and with seeing the first part of the verse (“whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth”) in the light of the second part (“and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth”). This understanding of the verse takes into consideration that the “chastening” is the scourge, the lash of the whip against flesh, which causes so much pain because the lesson must be painfully taught. The lesson is not to improve but to turn in sorrow and shame from a prior evil course of conduct and behavior. The chastisement is so sharp and painful that in it is felt no affirmation. The chastisement leaves no feeling that one is on the right pathway and that he needs only to improve himself in his present course. Knowledge of love must be sought elsewhere—not in the path but in the knowledge of the cross of Christ. And, truly, we can see only in the light of the blessed cross of Calvary what depths of reform the Lord’s chastisement requires. Without the cross, no hearts can be broken and no true reform can ever be expected.

To me, the most striking reference in the lecture was to the church at Corinth. The professor used that church, as described in holy scripture in 1 and 2 Corinthians, as a basis of reasoning. That reasoning made a comparison. He compared the Protestant Reformed Churches to the church at Corinth. Why cannot the Protestant Reformed Churches be called unfaithful, apostate, or even “an apostate whore”? Because of the church at Corinth. How many problems that Corinthian church had! The professor enumerated those problems. But that church, as bad as it was, was still reckoned by the inspired apostle as a church, not as apostate. Since the Protestant Reformed denomination is nowhere near that bad, she must still be a proper church of Jesus Christ.

Would that the professor had proceeded properly along that line of comparison of the PRC to the church of Christ at Corinth! Would that the PRC could proceed properly along that line! If the lesson to be gained from a comparison of the PRC to Corinth is, “We’re pretty good here, only in need of a few improvements and more faithfulness,” we need not wonder at the professor’s faulty equation.

But what does the Lord say to his beloved church at Corinth?

“I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ…For ye are yet carnal” (1 Cor. 3:1, 3).

“Therefore let no man glory in men” (v. 21).

“Who maketh thee to differ from another? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive? now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it?” (4:7).

“I write not these things to shame you, but as my beloved sons I warn you” (v. 14).

“What will ye? shall I come unto you with a rod, or in love, and in the spirit of meekness?” (v. 21).

“Ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you” (5:2).

“I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you?” (6:5).

“What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not” (11:22).

“For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep” (v. 30).

As the professor pointed out, 2 Corinthians demonstrates the gracious power of the Spirit. The Corinthian church was not offended. She did not bar the apostle Paul from coming or his communications to her. She humbly received those sharp, scourging rebukes from the apostle. She went to painful lengths to turn from her sinful ways. The man formerly esteemed as a champion of progress she disciplined with saving effect. She did not affirm herself. She did not determine a need for mere improvement in this or that area. She did not attempt to negotiate with the apostle a path forward.

Could it happen in the churches of the Protestant Reformed denomination?

Could it happen that the chastening no longer is repudiated as sharp judgment or seen merely as an indication of God’s affirming love? Could it happen that the chastening will lead to thorough, necessary, deep reformation and repentance? Could the chastening lead to such a reformation and repentance that those who have departed from the PRC would be glad to return in order to express together deep love and commitment to the doctrines of salvation by grace alone, exclusive of all works?

Only if the Protestant Reformed Churches would take to heart the chastening judgments of the Lord. If only the churches would follow the word of 1 Corinthians 11:31: “If we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.” If only they might seek to fulfill the words of 2 Corinthians 7:11:

Behold this selfsame thing, that ye sorrowed after a godly sort, what carefulness it wrought in you, yea, what clearing of yourselves, yea, what indignation, yea, what fear, yea, what vehement desire, yea, what zeal, yea, what revenge! In all things ye have approved yourselves to be clear in this matter.

As has become so evident, only by the grace of God worked by the Holy Spirit alone.