Rev. Langerak,

I understand that you originally hadn’t written for the purpose of carefully inspecting why they assigned the particular descriptions of cultic, spiritually abusive, and sectarian schismatic to PRC believers. And I understand why you placed the accusation into the context of a broader polemic that has continued between Protestant Reformed theologians and Hyde, Carr, and others.

However, the charge still stands as a description of how PRC believers operate out of their convictions of truth. One cannot dismiss, override, or redefine their meaning by simply placing them under an umbrella label of “doctrinal.” The terms—regardless of whether they are patently false or patently true—are unequivocally describing exactly how a group of believers are operating within their claims of possessing and maintaining the truth. Although there is both a lengthy and recent history of doctrinal opposition between Protestant Reformed theologians and Hyde and Carr, the terms of cultic, spiritually abusive, and sectarian schismatic still speak for themselves. Disallowing these terms to speak for themselves is like exegeting Eph. 4:15 as though the prepositional phrase “in love” doesn’t speak for itself. Although the phrase “in love” in vs. 15 resides in a context of an urgency to speak truth among ourselves, the phrase “in love” is still there. It still speaks for itself. It cannot be dismissed, overridden or redefined. It still stands regardless of how we understand the context, especially since the phrase “in love” is repeated again in the verse that follows. In similar fashion, the accusation that a group of believers are cultic, spiritually abusive, and sectarian schismatics still stands regardless of the broader context of doctrinal opposition. The charge still speaks for itself. It still stands especially since the same charge has resurfaced again and again repeatedly, both recently and historically.

A couple of questions for you:

1. How might Isaiah 58 apply to the controversy that has stirred among us over the past 4 years?
2. Will you point out to me the watered garden as described in Isaiah 58:11, a promise directly tied to the ten and a half verses preceding it? I can’t seem to locate that particular garden.

Earnestly,

Stefan Griess

REPLY

I must confess that I am at a complete loss to determine Stefan’s point. Perhaps instead of asking questions, he could give his interpretation of Ephesians 4:15 and Isaiah 58 and their application to the false and scurrilous charges of Hyde and others. Stefan apparently sees a connection with Hyde’s evil charges, the doctrine of the Protestant Reformed Churches, and the controversy in our churches, but what the connection is he does not say. He should come out with his views.