May 23, 2019

Dear Brothers in Christ of the RFPA Board,

Each of the undersigned are members of the RFPA board, the RFPA association, or Standard Bearer (SB) readers. We come to you with this letter because we are deeply troubled by developments at the board and the paper of the RFPA, the Standard Bearer. We have also addressed a letter of concern to the editors of the SB, detailing our concerns and informing them that we have written a letter to you. The letter is attached.

Through the SB the RFPA gave birth to the Protestant Reformed Churches (PRC) in the early 1920s during the struggle over the false doctrine of common grace in the Christian Reformed Church (CRC). In the 1950s the SB was instrumental in the preservation of the truth in the PRC during the controversy over the false doctrine of the conditional covenant. We care deeply about the organization and the paper. We love the theology for which they stand historically and officially, the cause for which they were started, and the principles for which they stand.

The theology for which they stand is the truth of God as God in all of creation and in the salvation of elect sinners. It is the truth of the sovereign and particular grace of God and of salvation all of grace, all of God, and all to the glory of the only good God—of whom, through whom, and to whom are all things. It is the truth of the Reformed faith, which is the truth of the scriptures. It is the truth as it has been historically maintained in the Protestant Reformed Churches over against any and all attempts to diminish the glory of God and to exalt man, especially by such false doctrines as the well-meant gospel offer, common grace, and the conditional covenant.

The cause for which the organization and magazine were started was to give witness to that truth to the glory of God and the salvation of his elect church. The RFPA was formed for this purpose and used the SB as the instrument to carry out this purpose.

Chief among the principles for which they stand is the freedom to write that truth, not only in the face of false doctrine but also in the face of trends and pressures to be silent about the truth. The RFPA and the SB are free. The principle is embodied in the name of the organization and printed in the masthead of every issue of the SB. They are free of denominational control. Ultimately, they are free in the truth of God, which gives them their purpose and right of existence. The RFPA is not merely a printer, but it has a right to exist as an independent witness to the truth of God’s word based on the office of all believers. The RFPA carries out its calling to witness to that truth through the SB. The organization and magazine were started by worthy men while they were still members of the CRC in order to defend the truth of God’s sovereign and particular grace against the error of common grace. They were started because the truth—especially in its criticism of false doctrine—could not be heard and was shut out of the CRC paper, the Banner. The RFPA and SB gave a free voice to the truth that could be heard nowhere else. The founders believed that there must be free discussion of doctrinal issues, not merely for the sake of liberty but also for the truth’s sake. The truth is lost in an environment of censorship.

Because the RFPA stands for this truth, this cause, and this principle, it has never been neutral in respect to the truth. The RFPA has never merely hosted a discussion of ideas. The RFPA has decided what the truth is, and it stood for the truth. The RFPA stands for the historic Reformed faith of the creeds as maintained in the PRC as that was explained by the reformers of 1924. In pursuit of the purpose to witness to the Reformed truth, the RFPA has allowed those who speak against it to have their voice heard so that they can be refuted by the truth and so that the truth can stand out victoriously. The Protestant Reformed truth, first and foremost, is given a voice by the RFPA.

We believe that the SB through the leadership of the present editors has departed from the purpose, mission, and principles of its founding and that the RFPA board is acquiescing in that departure.

First, the editors have set a direction for the magazine that is not in keeping with its distinctive character as sharply Protestant Reformed, doctrinal, and polemical. We are dissatisfied with the character of the editorials and the weak tone. This same character and tone are reflected by force of editorial leadership throughout the magazine. We believe this stance of the magazine is not simply the result of different men with different abilities and interests, but it is the result of a conscious decision to tone down the magazine and to take it in another direction. In the present doctrinal controversy in our churches, the editors have at last found a sharp voice, but it is directed against those who stand for the historic positions of the SB. This stance of the magazine we find unacceptable. We see it as the end result of the previous bad direction set by the editors and, indeed, as its fruit.

Second, the editors are taking away the freedom of the magazine. We learned that, after frequent censorship of his writings by the editors, a writer has been dismissed from writing for the rubric “All Around Us.” We discovered through a letter published on the RFPA blog that a minister could not have his letter about the doctrinal controversy which recently was decided by the synod of the PRC published in the SB. We learned that still another letter, intending to carry on a discussion of that current doctrinal controversy in the PRC and to give a response to the editors, cannot be published in the SB. Another minister could not have published his letter about some editorials. We learned that another letter, written by yet another minister about the doctrinal controversy in the PRC, took months to publish and only after efforts by the editors to have the writer withdraw the letter or substantially change it. We learned that the same minister has offered to write guest articles in the SB to illuminate the SB readership on the current doctrinal controversy in our churches, but he was turned down. We understand that there has been interference from the editors of the SB at the RFPA, with a view to having certain content about the doctrinal controversy in our churches placed on the RFPA blog taken down and to hinder the free publication of articles on the blog that may be critical of writing in the SB. Efforts to have discussions about these issues in the SB have been met with denials, deflections, criticisms, silence, delays, and refusals to publish. That is bad enough of itself, but it is more serious when those who are obstructed and shut out are promoting the truth historically championed on the pages of the SB.

Third, there are recent troubling developments on the editorial pages of the SB. When the PRC were going through a doctrinal controversy over the place of works in salvation, the editorial pages of the SB were silent. The controversy dealt with the fundamental doctrines of justification and the unconditional covenant, yet the SB said nothing. As soon as a decision was made by our synod, the editorials of the SB minimized the issue and declared that it was neither false doctrine nor heresy, made threats against those who insisted that the issue was so serious, and insinuated that there are such radicals lurking in the PRC. Soon afterward editorials appeared that condemned a new species of antinomianism that was allegedly a danger in the PRC. Now the editors of the SB are criticizing the doctrine of the PRC as developed and taught to us by Rev. Herman Hoeksema and maintained through the doctrinal split of 1953. The editors are using the SB as a platform to call that doctrine dangerous and to call those who espouse and maintain that doctrine antinomian and hyper-Calvinistic—the very charges that this denomination and that paper have endured through the decades for their stand for the truth. For the first time in its illustrious history, the SB was shamefully silent during a serious doctrinal controversy in the PRC over the very heart of the gospel. Now having found a voice, the editors of the SB are criticizing the doctrine that is necessary to expose the error just faced in our churches. If there had been no blog writing, there would have been no writing at all that publicly discussed the issues to inform and to instruct. We are still suffering at present from a great dearth of information and a flood of misinformation in that many are totally clueless about what the issues are that our churches are facing, do not understand their seriousness, or have a completely wrong understanding of the issues.

Fourth, we learned that the RFPA has given up control over the content of the magazine by means of an agreement that fundamentally alters the long-standing relationship between the RFPA and SB. The fact that such a document was deemed necessary is indicative of the problem in the relationship between the SB and the RFPA and of a power struggle for control of the content of the SB. The SB magazine is owned by the RFPA and is the paper of the members of the association and really of its readership. The paper has been taken over by the editors of the SB and is being pressed in a direction with which we are in disagreement. The editors are not vigorously maintaining the historic character of the magazine as Protestant Reformed, doctrinal, and polemical. They have censored content, refused good letters, and not honored the principle of the paper of freedom to write on the issues. The editors were silent during the recent doctrinal controversy in our churches. Now they have instigated criticism in the paper of the Protestant Reformed truth and believers who stand for it. We believe the RFPA board has acquiesced in this and given up control of the paper, especially by means of the document that states the relationship between the RFPA and SB. The document alters the relationship between the RFPA and SB by ceding control of the content of the paper to the editorial staff and taking it away from the organization in whose hands it properly lies, but also by making the relationship, which heretofore was as organic and harmonious as that between the hand and the arm, into a legal contract. We strongly disagree with this and believe it serves to take the SB away from the organization that started and owns it and to insulate the paper and the direction the editors are taking it from criticism by the board and ultimately by the RFPA.

We are writing this to you to call you to take action on these issues. The RFPA board needs to assert its sovereign control over the paper and its content. The association itself will have the ultimate say. If the board is unwilling to take action, we are willing to address a letter to the RFPA board in harmony with the constitution’s rules, which allow fifteen members to call for a special association meeting to address these matters. We are calling the RFPA board to see these things as serious problems and to address them decisively, without delay, and with all due and deliberate speed.

We feel compelled to write this to you by a sense of the gravity of the changes taking place, the urgency of the issues facing our churches, and a growing sense that if nothing is done at all, the illustrious heritage of the RFPA and SB as a clear and feared witness to the Reformed faith as officially maintained in the Protestant Reformed Churches will be lost, and the principles—especially freedom—for which the RFPA has historically stood will be further eroded.

We are further compelled to write this letter because we believe that at present the churches are in the midst of an unsettled doctrinal controversy over fundamental doctrines of the Reformed faith, such as the call of the gospel, the nature and definition of grace, the understanding of faith, the place of works in salvation, and ultimately, then, the truth of God’s unconditional covenant and salvation by grace alone. We believe that the truth on these matters is not receiving a hearing at the SB.

The men of the RFPA board must make up their minds where they stand on the issue of the truth and on the principles, constitution, and history of the organization. The RFPA stands on the truth and must take the side of the truth. The RFPA must demand that the truth be given a voice, especially as that has been historically maintained in the PRC and found on the pages of the magazine. The RFPA stands for freedom for the truth to be heard. The truth will prevail. The only question is whether the RFPA will be found among its supporters as it has been in the past. The RFPA is not a neutral organization. It becomes irrelevant if it is neutral; and worst it betrays its purpose, constitution, and history. That is what is at stake here.

As proof—by no means exhaustive—of the issues that we raise in our letter, we include four attachments. First, we attach a letter that was rejected for publication in the SB. We agree with this letter and believe it must be published immediately. We include a brief explanation of the circumstances surrounding its rejection. Second, we include a letter from Rev. M. VanderWal that was rejected. Third, we include a timeline and recollection from Rev. A. Lanning about his experience with the SB editors regarding his letter to the SB. Fourth, we attach a brief analysis of a recent editorial response to a letter that was printed in the May 15 SB that was in many respects the impetus for this letter.

For the cause of the gospel,

Rev. Nathan J. Langerak

Rev. Andy W. Lanning

Rev. Martin L. VanderWal

Ryan D. Brunsting

Daryl A. Bleyenberg

Kevin D. Schipper

Wayne M. Courtney

Les Kamps

John R. Cleveland Jr.

Andy Birkett

Jon Langerak

Aaron J. Cleveland

Henry Kamps

Brian Hilt

Philip Rainey

Gordon J. Schipper

Nathan M. Price

Daniel J. DeJong

Jason Cleveland

Craig D. Ferguson