Rev. Langerak,

Toward the end of the article of ‘How Others See Us,’ the less-than-flattering descriptions of PRC believers as cultic, spiritually abusive, and sectarian schismatics caught my eye. The counter-charge of “mockery” on your part was equally surprising. Not so much because the charges weren’t packaged in a tone and meme of disdain—they were. But precisely because during your treatment of the charges I found no evidence of careful inspection as to why Daniel Hyde and Steven Carr accuse the PRC with those charges in particular… cultic, spiritually abusive, and sectarian schismatics.

Additionally, will you clarify why you chose to respond in terms of the PRC’s doctrinal positions rather than according to what those charges really describe—how PRC believers apply and operate out of the doctrinal and practical positions they hold? You replied with a much more easily constructed answer in terms of doctrinal differences, substituting out the question that the whole scenario begs to be answered: exactly why do Hyde and Carr (and others, as your title suggests) accuse the PRC with these particular charges—cultic, spiritually abusive and sectarian schismatics?

Finally, what do you believe the PRC thinks of someone who, under no occasion of conflict or Christian discipline, “leave[s] the denomination?”

Earnestly,

—Stefan Griess

REPLY

My article was not written for the purpose of a careful investigation of this mockery. The mockery of Daniel Hyde was not a conclusion drawn after a careful investigation of the Protestant Reformed Churches (PRC) and her doctrines and practices. He gave no reasons for his name-calling. The charges are patently false. He wrote on social media to create an evil impression of the PRC. Such mockery also, then, does not warrant a careful investigation but to be called what it is.

Rather, my article was written over against the idea that has found some credence in our churches that the broader Reformed church world is looking for the PRC to give a witness to the truth—for instance, especially at NAPARC—and that the PRC will find a warm reception there with her witness. The kind of treatment that the PRC receives at the hands of respected men in that broader Reformed church world gives the lie to that idea. It shows that the PRC still stand alone with her testimony to the truth of the Reformed faith and against the departures of the Reformed church world from that truth and in the face of hatred of that witness.

The reason I made the issue doctrinal differences is that the mockery itself centered on the truth. The mockery stemmed from my criticism of Daniel Hyde for his attitude about doctrine; it centered on the supposed claim by the PRC that she is the true church; it included charges of hyper-Calvinism, sectarianism, and schism—all of which are at heart doctrinal in nature. I cannot guess how Daniel Hyde would finish his sentence about what the PRC say about those who leave these churches, which he calls spiritually abusive. But his question followed from his claim that the PRC maintain that she is the true church in the world—a doctrinal claim. Doctrine is at the heart of the offense that Daniel Hyde takes over the PRC. It is especially the PRC’s insistence on the truth and adherence to that truth that offend. Equally offensive is the insistence of the PRC that adherence to the truth means adherence to the doctrine taught in these churches. The point of my article was not only that there is a lack of warm feelings in the URC for the PRC, but also that this lack of warm feelings stems from a deep doctrinal divide.

As to what I believe the PRC think of someone who leaves the denomination, sadly, there is no unanimity in our churches on that issue. I have run into those who think it is no big deal if their son or daughter declares that he or she does not believe the truth. I have run into some who want to wish those who leave the truth God’s blessing in their new church home. Others, I have found, are greatly grieved when their children leave the PRC, and these parents seriously admonish their children about this and want the church to do the same.

The better question is, what should be the word of parents, believers, elders, and deacons to those who leave under the circumstances Stefan describes? That is, “who, under no occasion of conflict or Christian discipline, ‘leave[s] the denomination.’” 

This question is answered by the Reformed forms for baptism and confession of faith. There every parent and every confessing believer in the Protestant Reformed Churches confess regarding the doctrine of these churches that it is “the true and perfect doctrine of salvation.” Parents promise that they intend to see their children “instructed and brought up in the aforesaid doctrine.” Those making confession of faith promise “to adhere to this doctrine.” Regarding parents, this involves making sure that their children are in churches where this doctrine is taught. For the confessing believer, this means being a member where this doctrine is taught. If someone, then, leaves and, let us say, joins another church where this doctrine is not taught and perhaps where this doctrine is even described as hyper-Calvinism and sectarianism, that person is unfaithful to his vow, departs from the truth, and commits himself to the doctrinal errors taught in his new church home. This will have evil consequences in his life and generations under God’s judgment. What is to be the word of parents, family, friends, elders, and ministers to such a one? “You sin in departing from the truth.”

To so warn someone is not spiritually abusive, sectarian, schismatic, or cultic. But such a warning is true Christian love—love for the truth and love for a life and soul.

That such an admonition is regarded as spiritually abusive—and the rest—simply demonstrates how far one himself has fallen from the truth.

The truth must be everything in our lives, and every aspect and decision of our lives must be made subservient to the truth, the truth as officially maintained by the Protestant Reformed Churches.