Rev. Lanning,

Your editorials and articles in Sword and Shield grieve me, because in them you take upon yourself judgments that belong to the Lord. When Samuel was sent to anoint a king from Jesse’s sons, he was puzzled that the Lord indicated David; God told him that Samuel was focusing on the external, but God saw the heart. Taken another way, we have limited insight into the inner being of others, so we should tread carefully when speaking of another, particularly a nodding acquaintance and when speaking of the thoughts of others and what they mean. I consider myself a mere guesser at thoughts, knowing that I am not always sure of what I am thinking at any moment. What about you and other RBP members? That you say you are equipped and have the right to judge the attitudes (inner life) of others is beyond the pale.

This magazine sends a conflicting witness out to the world about our churches and increases our difficulty in reaching out. We should, to an extent, listen to criticism of others, as we, like others, have a tendency to be self-congratulatory and blind to our weaknesses. I appreciate the preaching I hear and the standards I receive, but I would like to be able to interact with people outside of our churches without their fearing I will metaphorically bite their heads off.

This magazine mentions that it is not under the authority of the Protestant Reformed Churches. You, however, are and as such, have limits placed on when and what you express in regards to what is going on in the churches. These limits are set in place in our church order and formula of subscription. You promised to work within the structure and limits when you took your oath of office, embodying the concept of the humble servant. Because your writing in this magazine is not in submission to those structures we are called to respect, it seems that it is more a vehicle for airing of personal grievance and ego stroking rather than edification of others, sowing discord among brethren.

I am concerned that you have on staff a minister who has denied that Noah had to lift a finger to build the ark. Have you no concern for your own discernment? Also, this magazine takes a good amount of time to put together. Are you sure that there is enough time to do justice to your pastoral duties and this publication? Your congregation, not this, should be your focus.

The golden rule says that we are to treat others as we would like to be treated. You have heaped upon other officebearers the ultimate insult of judging what you say their attitudes and intentions are and yet have the nerve to complain multiple times in public about how ecclesiastical assemblies have shortchanged you and others by criticizing your actions. You have no business in expecting generosity in judgment when you refuse to extend it yourself. Our relationships with each other are to a certain extent conditional; you cannot behave poorly indefinitely and expect infinite patience in return, no matter how highly you regard your cause. You will receive your measure back, so you need to scoop with more awareness and less volume.

Sincerely,

Lydia Rau

REPLY

You are grieved by me and my work in Sword and Shield, and you air those grievances for the readers of the magazine to see and to judge. 

Fair enough. Let the reader judge. The Reformed believer has the word of God in his hand and has received the unction of the Holy One, so that he knows all the things that are freely given to him of God and judges all things, including articles in magazines and letters to magazines. Let the reader “believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world” (1 John 4:1). Let the reader listen to what scripture teaches “not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual” (1 Cor. 2:13). With the word and by the Spirit, the spiritual reader may judge, can judge, and must judge me and my work in Sword and Shield. With the word and by the Spirit, the spiritual reader also may judge, can judge, and must judge criticism of me and my work in Sword and Shield. 

While the readers are busy judging these things, let me reply to a few of the specifics in your letter. First, it appears that you are personally offended by my editorials and articles in Sword and Shield. I think you are not alone in this personal offense. I am truly sorry to hear of this offense, since my work in Sword and Shield is done for the benefit of you and the other members of the Protestant Reformed Churches (PRC) and beyond. I bear no ill will toward you personally or toward the Protestant Reformed Churches. On the contrary, I love the PRC and am set for the defense of the gospel in her midst. In love for the churches and with the desire that the gospel be preserved among us, I have made this solemn vow regarding the doctrine of the Reformed confessions:

We promise therefore diligently to teach and faithfully to defend the aforesaid doctrine, without either directly or indirectly contradicting the same, by our public preaching or writing.

We declare, moreover, that we not only reject all errors that militate against this doctrine, and particularly those which were condemned by the above mentioned synod, but that we are disposed to refute and contradict these, and to exert ourselves in keeping the church free from such errors. (Formula of Subscription, in Confessions and Church Order, 326)

My writing in Sword and Shield is part of fulfilling this vow. In perfect harmony with my vow is the purpose of Reformed Believers Publishing: “To promote, defend, and develop the Reformed faith…To expose and condemn all lies repugnant to this truth” (Constitution of Reformed Believers Publishing, Article II). Perhaps it would help lessen the personal affront that you now feel if you were to reconsider my articles and editorials in light of my vow and the purpose of RBP.

Second, you are grieved that in my first editorial I claimed the right to judge the attitudes of the PRC. Not only I, but also every officebearer and member of the PRC, claim that right. An attitude is “a settled way of thinking or feeling about someone or something, typically one that is reflected in a person’s behavior” (Oxford Languages). Behavior is revealing. The word of God judges our behavior as churches and points us to the springs of that behavior in our hearts. We as members can and must judge ourselves in the light of that word. For example, Paul heard of the behavior of the Corinthians in failing to discipline an impenitent sinner in their midst. That behavior revealed an attitude of pride, and Paul judged the Corinthians to be puffed up (1 Cor. 5:2). So also we as churches are called to examine ourselves in the light of scripture, to judge ourselves according to God’s word, and to receive the rebukes of scripture for any unrighteous attitudes we may have. When we do this, we are not elevating ourselves to God’s place or usurping God’s right to judge our hearts, but we are properly applying the judgment of his word to ourselves. “For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart” (Heb. 4:12).

I write this next part with utmost gentleness. Sister, are you holding yourself to the same standard to which you hold me? Do not you in your letter judge my attitude? You write that “it seems that [Sword and Shield] is more a vehicle for airing of personal grievance and ego stroking rather than edification of others, dividing the brethren.” You observe my behavior as you understand it, and you judge that my motive is ego-stroking. Is not this the kind of judging of attitudes that you would consider to be “beyond the pale”? Take another look and see that the standard that you allow yourself is also rightly the standard to which you should hold me.

Third, you are concerned that Sword and Shield “sends a conflicting witness out to the world about our churches and increases our difficulty in reaching out.” You “would like to be able to interact with people outside of our churches without their fearing I will metaphorically bite their heads off.” The purpose of RBP explains the witness that Sword and Shield is making. From the constitution: “To give a theological and antithetical witness to the Reformed church world and beyond.” The purpose of Sword and Shield is not to present the PRC in a certain light. The purpose of Sword and Shield is not to make nice with any particular denomination. Rather, the purpose of Sword and Shield is to give a theological and antithetical witness to the Reformed church world and beyond. 

Inevitably, a theological and an antithetical witness will step on toes, both within the PRC and without. This is because not all who go by the name Reformed are actually Reformed, just as not all who go by the name Protestant Reformed are actually Protestant Reformed. Nobody need bite anyone’s head off, but toes will necessarily be stepped on. A theological and an antithetical witness to the Reformed faith exposes and angers those who have no real love for the Reformed faith. God being gracious, a theological and an antithetical witness to the Reformed faith also instructs and corrects us as his people, so that we believe and love the Reformed faith. Therefore, regardless of whether people like a theological and an antithetical witness or not, the purpose of Sword and Shield is to make such a witness.

This theological and antithetical witness also serves our reaching out to others, for it alerts people to where we stand as Reformed believers. A theological and an antithetical witness is part of our confessing the name of Jesus before men (Matt. 10:32), even before an audience that may be violently hostile to our confession (vv. 16–42). A theological and an antithetical witness is part of our giving an answer to those who persecute us and speak evil of us and yet ask us a reason of the hope that is in us (1 Pet. 3:14–18).

Fourth, you mention the Church Order and the Formula of Subscription. Since the time that you wrote your letter, Rev. Nathan Langerak has explained how both of these relate to Sword and Shield. I refer you to his articles in the October and November issues of the magazine.

Fifth, you state your concern with an editor of Sword and Shield “who has denied that Noah had to lift a finger to build the ark.” The readers of Sword and Shield may not be familiar with that controversy, since it occurred in other publications and in pulpits. Another letter and the reply elsewhere in this issue contain a little more information. To your point, I consider the other editors of Sword and Shield to be sound in doctrine and faithful in walk. I count it a privilege to serve with them in the cause of publishing the truth. I have learned much from them, and I count them both to be among my spiritual teachers in the faith. Give me ten of them any day.

I write this next part with utmost gentleness. Sister, are you holding yourself to the same standard to which you hold me about what I may write? You inform me: “You…have limits placed on when and what you express in regards to what is going on in the churches.” In the very next paragraph of your letter, you publicly express your concern against a minister in the PRC. Is not this the kind of expression that you would consider to be “not in submission to those structures we are called to respect”? As you consider this question, I once again recommend Rev. N. Langerak’s Understanding the Times articles in the October and November issues of Sword and Shield. I think you will find material in there that will help you as you work your way through what may be written publicly, whether in editorials or in letters to the editors. I also think that will help you see that the standard that you allow yourself is also rightly the standard to which you should hold me.

Sixth, you instruct me to focus on my pastoral duties in my congregation and not on the publication of Sword and Shield. Your instruction to me to focus on my pastoral duties in my congregation is sound, biblical instruction, and I take it to heart. You are doing what Paul instructed the Colossians to do regarding one of their ministers, Archippus: “Say to Archippus, Take heed to the ministry which thou hast received in the Lord, that thou fulfil it” (Col. 4:17).

However, I disagree with you that my work in Sword and Shield is somehow different from, or even in conflict with, my pastoral duties. My pastoral duty as a minister of the gospel is to feed the sheep with Jesus Christ by feeding them the word of God. This calling of the prophet / minister is found throughout scripture. 

9. Then the Lord put forth his hand, and touched my mouth. And the Lord said unto me, Behold, I have put my words in thy mouth.

17. Thou therefore gird up thy loins, and arise, and speak unto them all that I command thee: be not dismayed at their faces, lest I confound thee before them.” (Jer. 1:9, 17)

1. I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; 

2. Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.” (2 Tim. 4:1–2)

 This calling of the prophet / minister is also found throughout our Reformed confessions.

We believe that this true church must be governed by that spiritual policy which our Lord hath taught us in His Word, namely, that there must be ministers or pastors to preach the Word of God and to administer the sacraments; also elders and deacons, who, together with the pastors, form the council of the church; that by these means the true religion may be preserved and the true doctrine everywhere propagated, likewise transgressors punished and restrained by spiritual means. (Belgic Confession 30, in Confessions and Church Order, 64–65)

It is evident that the office of pastors and ministers of God’s word is:

First. That they faithfully explain to their flock the Word of the Lord, revealed by the writings of the prophets and the apostles; and apply the same as well in general as in particular to the edification of the hearers; instructing, admonishing, comforting, and reproving, according to every one’s need; preaching repentance towards God and reconciliation with Him through faith in Christ; and refuting with the Holy Scriptures all schisms and heresies which are repugnant to the pure doctrine. (Form of Ordination [or Installation] of Ministers of God’s Word, in Confessions and Church Order, 284–85)

To ward off false doctrines and errors that multiply exceedingly through heretical writings, the ministers and elders shall use the means of teaching, of refutation or warning, and of admonition, as well in the ministry of the Word as in Christian teaching and family-visiting. (Church Order 55, in Confessions and Church Order, 397)

Such are my pastoral duties in my congregation as a minister of the gospel. My work in Sword and Shield is in perfect harmony with my duties and is an aspect of fulfilling my pastoral duties. It is through Sword and Shield, in part, that I heed your admonition to me: “Take heed to the ministry which thou hast received in the Lord, that thou fulfil it” (Col. 4:17).

Seventh, and most importantly, and written with utmost gentleness, scripture does not teach your assertion: “Our relationships with each other are to a certain extent conditional; you cannot behave poorly indefinitely and expect infinite patience in return, no matter how highly you regard your cause.” Dear sister, this view of our relationships is an evil fruit of the false doctrine that has plagued the Protestant Reformed Churches. The false doctrine is that our relationship with God is “to a certain extent conditional.” The false doctrine is that our experience of God’s favor and our enjoyment of God’s fellowship depend on our performing the good works that he has commanded us to do. The false doctrine is expressed clearly and concisely in this quotation from a Protestant Reformed sermon that, at the time of this writing, is being appealed to Classis East: 

“If any man will hear my voice”…he is talking about not the condition to establish a union, but he is establishing a condition that deals with communion. Not union, that’s grace, it’s all grace, only grace, but communion, fellowship…In the way of that repentance and daily turning conversion, that’s when we enjoy or are aware of that blessed fellowship, that consciousness that God is with us and will never forsake us. (Agenda for Classis East, January 13, 2021, 13)

The evil fruit of that conditional theology regarding communion with God is that our relationships with each other are also “to a certain extent conditional.” The conditional view of our relationships is that “poor behavior” must not be met with “infinite patience.” It is the view that we must render an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth in our relationships. This view is contrary to Jesus’ instruction about our relationships, which is that they are unconditional.

38. Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:

39. But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

40. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also.

41. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.

42. Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away. (Matt. 5:38–42)

If there is indeed “poor behavior” in our relationships, that must be met with true love, which rebukes and disciplines the sinner for his advantage and correction. By God’s grace, it is this true love that has motivated the writing in Sword and Shield. The Protestant Reformed Churches are in danger; the PRC are practicing the “poor behavior” in our present controversy of tolerating and minimizing the lie; in true love for the churches, the editors of Sword and Shield are crying out to the churches to take heed to her way. May God grant that the churches yet take heed. And may God graciously banish from our hearts both the evil root of conditional covenant fellowship along with its evil fruit of conditional personal relationships.

I see that I have written a long response to your relatively brief letter. I think I will not try to edit my reply down, though, because you have expressed publicly the concerns and accusations that several others have expressed privately. Your letter is a good opportunity for me to give an answer to many at once.

Finally, grieved sister, take another look at Sword and Shield. Its cause is the cause of the truth of the word, which cause is of infinite worth. With another look, you may yet come to help us scoop not only with more awareness but also with even more volume.