The Protestant Reformed Churches (PRC) are in the midst of internal doctrinal controversy. The controversy is whether a grace principle or a works principle governs the believer’s conscious experience of fellowship with God. The previous editorials have explained the doctrinal issue in the controversy and have demonstrated that the controversy continues to this day. 

This brings us to an important question: What now? Where do the Protestant Reformed Churches go from here? How can the Protestant Reformed Churches come to the conclusion of this controversy?

Our Current Direction

The direction that we are currently going as churches is not good. Our current direction is to fight against those who would defend the truth and who would condemn the lie. This direction will not deliver us from controversy but will keep us embroiled in controversy. Worse, this direction will leave us vulnerable to the lie and will leave our generations engulfed by the lie.

One evidence of our direction as churches is whom we discipline. To this date, three men have been placed under Christian discipline in the course of our controversy. Each of these is an officebearer in the Protestant Reformed Churches or was an officebearer at the time of his discipline. Each of these men was disciplined precisely because of his defense of the truth and opposition to the lie. Although the charges were not identical in each case, the discipline in each case was directly related to each man’s defense of the truth.

Early on in the controversy, the elder who first stood up for the truth and condemned the lie was suspended and deposed from office and was made to languish under discipline for three years. The decision to suspend and depose the elder was made by his consistory with a neighboring consistory and was upheld by an entire classis when it was appealed.

More recently, a minister and a deacon in another Protestant Reformed church were relieved of the duties of their offices. They were also placed under discipline for several weeks. The minister and deacon were not finally suspended or deposed, because the consistory reversed its decision before it could seek the advice of a neighboring consistory.

Each of these men—the elder, the minister, and the deacon—was subsequently exonerated, and their discipline was declared to be in error and was lifted. Each of the men received an apology from their consistories. All three men are currently members in good standing in their congregations. The minister and deacon were also restored to the duties of their offices.

It is striking that in the entire course of our controversy, discipline has only ever been applied to men who stood for the truth and fought against the lie. By comparison, discipline has never been applied to any officebearer or member who taught the lie, tolerated the lie, or defended the lie. Our official activity of church discipline has been and continues to be entirely on one side in this controversy. Discipline has not been applied to those who taught or defended “doctrinal error” in which “the perfect work of Christ is displaced” (Acts of Synod 2018, 70), but discipline has been applied several times to those who defended the truth against that doctrinal error.

The official activity of Christian discipline against the defenders of the truth has not been limited to the early stages of our controversy, but has spanned the controversy from the beginning until now. Both in the lead-up to Synod 2018 and in the aftermath of Synod 2018, those who stood for the truth suffered discipline. The elder was deposed and placed under discipline in the lead-up to Synod 2018. The minister and the deacon were relieved of their duties of office and placed under discipline in the aftermath of Synod 2018.

The fact that each man was ultimately exonerated counts for something. If the churches can take hold of that direction and press forward in that direction of exonerating the defenders of the truth, that will be for the great good of the Protestant Reformed Churches. It remains to be seen whether that is the direction that we as churches will go, or whether we will press forward in the direction of deposing and disciplining the defenders of the truth.

Another evidence of our direction as churches is the official and public response of many consistories to the content of Sword and Shield. The consistories of almost a third of the denomination have written letters to their congregations warning their members against the content of Sword and Shield.

I will leave the readers to their own judgment of Sword and Shield, but I will tell you my opinion. In my opinion, Sword and Shield has been a God-glorifying, soul-edifying, church-serving magazine. No thanks to the writers; thanks only to our gracious God. If Sword and Shield has been anything by God’s grace, it has been polemical. It has called out the lie in every rubric, both implicitly and explicitly. It has instructed the readership in the doctrinal issues involved in our controversy. It has drawn out the dangers of the lie and the continued threat of the lie to the Protestant Reformed Churches. And God has sped this polemic to the heart of the whole PRC, so that the controversy is on every mind and on every tongue. This is good for the PRC.

What has been the response of almost a third of the denomination’s consistories to this polemic?

This: “The Consistory is writing to you regarding the magazine the Sword and Shield, that many if not all of you have received. The Consistory believes that this magazine is causing and promoting division in the Protestant Reformed Churches, and because of that felt that we should send out a letter to address our concerns with this.”

And this: “When reading the Sword and Shield, we urge you to exercise discernment, wisdom, patience, and charity. We caution against developing an attitude of suspicion and distrust of our pastors, consistories, fellow members, and ecclesiastical assemblies.”

And this: “Although the magazine purports the development of the Reformed truth, statements made in the publication give evidence that the content and manner in which this is done will only cause further division, promote discord and will lead to schism.”

Accusation upon accusation that Sword and Shield is schismatic and disorderly and slanderous and a troubler of Israel. By comparison, no consistory (that I am aware of) has written a letter to its congregation urging the members to read Sword and Shield, to understand the serious doctrinal threat facing our churches, and to repent for our ignorance of and toleration of such gross wickedness. The point of this comparison is not to call consistories to write letters to their congregations, but to illustrate that the official activity of pastoral letters to the congregations has been and continues to be entirely on one side in this controversy. Letters are not written to abhor and abominate the specific doctrinal error that threatens us, but many letters are written against a publication that does abhor and abominate that doctrinal error.

The direction that we are currently going as churches is not good.

Schism?

Are we headed for schism in our current direction? That idea is being promoted as the inevitable way forward for our denomination. Fingers have been pointed at Sword and Shield as one of the main culprits for the supposedly impending schism. A letter to a congregation says that the “content and manner” of Sword and Shield “will only cause further division, promote discord and will lead to schism.”

Such accusations are foolish. The answer of Rev. Gerrit Vos when he was likewise accused of promoting a split in 1951 comes to mind:

What nonsense is this, that I would pray for a split in our churches? Anyone knowing me at all would never believe it. And it is, of course, not true. I will say no more about that; will not entertain that thought for one minute. God knows how I would rejoice if once more we would all be united, and unitedly take our strong stand against all heresies. (“A Letter,” Standard Bearer 27, no. 9 [February 1, 1951]: 200)

In spite of their foolishness, these accusations of schism are popular. Well, then, here is my answer to these accusations.

First, I love the Protestant Reformed Churches. I do not want a split. I am not calling for a split. I am not working toward a split. The thought of a split grieves me. I desire peace. I desire unity. I desire the preservation of the Protestant Reformed Churches and all that God has given us in our churches, our ecclesiastical assemblies, our seminary, our mission fields, our sister-church relationships, our schools, our publications, our fellowship, and every other thing that is good and happy and blessed among us. I sing and pray the end of Psalm 122:

6. Pray for the peace of Jerusalem: they shall prosper that love thee.

7. Peace be within thy walls, and prosperity within thy palaces.

8. For my brethren and companions’ sakes, I will now say, Peace be within thee.

9. Because of the house of the Lord our God I will seek thy good.

Second, there are worse things than a split that could happen to the Protestant Reformed Churches: heresy and false doctrine, which the Bible calls “divisions” (1 Cor. 1:10); compromise of the gospel, which the Bible calls “another gospel” and the perversion of “the gospel of Christ” (Gal. 1:6–7); apostasy, which the Bible calls “a falling away” (2 Thess. 2:3); loss of the antithesis in doctrine and life, which the Bible calls the unholy mixture of “[fearing] the Lord, and [serving] their own gods” (2 Kings 17:33); doctrinal ignorance and indifference, which the Bible calls “lack of knowledge” (Hos. 4:6); spiritual coolness toward the truth, which the Bible calls “[receiving] not the love of the truth” (2 Thess. 2:10). These things are horrifying! Much more so than a split! A church can survive a split, painful and miserable as it may be. A church cannot survive doctrinal ignorance and indifference. God will judge and destroy a church that is cool toward his truth and lackadaisical toward error. Here is God’s judgment on a compromise of Christ’s gospel: “let him be accursed” (Gal. 1:8–9). Here is God’s judgment on doctrinal ignorance and indifference: “my people are destroyed” and “I will also reject thee” and “I will also forget thy children” (Hos. 4:6). Here is God’s judgment on spiritual coolness toward the truth: “And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness” (2 Thess. 2:11–12).

Yes, I despise the thought of a split. But I despise the thought of these other things much, much more.

Third, if there is schism in the Protestant Reformed Churches, it will not be the fault of Sword and Shield or of a vigorous, robust, and even boisterous defense of the truth. What is schism, after all? Schism is division and departure from the truth. Schism is defined in 1 Corinthians 1:10, where the King James Version translates the word schisms as “divisions.” A schism/division is when a church does not “all speak the same thing” and when a church is not “perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.” The mind, judgment, and speech that unites the church is the mind, judgment, and speech of Jesus Christ and his name: “Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.” The unity of the church is found in the truth of Jesus Christ. That truth is revealed by Jesus’ name, which is the whole content of the scriptures. If anyone departs from that truth and divides from that truth, he is guilty of schism and division. The truth unites; the lie divides.

Sword and Shield has not divided from the truth, but has taught the truth. Sword and Shield is not infallible and is certainly capable of error. But let anyone show in any article in any issue where Sword and Shield has taught a lie or doctrinal error or false doctrine or heresy.

What is more, Sword and Shield has promoted unity in the Protestant Reformed Churches by calling us to unity in the truth and united opposition to the lie. The controversy in the denomination has been about a lie that departed from our Reformed confessions. That is, the PRC taught, tolerated, and defended a departure from our Reformed confessions. You don’t have to take my word for it, as this was the explicit judgment of Synod 2018: “Classis failed to deal with doctrinal error contained in sermons [the appellant] protested to [a consistory]. The doctrinal error is that the believer’s good works are given a place and function that is out of harmony with the Reformed confessions” (Acts of Synod 2018, 61). Out of harmony with the Reformed confessions! This means a departure from the Reformed confessions. This means contrary to the Reformed confessions. This means a division and a schism from the truth of the Reformed confessions. By calling us to repudiate the lie, Sword and Shield is calling us to unity in the truth of the Reformed confessions.

The accusations of schism probably stem from people being stirred up by Sword and Shield. Yes, people are stirred up. I am happy about this, and I pray that we are stirred up even more. Stirred up, that is, to a greater love of the truth and greater hatred of the lie. People being stirred up is not schism. Peter wrote to stir up the minds of God’s people
(2 Pet. 1:13; 3:1). The church is called to be stirred up and to come awake from her spiritual sleep, her lethargy, her works of darkness (Rom. 13:11).

Schism? If it comes, it will not be by Sword and Shield, which is striving mightily by God’s grace for the unity of the denomination in the truth.

What then is the way forward for the Protestant Reformed Churches? It is this: We must not only all confess the same truth; we must also all condemn the same lie. That is, the way forward is one of a specific and explicit fight against our own lie. To this we will turn in the December issue, the Lord willing.