In our present controversy in the Protestant Reformed Churches (PRC), the way forward to peace includes instruction by consistories, polemics against the lie, and repentance by the officebearers and members of the churches for our corporate sin of compromising the gospel. These activities are not meant as a step-by-step plan that we follow like a recipe for baking a cake. They are not a list of ingredients and mixing instructions and oven temperatures so that when we have mechanically completed them all we pull out a piping hot Birthday Cake of Peace. Rather, these are the Spirit’s admonitions in scripture to the church that teach us our spiritual calling in the midst of doctrinal controversy. These admonitions all concern the proper use of the word of God in controversy, for it is only upon the truth that we have true unity.

In this editorial I continue laying out the way forward for the PRC, coming now to the most important calling for the PRC in our present controversy: preach the word. The power that will drive repentance and reformation in the denomination is the Spirit of Jesus Christ as he works through Protestant Reformed pulpits.

This calling to preach the word in the midst of controversy is not a calling to preach the word generally. It is not a calling merely to make sure that we have sermons in our pulpits. The church of Jesus Christ is always called to have sermons from the word of God, whether she is in the midst of internal doctrinal controversy or not. But when the church is in the midst of doctrinal controversy, her calling to preach the word is a calling to preach the controversy. That is, she is called to preach the word of God as it applies to the doctrinal controversy at hand. The pulpit must shine the light of God’s word on the lie in the church’s midst to expose it as the lie. The pulpit must proclaim the true doctrine of God’s word over against that lie. The pulpit must rebuke the church for her teaching of the lie and her toleration of the lie. The pulpit must reprove the church for her errors, as well as for her coldness and indifference toward God’s truth that led to her errors. The pulpit must exhort the people to humble themselves, to abhor their errors, and to repent before God, with whom alone there is mercy and plenteous redemption in Jesus Christ. In the midst of doctrinal controversy, the pulpit must not be general but specific. The pulpit must preach the controversy.

Scripture teaches that the pulpits of the PRC must preach the controversy. Scripture teaches this by the example of the Old Testament prophets, who constantly exposed the lie and the liars in their own day. In Jeremiah’s day, for example, the prophets of Jerusalem walked in lies (Jer. 23:14). Their lies were the false doctrine that God would give peace to the inhabitants of Jerusalem who despised God and that God would not send evil upon the inhabitants who walked after the imaginations of their own hearts (v. 17). Instead of calling God’s people to repentance for their sins, the prophets confirmed the impenitent sinners and strengthened their hands, so that no one returned from his wickedness (v. 14). God sent Jeremiah to preach publicly and specifically against the false doctrines of the prophets of Jerusalem. 

16. Thus saith the Lord of hosts, Hearken not unto the words of the prophets that prophesy unto you: they make you vain: they speak a vision of their own heart, and not out of the mouth of the Lord. 

17. They say still unto them that despise me, The Lord hath said, Ye shall have peace; and they say unto every one that walketh after the imagination of his own heart, No evil shall come upon you.

Jeremiah preached the word of Jehovah to expose the false doctrine of the prophets of Jerusalem and to set forth the truth over against them. Jeremiah preached the controversy. So also today the pulpits of the PRC must preach the controversy.

Scripture also teaches this by the example of Christ’s apostle in his epistle to the Galatians. The churches of Galatia were bewitched by the Judaizers to believe the false gospel that they obtained righteousness and salvation by Christ and by their keeping of the law. The false doctrine into which the Protestant Reformed Churches fell is essentially the same false gospel that the Judaizers taught. It gives to man’s good works the place and function of obtaining fellowship with God. That false doctrine compromises the gospel, displaces the perfect work of Christ, compromises the truth of justification by faith alone, and compromises the truth of the unconditional covenant. Paul wrote against the lie with a very specific and sharp rebuke of the Galatians: “O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?” (3:1). The PRC are called to preach this inspired word of God in our own controversy, so that our pulpits say to us, “O foolish Protestant Reformed Churches, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?”

The calling to preach controversy is set forth in the Form for Ordination of Ministers of God’s Word.

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. (Confessions and Church Order, 284–85)

The minister who truly would exercise his office as a servant of Jesus Christ in the church is a minister who will apply the word of God specifically to his congregation and denomination in the midst of controversy, who will admonish and reprove them for their sin of tolerating false doctrine, and who will refute with the scriptures the schism and heresy in the congregation’s own midst. If he neglects to preach the controversy, the minister is unfaithful to the office of minister of the word given to him by Jesus Christ, and he colludes with Satan in allowing the deceiver’s lie to find a place in the church of Jesus Christ.

The calling to preach the controversy is also part of the vow that the minister of the gospel makes when he signs the Formula of Subscription.

We promise therefore diligently to teach and faithfully to defend the aforesaid doctrine [of the three forms of unity], 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. (Confessions and Church Order, 326)

The minister who truly would exert himself to keep the church free from doctrinal error is a minister who will preach the controversy when the error appears in his church or in his denomination. If he neglects to preach the controversy, he violates his Formula of Subscription vow, and he allows an error out of hell to fester, which error will eventually corrupt and destroy the souls in his congregation and denomination.

The calling to preach the controversy stands over against the attitude that the pulpits of the PRC are studiously to avoid entering into our own doctrinal controversy. This attitude has been prevalent in the denomination for some time. When I was first in the ministry, the churches were convulsed with the “Homeschool Controversy.” In response to this controversy, a professor in the seminary used his pulpit supply appointments in many churches to preach the Christian school as a demand of the covenant. His preaching entered into the controversy, and by his sermons the professor was fulfilling his vow to exert himself to keep the churches free from error. The response of many in the churches was anger against the professor, along with advice to a young minister not to follow the professor’s example. The message was clear: Do not bring controversy into the pulpit.

The same attitude has prevailed in our present controversy. My experience has been that, by and large, Protestant Reformed consistories and congregations will not suffer the controversy to be preached specifically and pointedly to them. The churches might tolerate some general instruction in the controversy, although even that wears thin very quickly for many. A minister might even be allowed to acknowledge that this is our controversy in the Protestant Reformed Churches, but even then he must take care to tread so lightly and to be as inoffensive to our proud feelings as possible. But as soon as the pulpit becomes pointed in the controversy, reproving and rebuking the PRC for her doctrinal errors with the sharp words of scripture, the rejection of that preaching is swift and brutal. The rejection of that preaching happens unofficially and informally, as well as officially and formally. Individual consistories even take decisions that a particular preacher will not be allowed on their pulpits, thus effectively cutting that minister off from their fellowship in the denomination. If a minister is to be allowed to preach, he must first promise not to preach the controversy, which is nothing less than an attempt to muzzle the word of God and to subject the truth to the delicate sensibilities of men. The reasons, both informal and formal, for rejecting the preaching of the controversy are along the following lines, and they sound plausible from the viewpoint of the earthly, sensual, and devilish wisdom of man.

“The timing of that sermon was questionable while the churches are going through such a hard time.”

“God’s sheep need soothing words, not sharp words.”

“That sermon will create suspicion about the orthodoxy of our ministers and professors.”

“We all agree with the doctrine of the sermon, but we disagree with its tone.”

“That sermon agitates the churches when we most need peace and unity.”

Poor timing? Have we forgotten the apostle’s charge to the preacher before God? “Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine” (2 Tim. 4:2).

Soothing words? Have we forgotten that this is exactly what rebellious people and lying children who will not hear the law of the Lord ask for? “Which say to the seers, See not; and to the prophets, Prophesy not unto us right things, speak unto us smooth things, prophesy deceits: get you out of the way, turn aside out of the path, cause the Holy One of Israel to cease from before us” (Isa. 30:10–11).

Suspicion about our ministers? Have we forgotten that ministers who teach, tolerate, and defend false doctrine bring that suspicion—and worse—on themselves? “I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple” (Rom. 16:17–18).

The tone of the sermon? Have we forgotten the tone of the prophets, which is to be the tone of the preacher today? “Cry aloud, spare not, lift up thy voice like a trumpet, and shew my people their transgression, and the house of Jacob their sins” (Isa. 58:1).

Agitation? Have we forgotten that this is always the charge that the Ahabs of Israel make against the Elijahs who preach the truth? “It came to pass, when Ahab saw Elijah, that Ahab said unto him, Art thou he that troubleth Israel? And he answered, I have not troubled Israel; but thou, and thy father’s house, in that ye have forsaken the commandments of the Lord, and thou hast followed Baalim” (1 Kings 18:17–18).

Above all of these, our favorite objection in the PRC is that doctrinal controversy may only be dealt with by the ecclesiastical assemblies. The thinking goes that if a Protestant Reformed minister publicly deviates in doctrine through his preaching or his writing, the only right way of dealing with that deviation is through that minister’s consistory by a formal charge of sin or by a formal protest against his sermon or his writing. While that formal protest is being treated, there may be no public mention of the minister or his doctrinal deviation. The process of protest and appeal to classis and synod might take many months and even years, but everyone is to remain utterly silent about the minister and his false doctrine during that time. Only the ecclesiastical assemblies are authorized to pronounce on the case. Defenders of this position call it the ecclesiastical way or the church orderly way of dealing with doctrinal controversy, as if this way alone is good order in the church, and as if this way alone is laid down in the Church Order.

The thinking is prevalent in the PRC that protest and appeal is the only church orderly way to deal with controversy. If a minister would go to his pulpit to preach doctrinal controversy today, and if he would warn Christ’s sheep of the danger to their souls from that false doctrine that is in their own midst, and if he would even warn Christ’s sheep that they must not listen to ministers in their own denomination who would teach that false doctrine, the minister who preached the controversy would be charged with all kinds of sin. Men would accuse him of being disorderly and of not following the church orderly way of dealing with his objection to false doctrine, with appeal to articles 31 and 74 of the Church Order. Men would accuse him of pride for standing in judgment of his fellow ministers. Men would accuse him of schism for setting the members of the denomination against ministers in good standing in the churches. All of this would be accompanied by the loudest cries that we all believe the same thing and that we have no problem with the doctrine of the offending sermon; we only object to the manner in which the minister dealt with his objections, and we just want the controversy to be handled in the church orderly way of protest and appeal.

The fact of the matter is that the Church Order calls the minister of the word to preach the doctrinal controversy. The Church Order calls the minister to ascend the pulpit to warn the congregation of the false doctrines and errors that multiply in her own midst. And the Church Order calls the elders to insist that their minister preaches the controversy.

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)

The Church Order’s reference to “false doctrines and errors that multiply exceedingly” recognizes that false doctrine in our own denomination is always a threat within our own denomination. False doctrines and errors multiply exceedingly! To ward off those false doctrines, ministers are to teach, refute, warn, and admonish the churches in the ministry of the word, that is, in the pulpit. The minister is called to preach the controversy. The minister is called to name the false doctrine in the church’s or denomination’s own midst and to preach against it. The minister may even name the heretical writing from the pulpit and quote from it, whether that heretical writing is a book written by a professor in the seminary, or an article in the Standard Bearer or Sword and Shield or the Beacon Lights, or a passage from the Acts of Synod. Regardless that the author of the heretical article is a minister in good standing or even is an assembly of the church, the church orderly way for another minister to ward off false doctrines and errors that multiply exceedingly through heretical writings is for the minister to preach the controversy.

This is the church orderly way!

This is the article 55 way!

In fact, this is the main church orderly way for a minister of the gospel to engage in doctrinal controversy in his own denomination. The main way for a minister to pursue controversy is not by writing a protest. He may certainly write a protest. He may even consider himself in some instances duty bound to write a protest. But his protest is not the main calling that God has given him in the controversy. His main calling is to preach the controversy. His office is that of minister of the word of God. His calling is to preach the word and to reprove, rebuke, and exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. And he is called to do this among a people who eventually will not endure sound doctrine (2 Tim. 4:1–4). Whether the minister ever writes a protest or not, he must preach the controversy.

So important is this preaching of the controversy that God uses it to “ward off false doctrines and errors” in a denomination (Church Order 55). The minister’s preaching the controversy, along with the elders’ teaching the controversy on family visiting and in other settings, serves to “ward off” the error. Preaching wards off false doctrine because the preaching of the gospel of Christ “is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth” (Rom 1:16).

Failing to preach the controversy, the minister does not ward off the error but allows it to fester as a deadly poison among the sheep. Probably the minister fails to preach the controversy because he thinks that he is protecting the good name and reputation of his colleagues. Probably the minister thinks that he is loving the denomination by not causing a public stir. Probably the minister thinks that he is being orderly by his two-year-long journey through the assemblies. What the minister actually is doing is conniving at the slaughter of Christ’s flock. He refused to preach the controversy and thus failed to ward off false doctrine! God gave him the office of minister and fifty-two Lord’s days each year to feed and protect his sheep. And yet the minister remained silent just because the wolf had the name Protestant Reformed? Of course, the minister had the best of intentions. What those best of intentions purchased for the minister is a flock of dead sheep. When the Chief Shepherd shall appear at his coming, he does not require that the shepherds had the best of intentions but that they faithfully shepherded the sheep with the word of God for their protection and salvation.

If a minister ever finds himself having to sit down to write a protest against false doctrine in his own denomination, he ought to think, “It is probably too late for this! Instead, I must preach this tomorrow!” And he must keep on preaching it until the denomination repents of its false doctrine or until it casts him out as a troubler of Israel.