PROTEST OF SUSPENSION

December 8, 2020

To: Consistory of Byron Center PRC

c/o Josh Lubbers, Clerk

clerk@byronprc.com

Dear Brothers,

Greetings in the name of our Good Shepherd.

I protest the consistory’s decision to suspend me from the office of Minister of the Word of God. I ask that the consistory rescind its decision and take any necessary steps with Trinity PRC to lift my suspension and restore me to the office to which Christ has called me.

Grounds:

1. The consistory did not evaluate my sermons according to the Scripture texts that I preached. The consistory merely lifted some applications from the sermons and declared them to be schismatic according to the Church Order. However, the applications of a sermon do not stand or fall based on the Church Order. The applications of a sermon stand or fall based on the text of the Word of God. This is because the preaching is the preaching of the Word (II Tim. 4:2). The preaching of the Word includes: “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 everyone’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 for Ordination of Ministers of God’s Word). Because the applications are made on the basis of the Word, the consistory must evaluate the sermon and its applications in light of the text of Scripture. If the sermon and its applications are faithful to the text, then even if every single Church Order article would stand against the sermon (to speak foolishly), the sermon would still stand as the Word of God.
2. The consistory did not evaluate my sermons according to Reformed doctrine as set forth in the Three Forms of Unity. The consistory merely lifted some applications from the sermons and declared them to be schismatic according to the Church Order. True Reformed doctrine is important in a sermon in part because the reproofs, rebukes, and exhortations of the sermon arise from the doctrine and are required by the doctrine. The minister is called: “Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine” (II Tim. 4:2). Therefore, the consistory must evaluate the rebukes and applications of the sermon in light of Reformed doctrine in order to judge whether those rebukes are in harmony with the doctrine.
3. The consistory’s first ground for my suspension is in error, and thus it does not prove that I am guilty of the sin of public schism.

a. The first ground reads: “Rev. Lanning committed the sin of public schism when: In violation of Articles 74 and 75 of the Church Order he brought charges of public sin against office-bearers of the PRC from the pulpit rather than to their consistories” (Church Visitors Advice, p. 8, 1.a.i.).

b. However, illustrations or warnings about a congregation’s or denomination’s sins must not be construed as formal charges of sin against individuals. Rather, these warnings and illustrations are part of the prophet’s calling to show God’s people their transgressions from the pulpit (Is. 58:1). These warnings and illustrations are part of the minister’s calling to reprove, rebuke, and exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine (II Tim. 4:2). When the minister preaches the Word and reproves and rebukes a congregation for her own specific sins (II Tim. 4:2); when the minister shows God’s people their own personal and corporate transgressions (Is. 58:1); and even when the prophet illustrates the sin of a congregation or denomination by quoting from sermons or documents of officebearers within the denomination (Jer. 23:16-17); the minister is faithfully fulfilling his calling. The sermon on Jeremiah 23:4, 14 did not bring a formal charge of sin against officebearers to the pulpit, but rather reproved, rebuked, and exhorted the congregation and the denomination with all long-suffering and doctrine (II Tim. 4:2).

c. It is an error to hold that rebukes against a con- gregation or denomination, illustrated by mate- rial within the denomination, must be relegated only to formal charges to a consistory. If this is the case, the pulpit would never be able to expose error within a church unless a consistory, classis, and synod would first rule on the validity of that rebuke. Accusations that a congregation is given to drunkenness, fornication, spiritual apathy, or false doctrine would all have to become formal charges to the consistory rather than rebukes from the pulpit. Over against this idea is the truth that the preaching of the gospel is also a key of the kingdom of heaven along with Christian discipline (Lord’s Day 31). The rebukes of the Word of God belong in the pulpit, not only in the consistory room.

 4. The consistory’s second ground is in error when it appeals to my vow in signing the Formula of Subscription, and thus it does not prove that I am guilty of the sin of public schism.

a. This portion of the second ground reads: “In violation…of his vow taken by signing the Formula of Subscription he militated against decision of the 2018 Synod, his own consistory and the September 2018 Classis East.”

b. However, my vow in the Formula of Subscription is not a vow to abide by every decision of consistory, classis, and synod. Rather, it is a vow to uphold the doctrine of the Three Forms of Unity. The language of the Formula is crystal clear on this: “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.” What is the “aforesaid doctrine” that I have vowed to teach and defend? “All the articles and points of doctrine contained in the Confession and Catechism of the Reformed Churches, together with the explanation of some points of the aforesaid doctrine made by the National Synod of Dordtrecht, 1618-’19…” The Formula of Subscription can not be used as proof that a man has militated against this or that decision of the assemblies, because the Formula has nothing to do with this or that decision of the assemblies. It has to do only with the confessions. Even when the Formula brings up the assemblies, it does so only in the case of a man who deviates from the confessions, not in every case that an assembly decides.

 5. The consistory’s second ground is in error when it states that my Jeremiah 23 sermon militated against Synod 2018, and thus it does not prove that I am guilty of the sin of public schism.

a. This portion of the second ground reads: “[H]e militated against decision of the 2018 Synod.” Apparently the meaning of this part of the ground is that “Synod refused to endorse these [extreme] characterizations” of the error, such as “rank heresy” and the like, and therefore it is schismatic for me to call the error “heresy” or “the devil’s theology” (Church Visitor’s Advice, p. 6).

b. However, synod did not forbid calling the doctrinal errors “heresy” or the like. Synod 2018 left it up to an appellant’s conscience, and thus to the conscience of all members of the PRC, whether “extreme characterizations” of the doctrinal error were necessary. The Word of God declares the extreme wickedness of walking in the lies of false doctrine. The men who do so are all of them unto God as Sodom, and the inhabitants thereof as Gomorrah (Jer. 23:14). My extreme characterization of the lie that was tolerated in the PRC is perfectly appropriate to describe the extreme wickedness of that lie. It is also in perfect harmony with Synod 2018, which said that the doctrinal errors compromised the gospel, displaced the perfect work of Christ, compromised the doctrine of justification by faith alone, and compromised the doctrine of the unconditional covenant (Acts of Synod 2018, p. 70).

     6. The consistory’s second ground is in error when it states that my Jeremiah 23 sermon militated against September 2018 Classis East, and thus it does not prove that I am guilty of the sin of public schism.

a. This portion of the ground reads: “[H]e militated against…the September 2018 Classis East.” Apparently the meaning of this part of the ground is: “By charging that the office-bearers in Classis East to continue to remain guilty for the wrong decisions they made, Rev. Lanning is refusing to reckon with the settled and binding decisions that Classis East of September 2018 made to acknowledge its error and conform to the decisions of Synod 2018” (Church Visitor’s Advice, p. 8).

b. However, my pointing out the dreadful evil of the decisions of Classis East February 2018 does not militate against Classis September 2018. Rather, it lives up to Classis September 2018. It says the same thing as Classis September 2018. It is good that Classis September 2018 declared the decisions of February 2018 to be in error. How is it now schismatic for me also to say that February 2018 was in error? It is exactly in harmony with September 2018 for my sermon on Jeremiah 23 to instruct the congregation in the error of what happened in February 2018 and to show the perverse wickedness of the lie.

c. In addition, there is evidence, presented in the sermon, that the denomination through the Standard Bearer and through the decisions of consistories is minimizing and even denying the error of the false doctrine, so that we are not living up to Classis September 2018. The Jeremiah 23 sermon does not militate against Classis September 2018, but calls us as churches not to militate against September 2018 and to live up to Classis September 2018.

7. The consistory’s second ground is in error when it states that my Jeremiah 23 sermon militated against Byron Center’s consistory, and thus it does not prove that I am guilty of the sin of public schism.

a. This portion of the ground reads: “[H]e militated against…his own consistory….” Apparently this part of the ground refers to the consistory’s decision requiring me to resign as editor of Sword and Shield. “The timing of the sermon with its negative evaluation of the PRCA and the claim that Sword and Shield is the only voice that is consistently exposing the devil’s theology that has gripped the denomination is a thinly veiled criticism of his consistory’s decision designed to undermine the consistory’s credibility. This is especially evident from the fact that the sermon was based in part on the same passage the consistory used to explain their decision, viz., Jeremiah 23:4” (Church Visitor’s Advice, p. 7).

b. I have always freely acknowledged that the sermon was occasioned by the consistory’s decision requiring me to resign as the editor of Sword and Shield. The decision revealed the consistory’s opposition to my fulfilling of my Formula of Subscription vow to exert myself to keep the church free of this specific doctrinal error. Nevertheless, the sermon did not militate against the decision of the consistory regarding being editor, but brought the Word of God to bear on the controversy as a whole in the PRC.

c. The ground does not prove militancy, for I deliberately did not address the consistory’s decision in the sermon. The Church Visitor’s Advice does not prove militancy either, but only makes accusations of “thinly veiled criticism” that was “designed to undermine the consistory’s credibility.” These are merely assumptions and assertions, not proof.

8. The consistory’s additional charges against my sermon on II Timothy 4:1-4 are in error, and thus do not prove that I am guilty of the sin of public schism. As with the Jeremiah 23 sermon, the consistory does not evaluate my II Timothy 4 sermon and its applications from the text or from the Reformed doctrine of the Three Forms of Unity. The sermon stands or falls on the text, and cannot be properly evaluated apart from the text. Even if the prayer and sermon mean everything that the consistory says it means, if the sermon is faithful to the text, then the sermon must stand as the Word of God.

9. The consistory’s additional charges against my sermon on Ecclesiastes 7:2-6 are in error, and thus do not prove that I am guilty of the sin of public schism.

a. The consistory does not prove that my characterization of the Church Visitor’s Advice is in error, but merely asserts that my characterization is wrong. The fact of the matter is that my characterization of the advice is now seen to be exactly accurate. My characterization was this: “The essence of the Church Visitor’s Advice to this church is that the rebuke against our sin as a church and as a denomination of displacing the perfect work of Christ is not allowed in this pulpit.” That rebuke has now been declared to be public schism, and I am suspended for it. That rebuke may no longer be heard in Byron Center’s pulpit, exactly as I said.

b. I acknowledge that the Church Visitor’s Advice was private. In the first place, I did not quote the advice, but summarized the essence of the advice. In the second place, I maintain the right and duty of the pulpit to cry a warning even regarding private dangers that will scatter the flock of Christ. When a watchman is placed on the walls by being put into office, Christ gives him a position to see things that others might not see. He must cry the alarm, regardless of what rule of man he might break, lest the citizens of the city perish (Ezekiel 3, 33).

c. The consistory mis-characterizes my warning regarding the pending decision on the Church Visitor’s Advice. I did not say that no rebukes in the preaching would be allowed, but that the specific rebuke of the PRC for displacing the perfect work of Christ would not be allowed.

May the Lord bless you in your deliberations.

In Christ’s service,

Rev. Lanning