Introduction

I am thankful that I am able to be here tonight and that I can speak to you on the subject of “Reformation, Not Schism.” I want to thank the board for inviting me to speak and the members and supporters of Reformed Believers Publishing for providing a forum in which the subject of tonight’s lecture can be given. I believe that this lecture could not be given in any other forum, especially in the churches out of which we recently came.

We as writers—and I’m sure I speak for the board as well—are encouraged by the support that we have received in our labors to publish the truth.

Little did we know last year in October what was coming!

There are some here tonight who were not at the annual meeting last year, and there are some who were there last year but are not here tonight. Many of those who were at the meeting last year and are not here tonight are the fearful, those who are in bondage, those who are in bondage to the fear of men; and being in bondage to the fear of men, they will not associate with the truth of Jesus Christ and, therefore, with Christ. Those fearful and enslaved ones have many excuses for their bondage: they are not comfortable; they were commanded by their consistories not to be members of Reformed Believers Publishing; they are trying to keep the peace. The bottom line is that they are in bondage to the fear of men.

When we gathered last year, no one could have seen what was coming. Not in our wildest imaginations could we have written that story.

And God had all things planned in his will, and it was perfectly done.

I said last year in the few comments that I made that the appearance of Sword and Shield was met with an absolute storm—a hurricane—of opposition. Consistories, in particular, stumbled over themselves to make public statements condemning the magazine. Charges of sin were rushed off to the consistories of the editors. Little did we know that the opposition had its eyes on the offices of the ministers involved with Sword and Shield, that there would be an orchestrated effort to silence the magazine, and that a little more than one year after the appearance of Sword and Shield, all three editors would be outside the Protestant Reformed Churches.

No one could have written that story.

All of that happened in the sovereign counsel of God and served for the coming of his kingdom, for the glory of his name, and for the promotion of his truth—the truth of God’s absolute sovereignty in salvation, the truth of the sovereignty of God as the sole source of the believer’s salvation and as the sole explanation of every benefit of salvation. That truth is now sounding forth in a way and in a forum in which it had not sounded forth for many years. Out of that writing in Sword and Shield, a new denomination has been formed, and in that denomination that same truth is preached.

As I said, no one could have written that story.

Sword and Shield is not responsible for the formation of the Reformed Protestant Churches, but she was a midwife at the delivery of those churches into the world.

That the writing in the magazine played a crucial role in the reformation of the church is unsurprising. It is unsurprising, first, because the one who sits as head of the church and as the lord over all, whose name is Word, caused his word long ago to be written in the Bible. The church is the church of the written word. The written word all through New Testament church history has played a crucial role in the promotion of the truth and in the reformation of the church.

That was true with the church fathers. The writings of Athanasius were essential for the preservation of the truth of Jesus Christ over against the whole world’s running after the error of Arius. That was true during the time of Augustine, when his writings on sovereign grace served for the preservation of the church over against the lies of Pelagius.

That was true at the time prior to the Reformation, when the writings of John Wycliffe and John Hus were used by God to begin the Reformation before the Reformation began.

In the sixteenth century the writings of Martin Luther drove the Reformation, and without those writings the Reformation simply would not have been possible. Luther’s friend and promoter, Lucas Cranach, guarded Luther against every attempt to silence him, so that Luther could be heard throughout Europe, and Cranach made sure that Luther’s writings were excellently printed and easily recognizable. One of the greatest gifts that God ever gave to the church of Jesus Christ was the printer of Geneva, Robert Stephanus, who saw to it that Calvin had a voice and that his voice was heard throughout Europe and that his books were beautifully printed.

The reformation of the church in the Afscheiding was largely due to the writings of Hendrik de Cock, which writings ultimately got him in trouble and led to his suspension and deposition.

The same was true of Abraham Kuyper: his writings served for feeding the people who were starving at that time for the truth of God’s sovereign grace.

Also at the time of the reformation of the church in 1924, the writings of Herman Hoeksema and Henry Danhof drove the reformation of the church, so that Herman Hoeksema and Henry Danhof could look back and say, “The reason we were deposed was the Standard Bearer.”

The reformation of the church in 1953 would not have turned out the way that it did, were it not for the editorial leadership of the Standard Bearer in that crisis.

The reason that Nathan Langerak, Andrew Lanning, and Martin VanderWal are no longer in the Protestant Reformed Churches is the Sword and Shield. It was the appearance of that magazine and the truth that was written on its pages—the truth that drove the opponents of that truth mad in their opposition to it—that led to the destruction of these men in those churches. The magazine was hated by the leadership from the beginning because the magazine threatened the stranglehold that the leadership had on writing in the Protestant Reformed Churches.

The reformation of the church that has taken place began in the hearts of a group of concerned men, men who were not afraid: men who were not afraid to begin a new paper, men who were not afraid to associate with the truth and to see to it that that truth was published, come what may. Without Reformed Believers Publishing and Sword and Shield, the reformation of the church that has begun would not have been possible.

Humanly speaking now, the doctrinal issues that we confronted would have turned out differently had there been different men at the helm of the Standard Bearer. The Standard Bearer could then have served the purpose that it served in other controversies by giving a clear and compelling witness to the truth of sovereign grace. Such was not the case in this controversy. The men who were at the helm of the Standard Bearer had for years, as leaders in the Standard Bearer, censored the truth. They had censored the truth, and they had silenced a writer—only one writer that I know of, but there may have been more. That censorship extended beyond the Standard Bearer. After I had been unceremoniously sacked as a rubric writer, I was given a voice by the board of the Reformed Free Publishing Association on its blog. The editors then moved by false charges and accusations to have me silenced there as well. I have all the letters and documents that show this. There was an effort to stifle the voice of the truth and to allow the lie to have a platform in the churches. There were efforts, concerted efforts, to give the Standard Bearer a different tone, a different face, a different stance. The editors were embarrassed, and vocally so in private, about the writings of Herman Hoeksema at the time of the reformation of the church in 1953. The editors loathed what the Standard Bearer did in 1953 for the preservation of the truth, and they were determined that the Standard Bearer would never again play that role in the Protestant Reformed Churches.

It is for these reasons that Sword and Shield was absolutely necessary. The truth could not be written in the Protestant Reformed Churches, especially in its condemnation of the lie and its warning the people of new dangers. The formation of that magazine led to the reformation of the church, and now these two are fundamentally inseparable.

I want to establish tonight that what we are dealing with is the reformation of the church. I don’t intend to establish that exhaustively. I intend to establish that in principle. I believe that on the pages of Sword and Shield the details have already been established that what God is doing is reformational and that what has transpired and led to the formation of a new Reformed denomination is reformational.

 

The Important Question

I believe that the question that the speech seeks to answer tonight is the most important question that can be asked today. Is what has transpired reformation or schism?

I pose that in the form of a question not because I believe that it is a question. But I pose that in the form of a question because I believe every person—either for or against what has transpired in the Reformed Protestant Churches and by means of Sword and Shield and Reformed Believers Publishing—every person, friend or foe, must answer that question. It is foolish of men in the light of what has transpired to dismiss easily, without much thought and reflection, what has happened.

What has transpired?

Explain it.

Was it reformation or schism?

The importance of that cannot be overstated.

In answering that question every other question surrounding what has transpired is answered.

The language that is used to describe what has transpired may not be generic. We may not speak only of the formation of a new magazine or of the formation of a new denomination because in that language and with those terms, no judgment is given and no decision is required. It can all be described as unfortunate, as a big mistake, and as the result of the misbehavior of men. Then we can all wring our hands and lament what has transpired, and we can go on with our lives—I say, if the terms that are used are left generic.

But the question—the question that all must face, whether friend or foe—is whether those events were the work of the Lord or the work of men and, therefore, whether those events were reformation or those events were schism.

And in answer to that question is determined your judgment on those events.

Then, in that judgment is determined also what your decision must be over against those events.

When I ask whether those events were the work of the Lord, I do not mean to ask whether the Lord sovereignly controlled all of those events by his providence, so that all that has transpired happened in the sovereign providence of God. Of course, that is true. Shall there be evil in the city, and the Lord has not done it? Men in all their lives, men in their very thoughts and purposes, and men in all their actions are determined by God, and men are hemmed in by God on every side by his sovereign counsel, even when they act wickedly and unjustly. We confess that all the events that have transpired and the very thoughts of men are of the Lord, in the sense of God’s sovereign providence. He decreed them, and he carried them out.

Now, when he brought those events, did he bring reformation? Did he bring reformation, so that his purpose in all those events was the reformation of his church?

Or when God brought those events, did he bring schism in this sense: did the Lord by means of those events expose a sect of antinomians and radicals in the church of Jesus Christ? When God brought those events, did he bring to light reformation? Or did God bring to light an ungodly sect that had departed from the truth and that had to be removed from the church for the good of the truth?

Were those events reformation or schism?

The theme of tonight’s speech, therefore, places the events that we consider in the light of God’s covenant, God’s kingdom and church, and the cause of God’s truth in all of history. Whether those events were reformation or schism puts those events in terms of the great spiritual struggle for the truth over against the lie that has transpired since Eden. That struggle began with Cain and Abel and ended with Cain’s murder of Abel, whose righteous blood still cries from the ground. That great spiritual struggle for the truth puts the events in terms of the unfolding of the enmity that God spoke about in the garden and the enmity that carried through the entire Old Testament in the battle between God’s people and the people of the lie and of the devil. That enmity continued in the New Testament between the apostles and the false apostles and false teachers. That warfare was carried on throughout all of New Testament church history in the struggles between Athanasius and Arius, Augustine and Pelagius, Luther and Erasmus, and Hoeksema and the synod, and in the battle for the unconditional covenant in 1953; and now that warfare continues today in 2021.

Was it reformation or schism?

No greater question, no more important question, can be asked.

And every friend and every foe must answer the question.

Whether it be reformation or whether it be schism creates a sharp divide, an antithesis. On the one side is the devil, and on the other side is the Lord. On the one side is the truth, and on the other side is the lie. On the one side is the defense of the truth, and on the other side are the proper works of the devil. On the one side is the losing of one’s life for the sake of the truth and the saving of one’s soul, and on the other side is the saving of one’s life and the losing of one’s soul. On the one side is the confession of Christ in heaven before his Father and the holy angels of the names of those who stood on the side of the truth, and on the other side is the denial of Christ before his Father and the holy angels of the names of those who opposed and slandered the truth. On the one side is the salvation of God’s people and their seed and generations, and on the other side is the cutting off of the unbeliever in his generations. On the one side is the glory of God, and on the other side is the glory of man.

Was it reformation or schism?

When you answer that question, you will rejoice if you say, “It is reformation,” for then you glory in the work of the Lord Jesus Christ from heaven. If you say, “It is schism,” then you will lament and wring your hands.

Was it reformation or schism?

There is no more important question.

And I remind you that you may not answer that question with the devilish neutrality of Gamaliel: Let us wait and see. If it be of God, who can oppose it? If it be of men, it will fall to pieces. That was devilish neutrality. Only the devil can inspire such words, for those words mean that you need not take the side of the truth. You may let Christ go begging. You may see how the cause of Christ turns out in the world. You may enjoy your peace and safety and your health and comfort until the outcome is known. Only the devil can say such a thing.

You must answer whether it was reformation or schism.

Then, in your answer you must carry your position to its logical conclusion. If you say, “Schism,” then you must draw that out to its logical conclusion. If you say, “Schism,” then you may not draw back from that because in those who draw back God has no pleasure. If you say, “Schism,” then you may not at the same time also supinely chalk up what has happened to the misbehavior of men—perhaps misbehavior on both sides—and perhaps to misunderstanding and to misunderstanding on both sides. All you are doing if you say that it is schism and you will not carry that to its logical conclusion is engaging in cleverly disguised neutrality to save face with your friends and to save your life. And you are avoiding the all-important question whether this is indeed reformation or schism. There may be no neutrality in the battle for the truth.

And when you answer that question whether this be reformation or schism, then you have also answered the question for yourself what you must do.

There are many who, in light of the circumstances that have transpired, are in a quandary, but the quandary is of their own making. What to do is not at all difficult to know. I did not say that it was not at all difficult to do, but it is not at all difficult to know—if you will answer the question whether it be reformation or schism.

There are many who wanted to be here tonight but are not here because they are afraid of the faces of men. There are many who waffle on what has transpired: one day taking one side and the next day taking the other side. They have not answered the all-important question whether this be reformation or schism.

If you have answered that question whether it be reformation or schism, then you have also answered what you must do.

If it be reformation, then you must join this cause. If it be reformation, then you must stand with that reformation, for then you stand on the side of the Lord, and then the Lord stands with you and on your side. And then standing with the Lord, the Lord opposes and the Lord overthrows all who stand against it. If it be reformation, then you must join that as the Lord’s work and as the side on which the Lord stands, though the edicts of kings and princes and, indeed, the whole world condemn you as wicked, and though your spouse and your brother and sister and your family and all your friends forsake you and slander you. If it be reformation, then you must join it. You must do so without hesitation, with a conviction, and quickly, lest the Lord weigh you in the balance in which he is weighing the Protestant Reformed Churches, and you with them be found wanting—if it be reformation.

If it be schism, then you must oppose me with all your might. If it be schism, then you must condemn us. You must condemn us, and you must hate us, and you must put us out of your fellowship.

But don’t try to have it both ways. Don’t say that it was schism in front of your friends and in private tell me that it was reformation. You are two-faced, and you are Janus. Do not say that it was schism and then invite me to your parties. Do not say that it was schism and then wish me the Lord’s blessing. Do not say that it was schism and then shake my hand because if it be schism, then I am the most disgusting and despicable person on the planet.

You must curse me. You must deny me your fellowship. You must call me unceasingly to repentance. You may not wish me Godspeed. You may not have me into your house and invite me to your parties, and you must rejoice when I do not come. Then you must engage in a spiritual warfare with me, as God instructed his people in both the Old Testament and the New Testament. And you must hate me for Christ’s sake.

But it is devilish, very devilish indeed, to say to me, “You are a schismatic, and I want you to come to Christmas. You are a schismatic; we are yet all brothers.” For then you compromise your position, and then I know assuredly that your position is a lie. For when you say to me, “You are a schismatic,” and then you invite me to Christmas, you have compromised your position. Then I know there is no truth in it. There is no truth in it at all. And when you say to me, “You’re a schismatic, and I want you at Christmas,” then you compromise your position, and you demand that I compromise my position. My position is that it is reformation. My position knows no compromise with your position. But in your willingness to compromise your position that it is schism, then I know you speak for the devil, and I know that your position is a lie. For if it is the truth and I am a schismatic and the cause in which I labor is schismatic, then there would be no compromise with me.

When you compromise, then you show that my position, that it is reformation, is true and that your characterization of the position as schismatic is born of unbelief and malice toward the truth.

So I say that the question is of paramount importance. It is the most important question whether this cause is reformation or schism.

If it is reformation, then it is the Lord’s cause. All that has transpired is the Lord’s work for the cause of reformation. It is the Lord’s work for the advancement of his covenant, his kingdom, and his church and for the preservation of his truth and in his love for his people. Then the Lord is in the vanguard, and the Lord is our rearward. And in this reformation God has worked in the same way that he worked in all reformations throughout church history.

And all the opponents of it will be found liars—if it be reformation.

If it be schism, then it is to be condemned in absolute terms.

I pose the question not because I believe it is a question. The events that have transpired were reformation. As reformation, they are the Lord’s work. 

Opposing the reformation, you oppose the Lord. Fighting the reformation, you fight the Lord. Slandering the reformation, you slander the Lord. Refusing to join the reformation, you refuse to help the Lord against the mighty, and you bring upon yourself the Lord’s curse against the inhabitants of Meroz, who stayed within their walls while the men of Naphtali hazarded their lives in the Lord’s battles (Judges 5:23).

It is of the Lord, so that if you refuse to join it, and you retain your comfortable life, and you retain your friends and your family, then you bring upon all of that God’s curse, and you threaten your own soul with damnation—if it be reformation. And cursing those who have taken the Lord’s side, you will find yourself in the uncomfortable position on the judgment day of having to explain to the Lord—an impossible task—why when he was in prison, you did not visit him; and when he was naked, you did not clothe him; and when he was hungry, you did not feed him. And you will have to explain to the Lord why you did not hazard your life and why you did not love the truth unto death—if it be reformation.

 

The Events of Reformation

The events to which I refer are those especially that led up to Synod 2018, the events at that synod, and the events that have transpired since Synod 2018 in the Protestant Reformed Churches.

It is becoming clearer and clearer every day that for many years in the Protestant Reformed Churches a number of forces and currents were present and that they all converged at Synods 2016, 2017, and 2018. All of those forces converged for the establishment of the lie and the overthrow of the truth.

That includes Synod 2018. Synod 2018 should be condemned. Synod 2018 is not to be trumpeted as a victory for the truth. Synod 2018 was a victory for the lie. It was a victory for the lie, and it was the establishment of a fatal principle in the Protestant Reformed Churches that led to the suspension and deposition of Rev. Andy Lanning, that led to my suspension, and that led to the putting out of Rev. Martin VanderWal. Synod 2018 belonged to the convergence of the forces that were already current in the Protestant Reformed Churches for years—as many as thirty or forty or more years—before those synods.

At Synod 2018 fatal negotiations were happening within the very committee that was deciding the doctrinal issue. Those fatal negotiations established a principle in the Protestant Reformed Churches that led to the overthrow of the truth and that ensured that the truth will never have a place in those churches again.¹

The truth was not the main concern of many of the delegates to that synod and of many of the men who served on the committee to judge an appeal concerning sermons preached by Rev. David Overway. Their main concern was not the condemnation of the lie, but their main concern was the reputations of men. Their main concern was, how could synod get out of its sticky situation? The appellant had established beyond a shadow of a doubt that justification—of all doctrines—and the unconditional covenant—of all doctrines—had been denied in the Protestant Reformed Churches and that the false doctrine of justification by faith and works and the false doctrine of the conditional covenant had been taught and defended by the broader assemblies and by consistories in the Protestant Reformed Churches. How could synod extract itself from that sticky situation without harming men?

In the committee the lie negotiated with the truth, and the lie’s only plea was this: the men who taught the lie are good men, and you all know that. That was the fatal compromise of the truth. In the committee the lie won. The lie won for itself the right to negotiate in the committee and at the broader assembly. The lie raised itself to the position of a partner with the truth. And the lie dared to require of the truth—require of the truth!—that the truth be quiet in the interests of men. The lie’s position was this: the lie can be taught, the lie can be tolerated, and the lie should not be condemned as long as the men who teach it are nice men with good reputations and names for orthodoxy. And when the truth compromised—no, when the truth negotiated—with the lie, the truth lost.

That is what the fathers at Dordt recognized. The lie may not negotiate with the truth. So when the Remonstrants pleaded for a place at the synod, at least to air their grievances as equals, the Remonstrants were refused.

The case that was before Synod 2018 demanded to be judged by the truth, not to have a negotiation between the truth and the lie about how the lie would be condemned. The case was not about a way for the lie to carve out for itself a position of bargaining with the truth. But as soon as the truth allowed the lie to do that, the truth lost. The truth was lost.

Delegates could vote for the advice of Synod 2018, upholding the appellant, even if they did not believe a word of it, and it didn’t matter at all because Synod 2018 was going to be overthrown. Many who voted for the advice were not so concerned about its precise wording, but rather they believed the underlying principle in the advice that the lie need not be condemned sharply but can be called something other than it is. At Synod 2018 the lie had established the principle that you cannot condemn the lie without a careful, considered judgment about the reputations of men. When doctrinal issues come before synod, then the issue is not about the truth or the lie; it is about the reputations of men. If you cannot condemn the lie without considering first the reputations of the men who teach the lie, then the lie wins every time. When those are the rules of the game, the truth is fatally compromised as truth. The truth does not negotiate with the lie. The truth does not treat the lie as an equal partner. The truth always condemns the lie for what it is. The truth condemns the lie as the lie in the sharpest, clearest possible language. Men are to be judged by what they teach!

At Synod 2018 the truth lost—lost deceptively. Synod 2018 may go down in history as the devil’s greatest victory. It was a shocking, astounding victory for the devil. It fooled even men who loved the truth—so stunning was the victory. The devil had established and now has established in the Protestant Reformed Churches this principle: You cannot condemn the lie for what it is. You cannot condemn conditional justification as conditional justification. You must call it a compromise of justification. You cannot condemn the conditional covenant as the conditional covenant. You must call it something else, anything else, because the reputations of men are at stake. False doctrine is not determined by the words that men speak. Indeed, a man can preach something false, and it cannot be condemned as false because it has been determined before that he is a good man and has a reputation for orthodoxy.

Synod 2018 was the devil’s most stunning victory that I know of in all of church history. There has never been a synod like that in church history. In all of church history, there has never been a synod where the devil won in the name of the truth. In all of church history, there has never been a more stunning example of the devil’s transforming himself into an angel of light. So stunning, I myself was fooled. I cannot be fooled anymore. It was a victory for the devil, and it would be simply a matter of time before that principle worked through.

That principle was the operative principle in Rev. Andy Lanning’s deposition: you cannot condemn the lie without a careful consideration of the reputations of men first. Only if reputations are carefully bolstered, carefully fluffed and massaged, may you then in the most tepid of terms suggest—perhaps, maybe—that there might possibly be an error, not a false doctrine, but an error here. Maybe. Possibly. Perhaps.

That was the operative principle in my suspension. As one of the elders of Crete said, “We do not need this now,” meaning we do not need the full-throated condemnation of the lie and the full-throated proclamation of the truth.

It was that principle that led to the discipline of Rev. Martin VanderWal because he had not carefully considered the reputations of men before he condemned the lie.

It was that principle, too, that was for a long time operative in the Protestant Reformed Churches. It was that principle that was operative at the Standard Bearer for many years. Long before I was suspended as a minister of the Protestant Reformed Churches, I was sacked as a writer for the Standard Bearer. The editorial committee that sacked me lied to my face when the men said that I was being sacked because I was “hard to work with.” One of the members of the Standard Bearer staff let the cat out of the bag at the meeting where I was dismissed, that I was not being canned because I was hard to work with, but I was being let go because my writing was making the meetings of Protestant Reformed ministers with ministers of other Reformed denominations uncomfortable because I condemned the lie—condemned the lie in uncompromising terms. I condemned the lie by name, I condemned the lie by denomination, and that could not be found on the pages of the Standard Bearer. You cannot condemn the lie without a careful consideration of the reputations—and now also of the friendships—of men. “I have friends who believe that. I have friends who go to that church. You can’t condemn the lie.” And they sacked me because I did not take into consideration the reputations of men.

It was that principle—long operative in the Protestant Reformed Churches—that led to the charges of sin against the group of concerned men, against the formation of Reformed Believers Publishing, and against Sword and Shield. We had not carefully considered the reputations of men before we formed the association and began publishing the magazine.

It was that principle that led to the litany of charges—so many charges I lost count and stopped caring—against myself, Reverend VanderWal; and Reverend Lanning—everything from rebellion, to schism, to being ringleaders of an unruly mob—all because we had not carefully considered the very tender and delicate reputations of men in our promotion of the truth.

Those events led to the formation of the Reformed Protestant Churches, which formation has now been branded as schism.

Was it reformation or schism?

Reformation is the work of Christ.

Schism is the sinful work of men.

Was it reformation or schism? 

Was Christ behind it?

Or was it merely men? Unruly men, unbelieving men, and ungodly men? For as I said, if it was schism, then I am the most wicked man on the planet.

It was reformation.

 

For the Truth’s Sake

Everything that has happened points to the fact that it was reformation. Everything that is happening now points to the fact that it was reformation. Only the blind or the willfully ignorant or the malicious cannot see that it is reformation.

First of all, there are historical factors. Reformation of the church is not necessary when the truth holds the reins of power. Then when the lie comes against the truth, the truth is preserved, and reformation is not necessary. Reformation is necessary when the forces of the lie hold the power in the church and have the majority. That was certainly the truth in this case. Men who agreed with promoting the lie or sat supinely by while the lie savaged the truth were in all the positions of power. They ruled in the consistory meetings, so that whole consistories were populated by men like that. They sat at meetings of classis and synod. They taught in the seminary and served on all the denominational committees. They were not interested in the truth. They themselves said so. They were interested in the reputations of men. They had the power, so reformation was necessary. That is true of every reformation. When the lie lays hold on the reins of power, then it is the work of Christ to break the power of the lie by means of reformation.

Second, there is the whole matter of persecution. Who is persecuted today? Who has lost today? Who has suffered loss of family, friends, schools, churches, businesses, and names? To all those who would charge me with schism, I say, “I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus Christ.” Who has lost today? In reformation you lose your life, but you gain your soul.

Third, in this reformation there is a repetition—an eerie repetition—of history. A closed church paper: when did that happen before? The “mighties” all lined up against the truth? The corruption of the assemblies? A few ministers speaking the truth?

But these are all historical, you might say, anecdotal evidences—powerful in my mind, but they are not the weightiest to answer the question whether this was reformation or schism.

The weightiest and really the only question is, was the truth at stake? 

Was it?

No one can doubt that now. There was a life and death struggle of eternal consequence over the truth. I must add that it is my very conviction that the Protestant Reformed Churches had the truth and the truth in its purest expression. That conviction also requires of me to put this conflict in terms of the truth. The truth was that denomination’s greatest and, in some sense, her only possession. That truth was threatened. The battle was over that truth.

The great big lie is that those events were all about the misbehavior of a group of concerned men who were raising discord, sects, and mutiny and were having secret meetings and starting a secret society in the Protestant Reformed Churches. I heard that all myself, also in the consistory at Crete. The great big lie is—and the expert of lies himself, Joseph Goebbels, said, “If you’re going to lie, then lie big”—the great big lie is that this was all about the misbehavior of ministers—ministers who were driving their own agendas. Reverend Lanning was guilty of misbehavior. Reverend Langerak was guilty of misbehavior. Reverend VanderWal was guilty of misbehavior.

No one is talking about misbehavior now. Many Standard Bearer articles, blog posts, email and text exchanges, family letters and discussions, ministers’ chat lists, and coffee room conversations are only about one thing: what is the truth? No one gives two snaps about misbehavior because the Protestant Reformed Churches got rid of the perceived troublemakers. Now, clearly the truth—truth—is at stake. Even our opponents talk about almost nothing else except what we believe and whether it is true or false. The truth is at stake. It always has been. When the truth is at stake, that is reformation, not schism.

And the truth that is at stake could not be of greater importance. We are now arguing about justification! We have gone all the way back to the sixteenth-century Reformation. The Protestant Reformed denomination is overthrowing 1517—not 1924, not 1953, not 1834, and not 1618–19. But 1517! That is what we are arguing about: justification.

That is not my analysis. That was the Protestant Reformed Churches’ own analysis about the venomous snake that the denomination holds now in her own bosom. She said, “The doctrine of justification is at stake.” She said that timidly because she was not interested in defending that, but Christ extracted that admission from her. The Protestant Reformed denomination has compromised the faith going all the way back to the Reformation. How are the mighty fallen! 

And I have proof for this. The doctrine of Joe Blue Collar in the Protestant Reformed Churches is this: “We are justified in the way of obedience.” The theologian of the Protestant Reformed Churches, who could run circles around me theologically speaking, teaches that in a certain sense man precedes God and that justification is by faith and repentance unto righteousness. This is all completely shocking. This is a complete overthrow of the truth of salvation by grace alone, on which basis the Protestant Reformed denomination was formed.

Christ himself spoke of the seriousness of those issues. When the issue is justification and man’s gracious salvation, the question is whether when a man goes to church he goes home justified or not and thus whether he lives in peace and the assurance of his salvation or not. When the issue is justification, the question is whether when a man appears in the final judgment, he will be justified or not. There is no more serious issue. These events, all of them—from the first protest, to the first meeting of the group of concerned men, to all the writing, to the formation of the Reformed Protestant Churches, to the ongoing battle for the truth—these events are reformation, not schism.

Jesus Christ, lord of lords and king of kings and lover of his people, saw them enslaved and in bondage, and he visited to free his people from the oppressive slavery and bondage of cruel men who were robbing them of their comfort and joy in Christ, displacing him in their affections and love, and dishonoring him and the glory of his name and the glory of his Father’s name in their wicked doctrine.

It was reformation.

You can agree, or you can disagree, and I will never convince you. Only Christ can convince you. I’m simply laying out for you that there are two—only two—positions.

If it was schism, then you must condemn us—roundly and in the harshest terms.

The criticism is not nearly harsh enough. You haven’t called me enough names yet. You haven’t pointed out how wicked I am yet. You surely haven’t called me to repentance enough yet. You’re not nearly harsh enough—if it be schism. It is okay; I can take it. You need to ramp up your criticism—if it was schism.

But you cannot play both sides and say that I am guilty of schism and then invite me to your coffees, birthday parties, and gatherings because then you are a hypocrite. And I know that your very charge of schism is hypocrisy.

But if you agree that it is reformation, you must join. You must come out of that corrupt denomination, for the denomination has taken the foul doctrine of salvation by works into her bosom and shelters those who have taught that false doctrine for a long time and has corrupted the article of the standing or falling church and brings on herself the judgment of Christ, whom she has cast out.

Come out from her, and be ye separate.

That is not my word. That is Christ’s word—if it be reformation.

And you must come out even though your children or your friends or your whole family oppose you, even if your very spouse opposes you, with the hope that perhaps, God being gracious, they may be won by your chaste conversation coupled with fear.

You must come out and away from the bondage of false doctrine and slavery to the fear of men.

You must come out, and you will lose all. I can assure you.

But Christ will take you up. He will comfort you with his blessed gospel.

Thank you.