Tentative Report of the Special Synod Meeting held in Grand Rapids on June 30 & July 1, 1993

The evening prior to the meeting a prayer service was held led by Rev. J. Spaans of Norwich. The portion of Scripture which he read was Revelation 2 and 3, and his text for the occasion was Psalm 122:4-6, “Whither the tribes go up, the tribes of the Lord, unto the testimony of Israel, to give thanks unto the name of the Lord. For there are set thrones of judgment, the thrones of the house of David. Pray for the peace of Jerusalem: they shall prosper that love Thee.” The theme of the sermon was “An Urgent Call to Prayer,” and the two main aspects considered were (1) What we should pray against, and (2) What we should pray for.

The following morning the Synod was called to order by Rev. J. den Hoed, moderator of the calling church of Sheboygan, Wisconsin. Psalter 218, verses 1 and 5 were sung, and then Psalm 125 was read and prayer offered by Rev. den Hoed. He welcomed all present, and then briefly reviewed the events which had taken place since our last meeting. Elder John Beeke of the Kalamazoo congregation, former deacon John Van Beek, Sr., of Rock Valley, and Mrs. M. Heerschap, wife of Rev. Heerschap, had all exchanged time with eternity. Remembered also were the emeritus ministers Revs. Heerschap, Kieboom, Kuijt, and Verhoef, and the ministerial widows, Mrs. Hegeman, Mrs. Lamain, Mrs. Romeyn, and Mrs. Vergunst.

He then spoke briefly about the portion of Scripture which he had read, Psalm 125. At that time the walls and temple were in ruin, but nevertheless the mountains were still the same. They are presented in this psalm as a type of the security and strength which the Triune God is for His church upon earth. There is a God in heaven who abides for ever. He has said so plainly and emphatically that the gates of hell shall not prevail against His church. In the midst of all trouble there is yet a place to turn, and our eyes must be fixed upon Him.

Credentials were examined, and the following delegates were then seated: Revs. Beeke, Den Boer, den Hoed, Hofman, Spaans, and Vogelaar, and Elders C. Blom, M. Blom, J. De Bruin, J. Den Bok, N. Greendyk, M. Heerschap, G. Hoogendoorn, G. Moerdyk, L. Nieuwenhuyzen, L. Stapel, B. Sweetman, T. Verhey, A. Verhoef, and L. Willekes. Revs. L. Blok and A. Honkoop were the representatives from the Netherlands.

The election of officers resulted in the moderamen, consisting of Rev. J. den Hoed, chairman, Rev. J. Spaans, vice-chairman, Rev. A. Den Boer, first clerk, Elder G. Moerdyk, second clerk, and Elder T. Verhey, treasurer. The chairman thanked the delegates for their confidence and again spoke words of welcome to all those present.

Rev. L. Blok was then given an opportunity to speak in behalf of the Synod in the Netherlands. He expressed the sorrows which exist there because of the troubles and stressed the need for unity in accordance with God’s Word and the Church Order. There must be prayer for the peace of Jerusalem, but only in the way of true repentance. It was hoped that at the closing it might be said that the Lord was in our midst, and that Ephesians 4:15 might be experienced.

After a short break at which time the moderamen met to arrange the agenda, the delegates again gathered together. The letter from the Synod in the Netherlands, which had been sent some time earlier to the deputies of foreign churches, was read and accepted.

To the Board of Foreign Churches
of the Netherlands Reformed Congregations
of the United States and Canada,
c/o Rev. C. Vogelaar,
729 Willow Run, Wyckoff
New Jersey 07481, U.S.A.
Utrecht, January 14, 1993

Beloved Brethren,

The General Synod of the Netherlands Reformed Congregations assembled at Utrecht, addresses itself to you with this letter. Our meeting was attended by Rev. C. Vogelaar as representative of the Congregations in the United States and Canada.

At our meeting the Brethren Rev. A.F. Honkoop and Rev. A. Moerkerken, who attended your Synod at Grand Rapids on December 9th, 1992, as our representatives, brought out report of what has been discussed at your Synod.

It has become clear to our Synod, that the meeting at Grand Rapids has not removed the tensions and confusion in your congregations. Also your representative, Rev. C. Vogelaar underscored the great concerns that exist in the congregations of the United States and Canada.

It was decided at our Synod to once again send you a letter. We do not do so, because we feel that we have the authority to deliver a judgement about the contents of your problems. It would be totally wrong if we would do so because that would mean interfering in your internal problems.

In spite of that we feel free to send you this letter. First of all because the presence of ecclesiastical correspondence, entails that we may address each other about matters concerning doctrine and Church Order. Secondly, since your representative Rev. C. Vogelaar has explicitly asked our Synod to advice to the Congregations in North America.

Moreover, as Dutch Congregations, we feel attached to you. It is our desire to bear with you in love and heartfelt affection.

We are fully aware, that after all, the Lord alone can give solutions in the problems that have brought so much confusion in your congregations.

Therefore we earnestly hope to remember you in our prayers. May the Lord bring all of us as guilty ones at His feet.

At our Synod it was remarked that also the Dutch congregations stand guilty because of our great shortcomings in putting your needs before the Lord in prayer.

May the Lord grant all of us the mind which was also in Christ Jesus, when He washed the feet of His disciples and was in the midst of them as One Who serves.

If such is the case, then one will esteem the other better than himself and then it will become a miracle for us that the Lord has not yet blotted us out before His countenance because of our sins and trespasses.

We will then come to understand that we need the Ministry of a serving Saviour to be able to seek the honour of the Lord and the welfare of His Church.

It is for that reason that our Synod heartily desires to strongly appeal to you to remain together and seek that unity, that is in accordance with Scripture and our confession.

In all seriousness, we wish to point out to you that in doing so, we must act in accordance with Church Order. No blessing can be expected if we do not act according to the Reformed Church Order in all things, since this is based on Holy Scripture. Handling contrary to Church Order will only result in even more disorder and confusion.

The Lord is a God of order and He wants all things in the church to be done in an orderly way.

Our representatives, who visited your December-meeting, informed us that the discussions during your meeting appeared to have come to a deadlock. In light of that situations they raised a proposal to take a vote to see whether the Synod still had confidence in Rev. J.R. Beeke. They told us that they came to this proposal because they really did not know what could be done in this situation and that they hoped that their proposal might open a way out of an impossible situation.

It seems good to us that at your next Synod which, if so desired, could be convened at an earlier date than usual, the problems in your congregations will be discussed again in order to deal with them in full accordance with Scripture and our Reformed Church Order.

Moreover we would like to emphasize that if certain matters are not clear and explicit, a situation can arise where the only possibility left is, to abstain and leave things before the face of the omniscient God.

However, we wish to once again emphasize in all earnestness, that we cannot expect a blessing of the Lord on deeds that are not in accordance with Church Order.

Because your Synod meeting has been closed, we are sending this letter to the Board for Correspondence with Foreign Churches of your congregations, with the request to send a copy of this letter to all the consistories in the United States and Canada.

It is our sincere desire and prayer that you may receive light and wisdom from Above and a godly prudence.

It also is our fervent desire that the unity among the American and Canadian congregations may be restored and maintained.

“Let the priests, the ministers of the LORD, weep between the porch and the altar, and let them say, Spare the people, O LORD, and give not thine heritage to reproach.” (Joel 2 verse 17a).

May the Lord give you and us to be brought at that place.

Be convinced that the welfare of the American and Canadian congregations weigh heavy on our hearts and that we feel a deep concern for you.

We recommend you to the Lord and His grace in Christ,

On behalf of the General Synod of the
Netherlands Reformed Congregations,

Rev. A.F. Honkoop, president
Rev. J.J. van Eckeveld, third clerk

At the suggestion of the moderamen the first point to be considered was that of Classis Midwest, which requested the “Synod clarify the unfinished business of the December 9, 1992, extended Synod meeting which is continually producing unrest and division throughout the whole denomination.” Classis felt that the ‘problems’ were handled, but no “healing process” introduced. Since this pertained to matters of individuals, it was felt necessary to proceed in a closed session, with only office-bearers permitted to be present.

In conjunction with this, the appeal of Grand Rapids Crescent consistory was also read, and became a part of the discussion. Each point of their appeal was discussed separately and generated much discussion. At the conclusion a vote was taken relative to Synod’s acceptance of this appeal, and the appeal was denied by a large majority.

The next point considered was the request from Classic East “that the matter of divorced office-bearers be further discussed in light of God’s Word, since difficulties are experienced regarding this.” It was pointed out that a suggestion had been made by the Classis that a further study be made in order to come to a conclusion regarding this matter. This too was extensively discussed, and, due to the time, a decision was delayed until the following morning. The day’s session was closed with prayer.

Thursday morning the meeting was opened with the singing of Psalter 281, verses 1 and 3, and a portion of Philippians 1 was read and prayer offered by the chairman. He spoke briefly about the events in the life of Paul when this epistle was written. Although in prison and although there were divisions in the midst of the church, there were also soul troubles which he addressed. The apostle wrote of that confidence which he had, “that He which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ.” This pertained to them both individually and also unitedly as a church. The need was there that the will of the Lord be done, and that He preserve the truth in His church.

The credentials were again examined, and the meeting continued in closed session. The discussion again resumed regarding the request for further study of divorced office-bearers. Some felt that this was not necessary, since the subject had been considered so extensively in prior meetings, while others were in favor of further study. Some were emphatic that further postponement of such a decision would only add to the confusion which exists. While this discussion proceeded, and before Synod made any decisions, Rev. Beeke read a prepared statement by his consistory that they could not accept a decision which would make it impossible for a divorced office-bearer to serve in the congregations.

This statement was not accepted by the Synod, as it seemingly indicated an unwillingness to abide by Synodical decision, resulting in further division. The moderamen adjourned briefly with the Holland delegates to consider a response to this and returned with the request that an answer be given whether the consistory of Crescent Street was willing to comply with any decision Synod would make concerning the matter at hand, reserving the right to appeal such a decision if it proved to be contrary to God’s Word and church order. The consistory was given an opportunity to meet together to reply, but were requested to bring back a “Yes” or “No” decision. The “Yes” or “No” answer requested by Synod is comparable to the oath by which all office-bearers bind themselves to their office and thereby to all church authority.

It needs to be clearly understood that Synod’s request did not imply that its decisions stood above God’s Word or church order. Rather, church order clearly provides the rights of individuals or consistories to appeal decisions which are felt to be contrary to either God’s Word or church order. Rejecting Synod’s right to make decisions before any decisions were made was a rejection of Synod’s authority and therefore a violation of Scripture and church order. In effect, by rejecting Synodical authority, the Crescent Street consistory subjected themselves to disciplinary action. One cannot claim to be a member of an organization and at the same time refuse to accept the conditions of membership. It was for that reason that Synod took the position of the Crescent Street consistory so seriously. By requesting a “Yes” or “No” answer, Synod was doing nothing more than asking them to reaffirm their oath of office, and trie reason for this was because of the letter which Rev. Beeke read.

When the Crescent Street consistory returned, they refused to give a direct reply, but stated that they would abide by Scripture and Church Order. They had agreed to retract their prior statement, but refused to give a direct answer indicating acceptance or rejection of Synodical authority. Due to their failure to uphold the oath of office which bound them to ecclesiastical authority and to the denomination, Synod felt that this was insubordination, and requested a vote of the delegates whether the consistory of the Crescent Street congregation should be deposed. One more opportunity was given to reply favorably to the question, but no different reply was made. It was also again emphasized that a decision made always carried the right of an appeal. Advice was asked of the representatives of the Netherlands, and they concurred that this procedure was proper.

With deep regret the Synod voted on this proposal, and by a large majority it was determined that the consistory should be deposed from their office for schismatic actions. The meeting then adjourned for lunch, but the delegates were interrupted and not permitted to continue their meeting in the Crescent Street building. Because the delegates were forcibly evicted, Synod therefore moved itself to the Covell Avenue church for the remainder of the meeting.

(to be continued)

Deze tekst is geautomatiseerd gemaakt en kan nog fouten bevatten. Digibron werkt voortdurend aan correctie. Klik voor het origineel door naar de pdf. Voor opmerkingen, vragen, informatie: contact.

Op Digibron -en alle daarin opgenomen content- is het databankrecht van toepassing. Gebruiksvoorwaarden. Data protection law applies to Digibron and the content of this database. Terms of use.

Printen