REC Home*** Theological Forum 

 

Theological Forum

Vol. XXIV, No. 1 & 2, May 1996

 

Evert Overeem

Confusion

Only Dutchmen can understand it: the distinction between the two words gereformeerd and hervormd. But for English- or German-speaking people it's very confusing: they only have one word, reformed, or, in German: reformiert. The two Dutch words have exactly the same meaning, i.e. reformed. Why are those Dutchmen making things more complicated than necessary? In ecumenical contacts abroad we Dutchmen have a lot to explain: gereformeerd is the GKN, member church of the REC; hervormd is the old church, from which we became separated in the last century. Together on the Way is the unification process of those two churches. Let there be one name for one church!

I have to instruct catechism to young people of our congregation. They are living today, and the last century is for them a "lost" century. They are more interested in future than in history. There are, of course, historical differences between the GKN and the NHK (hervormd). But are those historical differences relevant today? When young people of my congregation are visiting the local NHK-congregation, they don't see much differences in sermoning, catechism, praying and singing. For them not the unification of churches but the continuing division of churches has to be justified.

Take a look at our society. Secularism has struck deep wounds in Western Europe. Churches are becoming a minority in The Netherlands: we have a new challenge to meet. Religion is seen as a person's private matter, and not as relevant for public life. It does become increasingly difficult to explain to secularized people what Christian faith is all about. Christian faith, not Reformed tradition or the old different views of the two churches. Take a look at our world today. Compared to the situation of the churches in South Africa and their

struggle for unification, our problems in The Netherlands with the Together on the Way-process are "luxury problems." If those problems are not solved, nothing less than the credibility of our testimony to the Gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ is at stake! Divided people and divided churches, living apart together and both being Reformed: it's a luxury which we cannot afford any more. Without Together on the Way there would be a lot of confusion, not only abroad but in our own hearts and minds.

A Grassroots Process

Together on the Way is a process that started in the nineteen-sixties at the grassroots, on the congregational level. In the southern part of our country the Roman Catholic church was then a large majority. Protestantism was a minority of small congregations. In order to survive and to strengthen the work and life of the church, those hervormde and gereformeerde congregations started working together and in fact became united, even when on the level of the denominations as a whole things took a slower course. In the large cities in the Netherlands churches became minorities. To maintain the presence of the Gospel in the urban environment, congregations started cooperation in urban mission, youth work and pastoral work. In the new part of our country, the polders, the life and work of the churches had to start from the very beginning. The result was new congregations that had never known a divided existence. Being together is for them as natural as being apart had been in the old parts of The Netherlands. In the old parts a migration towards the cities started. Villages and small communities became underpopulated. Rural congregations were not able to maintain a minister and his salary. They started working together and sharing a minister, for the small churches in the countryside had to survive: keep the church alive in the villages!

The result of this continuing process on the congregational level was hundreds of congregations being "together on the way." They have in fact become united, or they are cooperating intensely, or they are taking care of a few essential matters together. There is a wide variety. Together on the Way started as a spontaneous process at the grassroots-level, and that level means variety in itself.

From Federation to Unification

The problems those congregations are facing are not on the congregational level. Their concerns are on the denominational level. For every congregation that is working together has separate obligations to the two gereformeerde and hervormde denominations: different financial systems, different quota, differences in church order, style and work. The denominations as a whole are being challenged from the grassroots: why don't you help us? Why does it take so long to solve the problems you are causing us? Why must we face those bothersome stumbling-blocks?

In the 'seventies the general synods of both of the denominations started the so called "combi-synods." The decisions of the combi-synods had, of course, to be ratified by the separate general synods of the denominations. Both synods and congregations had to work on the basis of federationa maximum of cooperation without giving up their independence. On that federal basis a provisional body of rules for congregations was drafted, to maximize the possibilities of cooperation on the congregational level without giving up the competence of the separate denominations. That provisional body of rules did help, for a while. But for congregations working together, in many instances for over twenty years, it was soon inadequate. They felt united. Young people, attending catechism together, making confession of faith together, suddenly were faced with a denominational question: how do you want to be registered, as gereformeerd or hervormd? In many cases they did not even know in which denomination their fellow church members belonged. They grew up "together on the way." Federation could not be the keyword any more; congregations asked for real unification, including the denominational level.

History, Tradition, Confession

But what about history? What about tradition? What about our ancestors? They made great sacrifices in leaving the old hervormde church. They were even persecuted. Many of them had to emigrate to the United States of America. What about the doctrinal truth, the confessional standards, and liberalism? Is Together on the Way a sign of the relativism in the Netherlands, and a ground for reproach from the other REC member churches towards the GKN? What about, for instance, the articles 28 and 29 of the Confessio Belgica, one of the three forms of unity?

Now we come to a peculiar item. Both denominations have the same three forms of unity. The historical difference is in the manner of upholding those confessional standards. But is it possible to wield the articles 28 and 29 of the Belgic Confession against a sister-church which has the same Confession, even when the distinction between pure and false churches originally was meant against the Roman Catholic Church? Isn't it the tragedy of Reformed protestantism that we began to apply that distinction against other Reformed churches? Article 27 of the same Belgic Confession speaks about being united with heart and will in the same Spirit, by the power of the faith. Is not that catholicity a weak point in our Reformed tradition? To borrow an expression of my friend Henk Weijland: "do we want what we have to will in our Confession?" And does the Westminster Confession in its speaking of "more and less pure churches" give a little bit more latitude for catholicity? The Westminster Confession is included in the "body of truth" in article 2 of the REC constitution.

Those questions are real and not easy to face. For we have to re- examine our own history and tradition critically. Critically, also towards ourselves. For our grandchildren will be our judges. We do respect our ancestors and the choices they had to make: for them there was no other possibility than to leave the old church and to uphold the Reformed faith in a new, truly Reformed, church. And the elders, deacons, ministers and schoolteachers of that truly Reformed church had to subscribe to the three forms of unity. Our ancestors did hope there would be no doctrinal trouble in their new church, which they didn't intend to be new, but a continuation of the true, old Reformed church without the liberal tendencies of the Enlightenment.

But, looking back at the end of our century to our history and tradition, as we have come to know it, we are being challenged by a question: Why is it that there is no church in The Netherlands that has known more doctrinal troubles and divisions than our GKN? After the (not complete!) unification of 1892 we had a break-up in 1926 (the Geelkerken-issue) and at the end of the Second World War the Liberation (Vrijmaking): we lost a part of our church, and afterwards we can't really explain why that was necessary. Those splitswere they only caused by human sin, aberration, and shortsightedness? In that case the concept of the truly Reformed church, as our ancestors saw it, remains out of range and is not in danger. But could it be possible that the splits and divisions in that church were being caused by the concept of that church itself? The concept that applied the distinction between true and false church to Reformed sisters and brothers of the same house? That isn't relativism, for relativism never puts the question to itself. It is what being Reformed is all about, the question: Is our church a church as Jesus Christ meant it to be by his Word and Spirit?

The Times, They are a-Changin'

Do we see the GKN as a failed experiment? No, for we remain grateful for the many gifts and miracles that our Lord has granted us. But that does not mean we are infallible in our history and tradition. We have to answer the question: what is a true church? Does a true church always have to be a very small church, without having much impact on society as a whole?

The old hervormde church didn't want to have a narrow church concept. They wanted to be the whole church for the whole people. Therefore the hervormde church had to take a lot of latitude into the bargain. Doctrinal discipline was not applied, for that would endanger the broad church concept. But in the Second World War a miracle took place: the old, broad, silent and powerless church began to speak against the injustice of the German oppression and the deportation of our Jewish citizens. And after the war the renewal in the hervormde church continued. Instead of the old body of church rules, established by the government (!) in the last century (one of the reasons for our ancestors to leave the old church), rules that made the church silent and powerless to deal with contemporary challenges, the hervormde church accepted in 1951 a new church order. Not a clean body of rules, but a truly Reformed confessional church order, in which is described in no uncertain terms what the church of Jesus Christ and also the hervormde church is all about and what the ministry of the church is meant to be. Doctrinal discipline was applied, but not against persons; the church issued very clear and confessional statements on various items. Could discipline be working in a centripetal way, instead of having centrifugal effects?

Looking back, some people state that the Together on the Way process could have started in 1951. But it took our churches over ten years to notice that both of the churches had changed toward each other. In the GKN we had to deal with the aftershocks of the split in the church in 1944 and come to a new understanding of the ministry of our church in society. Both the narrow church concept of the GKN and the broad and vague church concept of the hervormde church had changed in a new direction. A new kinship became possible and necessary.

Is the process a pragmatica and relativistic one? Certainly not. Of course, I cannot in a short article, which had to be written in a very short time frame, describe the many discussions and studies about the confession, the doctrine, the attempts to shortcircuit the old dilemma between the truth and the unity of the church. Many studies and documents have been published and discussed in the congregations of both of the denominations. The congregations had to be consulted, to avoid a (non-Reformed) "top-down-effect." But the documents were approved by the majority of the congregations and finally in the "combi-synod" in 1986. "We are in a state of unification," synod stated. There is no going back possible behind the agreements we have and share about the gospel and the Church of Jesus Christ.

Lutheran Participation

The same "combi-synod" made another, very important decision. The Lutheran Church in The Netherlands is a very small, minority church. The Dutch Lutherans faced big problems about the survival of the tradition, life and work of their church. After long deliberations they asked to participate in the Together on the Way process. Their request changed the process into a truly ecumenical, interesting process. The re-unification of two Reformed churches could be described as an "ecumenical chimney-fire": lots of smoke and confusion, but hardly newsworthy. But the unification of three churches and two Protestant traditions is a challenge.

The Lutheran church in the Netherlands is a very small church. But worldwide there are more Lutheran than Calvinist believers. What have those two traditions to contribute to one another? We didn't intend to simply "take over" a small church, or take it along in our process. We intended to answer a truly ecumenical challenge: Could Calvinist and Lutheran believers become united? The "Leuenberg agreement" was a big help. After intense doctrinal discussions the old damnations between Lutherans and Calvinists have been revoked. The Dutch churches participated in that European process. Could the "Leuenberg agreement" become a basis for uniting the different traditions? Could we accept the three forms of unity and the Confessio Augustana as confessional standards for the uniting church, with the "Leuenberg agreement" as a bridge? Like the "body of truth" concept in the institution of the REC?

Complications

But the process also became more complicated. The GKN favored a "growth-model." Local congregations should be able to unite with local congregations of the other denominations. The GKN has always put emphasis on the life and work of the local congregations. The name of our church is plural: "Reformed Churches in The Netherlands." The uniting of local congregations would not affect the denomination as a whole, if only there would be a very open and technical church order, which could be gradually expanded. But the hervormde church could not accept the "growth-model." The name of that church is singular: "Netherlands Reformed Church." And a part of the church, i.e. a congregation, cannot unite without affecting the denomination as a whole.

Moreover, the hervormde church had noticed the big advantages of a truly confessional church order. Within that church the church-order is in fact functioning as a fourth form of unity. The GKN objection: "We don't need a confessional church order, for our faith is stated in the creeds of the church" lost credibility. For what have Reformed churches all over the world done about "upgrading" their confessional creeds? An open "growth-model" church order would look fine, but what will the ecclesiology of the united church be? And a "growth-model" church order could be life threatening for the Lutheran input: it could become fragmentized and eventually vanish. Therefore, after long and sometimes severe debate, the decision was made: we will draft a new, confessional church order for the new united church. What will be its ecclesiological description? On the basis of that new church order the final decision to unite the denominations could be made in the future.

Opposition

I won't conceal there was some opposition against the decisions the "combi-synod" made. Not as much in the GKN as in the hervormde church. In the hervormde church there is a "Reformed Alliance,"established at the beginning of this century. That Alliance intends to spread the truth of the gospel within the hervormde church, but in spite of the liberal tendencies in that church, never intended to leave the church. The Alliance rejects the "principle of secession" and is always trying to see God's faithfulness towards his Church in the low countries; a church, not founded by us, but planted by him in his grace. To leave that church is breaking away from God's faithfulness and therefore disobedience. Together on the way with a church founded on the principle of secession is a rejection of the faith that the Alliance upheld, even in the darkest years of the hervormde church. Moreover, a unification with the GKN would weaken the position of the Alliance within the church. The Alliance disregards the old hervormde principle: "Together we became ill, together we have to get well again."

Perhaps some people even thought: "Drafting a new, ecclesiological and confessional church order, together with the GKN and the Lutherans? They'll never get the job done..."

A New Church Order

The Synods appointed a small committee of thirteen people: theologians, pastors, and church-order specialists. I had the privilege of being part of that committee. The committee faced several problems. To give an example: the Lutheran church in the Netherlands does not have elders like the Reformed churches. So we had to re-examine our tradition. We have always thought: in the Calvinist tradition the pastor is only an elder with a teaching ministry. But studying Calvin again, we discovered that it is not true. Calvin saw the elders as assistants to the ministers (please be careful in telling your elders!). Therefore, a deadlock between Lutheran and Calvinist tradition could be avoided.

But how do you unite three denominations with all their congregations? Should the emphasis be on the denomination or on the local congregations? Or could the new course be described as an ellipse with two focal points: the local congregations and the denomination? You cannot force a local congregation to unite, because denominations plan to be united. Not only because of the opposition of the Reformed Alliance, but theologically, because in the congregation, not in the denomination, the ministry of the Word and the Sacraments is taking place. Could the problem be solved by applying the following principle? Every congregation is free to find its tempo of unification; there will even be congregations that won't unite for a very long time. Nevertheless, even those congregations are part of a united denomination and will meet the other denominations in the classis. So there will be united congregations, congregations living on a federal basis, congregations with little cooperation with other congregations, and congregations that do not plan to unite for a long time. But in the classis and in the synod the community of the congregations and their responsibility and accountability toward one another and toward the denomination will find their places.

The committee met and studied intensely for 1-1/2 years. But they got the job done, and very gratefully presented the draft for a new church order at the "trio-synod" (a new word, that became necessary because of the Lutheran participation in the Together on the Way-process). Of course, there were many questions to answer. And the opposition of the Reformed Alliance became more intense. Spokesmen of the Alliance declared the draft church order first too congregationalistic; when that objection didn't hold water, they thought the draft church order too liberal; when the draft was amended in the "trio-synod" they declared themselves to be against the Together on the Way-process as such. The Alliance at the moment is pleading for the continuation of the old hervormde church, even if the majority of the synod and of the congregations are in favor of uniting.

The draft was accepted by the "trio-synod" and the separate synods, and presented to the classes and the congregations. Many comments were made, and many questions had to be answered. Shortly the "trio-synod" will examine the comments and make a decision whether to accept the draft church order or not. In the meantime the committee was instructed to draft the more technical rules for the church order. The draft church order was also translated into English and German and has been made available to all ecumenical partners of the GKN. Their comments, which are being received gratefully, are being evaluated at the moment. And the position of ecumenical partners and ecumenical bodies has been made clear: every ecumenical partnership and ecumenical body, in which the separate denominations are participating, will be taken along in the new church. So the new United Protestant Church in The Netherlands will be a member of the REC and the Lutheran World Federation.

Other aspects of the process at this moment are more technical. How do you unite the organizations of the separate denominations on a regional and national level? What should be done about personnel matters, and where will a new central office be located? I do not think I should bother you with those technical matters. They are complicated, and solving the problems will take a long time. For the opposition of the Alliance is continuing and time-consuming. At the moment the Reformed Alliance is considering its own position towards the "principle of secession."

Conclusion

But paper doesn't make a church a living one, a church that upholds the truth of the gospel in unity. Without personal faith and spiritual life no unification can succeed or be a blessed endeavor. We are encouraged by our South African sisters and brothers in their perseverance towards unity. But in The Netherlands divisions in the churches are more common than unification. The GKN was born from a unification in the last century. In this century and in the next one we do need the support and the continuing prayers of our brothers and sisters all over the world, to keep the process going in a spiritual and not a technical way.