Aaron Vriesman

Course Paper

Christian Reformed Church History 332

November 5, 2004

 

 

The birth of the Christian Reformed Church is considered to be April 8, 1857, when four letters of secession were read at the Classis Holland meeting. These four letters claimed that the Reformed Church in America[1] (hereafter RCA) was no longer a true church of Jesus Christ and thereby secession from the RCA was incumbent. Why did the secession occur? What were the contributing factors of secession? How does the secession of 1857 impact matters today? In this paper I will attempt to answer these questions. In the first section I will outline the key historical events leading up to April 8, 1857. In the second section I will explore the causes of the secession, and in the final section I will explore the impact of the 1857 secession leading up to 2004. 

 

            There is widespread agreement among historical scholars that the secession of 1857 has its roots in the Netherlands and the secession of 1834. Many of the Dutch immigrants who settled in West Michigan before 1857 were seceders from the Reformed Church in the Netherlands (Hervormde Kerk) in 1834. The Reformed Church in the Netherlands had been in serious doctrinal and numerical decline since the Synod of Dordt in 1618-1619. The Enlightenment had infiltrated the Reformed Church in the Netherlands and the Enlightenment principles of reason and rationalism, individualism and democracy, deism and universalism overcame those established at Dordt. The government took over the administration, financing, and leadership of the church so that the king directly or indirectly dictated these matters. The Form of Subscription was altered in such a way that persons entering the ministry could honestly adhere to the subscription and not agree with the Reformed Confessions. As a result, Arminians and other heterodox persons entered the ministry. The predominant theology placed reason over faith and viewed the church as an institution to merely instill morality (based on reason) in the people. This was the situation that led to the secession of 1834. 

The seceders of 1834 agreed that the Reformed Church in the Netherlands was a false church and that a return was needed to the principles of the true church. But the seceders of 1834 were not of the same mind as regarding how the church should “return” to its true principles. Three factions emerged from among the 1834 seceders, and the battle lines drawn from two of these factions would form the lines of division in 1857.[2] 

            First, the “northern right” party of the 1834 secession wanted to fully return to the doctrine, liturgy, and polity of the Synod of Dordt.[3] The “northern right” party was the most conservative, primarily concentrated in the northern provinces of the Netherlands where the 1834 secession had originated. The second group, the “southern center” party, were “more broad-minded, inclusive, and even-tempered.” The “southern center” party was primarily concentrated in the southern provinces and did not “glory in the secession” of 1834, but rather “longed to return to the national church.”[4] The third group, the “Scholte left” party, followed the ideas of Hendrik Scholte. Scholte was the most rebellious of the 1834 secessionists. Scholte sought to have “no creed but the Bible,”[5] thereby rejecting Reformed theology and polity. Scholte instead adopted premillenialism and congregationalism. 

In the 1840s, Netherlanders began to immigrate to America. 79 percent of these immigrants were 1834 secessionists,[6] wanting to get away from the fines and jail time the government was imposing on seceders who left the state church. Entire church communities immigrated with their pastors. A large Dutch settlement emerged in West Michigan and churches immediately sprang up, forming Classis Holland. The most prominent of these churches was in Holland and led by Albertus Van Raalte, who was of the “southern center” faction. In 1850, Van Raalte wrote a letter on behalf of Classis Holland to the Synod of the RCA. The letter was signed by a number of ministers and elders from Classis Holland, but some ministers and elders of the “northern right” persuasion had not signed the document. Nevertheless, the letter was sent to the RCA synod and in 1850 Classis Holland was admitted. Four of the eight congregations constituting Classis Holland in 1850 did not sign the letter,[7] and each absent church would secede by 1857. Shortly after Classis Holland was admitted into the RCA, bad reports about the RCA theology and practice began to circulate in West Michigan. Gysbert Haan was the most notable of these critics and is said to be “the father of the 1857 secession.[8] Haan alleged that the RCA allowed non-Reformed persons participate in the Lord’s Supper, neglected Catechism preaching, sang man-made songs instead of the Psalms, and that some members of the RCA were members of secret societies. Classis Holland’s leadership dismissed Haan’s criticisms. Van Raalte, who was mostly interested in maintaining the 1850 union and “spoke in relativistic terms about the Dutch secession [of 1834],”[9] rendered Haan a “troublemaker” with a bad attitude.[10] In 1856, the Noordeloos congregation was organized north of Holland with Koene Vanden Bosch as their leader and pastor. Vanden Bosch was sympathetic to Haan’s criticisms but, like Haan, Vanden Bosch failed to gain the sympathy of Classis Holland. Shortly thereafter, two pastors (Hendrik G. Klijn[11] of Grand Rapids and Vanden Bosch) and four congregations of Classis Holland (Graafschap, Grand Rapids, Noordeloos, and Polkton) sent letters of secession to be read during the classis meeting on April 8, 1857. Thus, the Christian Reformed Church began.[12]

Vanden Bosch declared in his letter: “I can not hold all of you who have joined the Dutch Reformed Church to be the true church of Jesus Christ…”[13] Polkton’s letter alleged: “Your denomination fraternizes with those who are in opposition to the doctrine of our fathers…”[14] Klijn’s letter was the most gracious. After addressing the recipients “brethren” and offering thanks, Klijn called his fellow churches of Classis Holland to “follow your calling, whereby the Church of Christ may walk in one way, to the glorification of his holy name.”[15] Graafschap’s letter was the only one to give specific charges. Their reasons were essentially the same reasons given by Haan, with one notable addition: “And what grieves our hearts most in all of this is that there are members among you who regard our secession [of 1834] in the Netherlands as not strictly necessary…”[16] The result of the 1857 secession was much pain, and “many tears” were shed.[17] 

 

What were the causes of the 1857 secession? Could the separation have been prevented in any way, or was the secession of 1857 inevitable? Scholars seem to avoid speculation into what might have happened under different circumstances. However, scholars identify similar causes that contributed to secession in 1857. I will now identify and discuss three of these causes:

(1) The union of 1850 between Classis Holland and the RCA was rushed and Classis Holland did not have a thorough consideration of the potential problems and drawbacks of such a union.[18] The fact that half of the Classis churches did not have even one representative signature should have raised a red flag for the leaders of Classis Holland. Also, the division in Van Raalte’s own church should have brought some hesitation. Moreover, the new settlers of Classis Holland hardly knew the RCA’s character or people as a whole. The RCA had been in America for 200 years and their Dutch roots had already entered the melting pot of American religious movements, whereas the new Dutch settlers had just stepped off the boat after leaving a country where new movements (i.e. the Enlightenment) had led the church into excessive compromise so that it was rendered to be a false church. The RCA-Classis Holland acquaintance was primarily based on a few visits by delegates and written information.[19] Moreover, the people of Classis Holland hardly wrote or spoke English, which made dependent on others for information on the RCA. One of Van Raalte’s ex-elders, Abraham Krabshuis, says it most clearly: “It was a sin for us to unite with a people we did not know.”[20]

(2) Classis Holland was itself divided into two different mindsets that developed from the secession of 1834. The “northern right” and the “southern center” factions were both well represented in Classis Holland, each with their own sets of priorities and goals. The “northern right” priority was the integrity of the Dordt Synod of 1618-1619 and their goal was to preserve or return to the theology and polity established at Dordt. By contrast, the “southern center” faction prioritized unity of the church (among other things), and their goal was to achieve such unity even if some minor doctrines or practices had to be compromised. These two factions seem to render the 1857 secession inevitable. By way of commentary, people can generally maintain the bonds of unity when the two joined parties have different personalities or interests, but unity cannot be maintained if there is division about priorities and goals. The different priorities and goals within Classis Holland created two differing mindsets that proved fatal for the unity of Classis Holland.

(3) Not only did Classis Holland have different mindsets, they also had strong personalities leading the two factions that seemed to drive division into high gear. The most notable of these strong personalities was Vanden Bosch of the “northern right” faction. Vanden Bosch’s letter of succession was “biting.”[21] He said the RCA was plagued with “abominable and church-destroying heresy and sins,” and declared that Classis Holland was full of “extreme wickedness.”[22] On another occasion, Vanden Bosch falsely accused Van Raalte of being a member of the freemasons.[23] In 1855, an anonymous letter was sent to Classis Holland and read before the assembly, which contained “the vilest and most malicious slander against Rev. Van Raalte.”[24] The “southern center” faction was not without its moments either. Van Raalte was reputed to have “criticized the attachment to tradition.”[25] When Graafschap presented an objection to the RCA’s use of hymns, Van Raalte gave a brief answer in defense of the RCA and the matter was dropped.[26] When Vanden Bosch first arrived and brought his grievances before the classis meeting, Van Raalte refused to budge an inch: “We will not act on these matters, and in no way will you be able to get us to bring these matters to Synod.”[27] From this, it appears that Classis Holland leaders gave unity a back seat and indulged their own dominant personalities. 

These are three major factors that contributed to the secession of 1857. Whether or not secession could have been avoided is a difficult question. The latter two factors began to emerge long before the Dutch settlers even set foot on American soil. The secession of 1834 had its own history and contributing factors, which cannot be overlooked when hypothesizing about different scenarios for 1857. The strong personalities of Vanden Bosch, Van Raalte, and others also play a major role. A different scenario of 1857 would require significant alterations in these strong personalities. Yet it was their strong leadership that would have led the settlers to America in the first place and inspired them to persevere under the heavy stress of immigration. So it seems wise to avoid an exhaustive speculation about what otherwise might have happened in 1857, following the saying in Ecclesiastes 11:3, “If clouds are full of water, they pour rain upon the earth. Whether a tree falls to the south or to the north, in the place where it falls, there will it lie” (NIV). 

 

I would now like to say a few words regarding the legacy of the 1857 secession. While I do not intend to defend or attack the secession on Biblical or confessional grounds, I would like to suggest that though the RCA and the CRC adhere to the same confessions and share a similar history, the mindset differences of 1857 continued and still continue today, 147 years later. 

It might seem to many observers that the differences of 1857 are completely irrelevant after so many years. It has been suggested that the CRC no longer argues that “Psalm singing, regular catechism preaching, and rigidly closed communion tables mark all true churches.”[28] In addition, the RCA and CRC both hold to the same creeds and confessions, both share many similar geographic locations, and both have a similar history going back to the secession of 1834. Maybe the seceders of 1857 “were completely in error,” as has been alleged,[29] and the CRC should repent and rejoin the RCA. I cannot deny the strong personality of some seceders, such as Vanden Bosch and perhaps Haan, who were overly stubborn and quite inflexible. However, the seceders sensed a different mindset among the RCA, which is evident from all the writings on the 1857 secession. This mindset differed in priorities and goals that were mentioned earlier, and these mindset differences were only sparked by the strong personalities on both sides, not necessarily caused by them. Basically, the seceders saw in the RCA a characteristic that reminded them of the Hervormde Kerk in 1834. With the Hervormde Kerk the seceders learned that the church’s formal doctrines might be orthodox while their spirit and life is heterodox.[30] The seceders of 1857 were not the first to suspect this of the RCA. In 1822, a group of RCA ministers alleged that the RCA had compromised its stance on the Canons of Dordt, even to the extent of denying original sin.[31] This group of ministers seceded and formed the “True Reformed Dutch Church.” The RCA responded by denouncing the secession and claimed that the seceder allegations were false. The RCA may have formally held to the Reformed Confessions in 1822, but do the concerns of the 1822 secessionists suggest something heterodox about RCA spirit and life? 

In 1856, Van Raalte reported to Classis Holland that the phrase “Descended into Hell” from the Apostle’s Creed was placed in parenthesis for the newly adopted form for celebrating the sacraments.[32] While Van Raalte objected to this move, it does not appear that he was at all concerned with the matter. Van Raalte began his report on General Synod by saying that the visit was “reviving of his soul.”[33] Van Raalte and the “southern center” faction appeared to be ready to compromise a great deal on matters that were essential to the “northern right.” In fact, Van Raalte never considered the Reformed Church in the Netherlands to be false, despite the state’s enormous control over the church and the numerous heterodox ministers preaching Arminian and Enlightenment theology. Van Raalte was a true representative of the “southern center” faction, and his legacy lives on in the RCA to this day. 

One example is the “Formula of Agreement” the RCA joined in 1997 with three other denominations. This agreement is one in which the four denominations enter into “full communion” with one another.   This ecumenical move might sound admirable, but through this agreement, the RCA acknowledges the right preaching of the gospel among churches like the United Church of Christ, which favors abortion[34] and advocates for the ordination of practicing homosexuals.[35] This agreement also provides for “the orderly exchange of ordained ministers of Word and Sacrament” with the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, a denomination that denies significant portions of the Reformed Confessions. In the “southern center” spirit of Van Raalte, overlooking such differences on doctrine and practice is part of moving towards ecclesiastical unity. By contrast, the CRC, in the “northern right” spirit of Vanden Bosch, only enters into “ecclesiastical fellowship” with churches that are properly Reformed, and this “ecclesiastical fellowship” involves only “occasional” pulpit fellowship among other things.[36] In addition, the RCA is a founding member of the World Council of Churches, which the CRC did not join because of “its present nature, its inadequate basis, the maintenance and functioning of that basis, its sociopolitical activities and declarations, and the implications of membership in this Council.”[37] The RCA is also a charter member of the National Council of Churches, which the CRC did not join because the Council “includes churches that deny the orthodox faith and scriptural teaching.”[38] 

The “southern center” spirit is still strong in the RCA today even as the “northern right” spirit lives on in the CRC. The RCA continues to overlook differences in doctrine or practice for the sake of greater unity, and the CRC continues to use Reformed doctrine and practice as criteria for churches with which the CRC enters into unity. The priorities and goals of the RCA and the CRC are still different 147 years later, even though similarities abound between them in doctrine, creeds, confessions, geography, and historical background. 

---