A CENTURY o; ECUMENIDCAL AND U‘Nromsr
TENDENGES {N THE REFORMED CHURCH m
AMENCA; 1850-1950

Degree. 0f Ph. D.

A Dissertation for the
Mici-il’GAN STATE umv‘ER-sm
Ernest H Post“, Jr.
1966 ' '

 

ELSKS

 

LIBRARY

Michigan State
University

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

A CENTURY 0F ECUMENICAL AND UNIONIST TENDENCIES IN THE

REFORMED CHURCH IN AMERICA: 1850-1950

Date

0-169

presented by

Ernest H. Post, Jr.

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Who. degree tum

‘.

Major professor

 

5/19/66

 

iv dun. in umfimutmfin} a a

: _ .twflvfiw

:7 ;

 

 

 

 

   

im at Den-ended and Unionist Tendencies in th-e
Mama Church in America: 1850-1950

4'
I:
'n
t
,

i ("8
Ernest am“, Jr.

An Abstréet of a Essertstion
. in l

3 History-

ll
s—uh'r-fiw an partial fulfillment

‘ of the requirements
for the degree of

 

 

 

 

 

‘ theater of Philosophy
{)2‘ April 1966

7 he mehigen State University
to ~- 1. The Graduate School

 

 

 

 

me Reformed Church in America is the current name for the
Netherlands-originated, Calvinist-bred Church planted in New Amsterdam
in 1628. Prior to the period of this study it had Americanized slowly
and consequently grown rather slowly too. Preponderantly a sectional
church located in the States of New York and New Jersey, it still bore
sons traces of previous factionalism.

The key to the century was Western expansion and the crux of
the expansion for the Dutch Reformed Church was a new influx of tens
of thousands of immigrants from the Netherlands. This movement began
iith the arrival in 1847 of the Rev. Albertus C. Van Raalte who
established a colony in Western mchigan. Soon there was a group of
infigrant churches which set an example by uniting with the Dutch
Reformed Churches of New York and New Jersey. It was more than Icin-
slfip which had prompted this initial Union of 1850, for these early
M011 immigrants were mainly seceders from the State Church in the
Netherlands. In the Reformed Protestant Ditch Church they felt they
had found a doctrinally sound Church which could provide the over-
Sight and assistance they so desperately needed.

heir influx assured a Western branch to the Church whose own
initial plantings in the West had not proven very successful, for all
but a few had either died out or transferred to larger more Ameri-
caused denominations. The immigrants and their descendants soon
can to mate the Western section of the Church and by their growth
"'1 '18” gained an ever increasing amount of influence in the denomina-

”-011 as a whole, until today they occupy many of its most responsible

 

 

 

 

2
positions of leadership. Some of the imflgrants also settled in the
East and added a new ingredient to that section of the Church.

the schisnatic background of the new arrivals and their con-
cern for orthodoxy, as they understood it, led to two schisms within
the Western branch. Out of these schisms of the 1850s and 18805
energed the Christian Reformed Church whose active competition for the
allegiance of new Ditch immigrants was instrumental in shaping the
character of the Western branch of the older Dutch Reformed Church.
Ibis branch, in order to strengthen its position, established educa-
tional institutions and showed an affinity for fundamentalism and
revivalisn. It soon became evident that there was developing a
dichotow of interests and views between the older and newer sections
of the (lurch.

Until after World War II the denomination made little effort
to reach out and establish churches for those who were not of a Dutch
or a Reformed Church background. An exception was an active program
01’ Iissions which early produced various degrees of inter-denounationel
°°'°P°1‘ation. Already in the latter half of the nineteenth century
indifldual members actively supported various Bible and tract societies
‘8 well as non-denominational organizations like the Y.H.C.A. The
denomination established fraternal correspondence willingly with other
denounations and lent its support to the Evangelical Alliance and the
world-wide Presbyterian Alliance. The activities of such interdenonina-
um“- ”mutations and the world missionary gatherings 110113“! “811'?
in the Modern ecunemcal movement whose nominal birth is frequently
“wasted with the 1910 Edinburgh World Missionary Conference. The
Mom couneu of Churches of Christ in America and its successor, the

342:2.

‘ O“)!
E

‘ r_.‘1

‘N

O
.0 e‘

31':

'e1

3
letionel Council of Churches of Christ, are national personifications

of that movement which seeks a oneness of witness of the Church of

 

Jesus Garist throughout the world. The Reformed Church, a charter
member of each of these ecumenical organizations, also Joined the
important World Council of Churches formally founded in 19'48. Yet

not all the sections of the Church have had their heart in this movement,
especially when it has seemed to imply the necessity for organic union
of the denominational divisions of Christ's earthly Church.

Large sections of the Eastern branch have been ready for a
selective union for some time but the West has generally been adamant
in its opposition to all unions since the Union of 1850. While the
Reformed Church participated in relatively few serious union efforts,
since the 1870-75 approaches each has served to emphasize the dichotomy
within the Church. In the aforementioned approaches the problem of the
broersburg Theology helped prevent serious negotiations with the
Reformed Church in the United States (German Reformed), and the fear
of absorption negated further talks with the Northern Presbyterians,
while an innocuous and ineffective plan of co-operation was agreed
upon with the Southern Presbyterians. Once again in the period 1929-31
the Northern Presbyterians evidenced an interest in a union of the two
churches, but despite the willingness of a few Eastern Classes, the
threat of absorption again precluded the discussion of any type of a
union plan.

In only two instances in one hundred years had this cautious
denomination presented union plans for the approval of its lower
courts and each time Western opposition proved to be the largest

obstacle. In each case the proposed partner would have provided a

as ‘ A

 

'-

It

 

 

 

4

bridge for the geographical gap between the sections of the diurch.
After six years of negotiations, in 1892 a Plan of Federal Union was
drawn up with the German Reformed Church. This plan was approved by
the necessary two-thirds of the Classes in each Church but through a
technicality, a Pan-Presbyterian distraction and the vigorous threat of
schism by elements in the West, union was circumvented. Again in the
period l9'4-b-50 careful negotiations were carried out with the United
Presbyterian Church of North America which produced a detailed plan of
organic union containing a local option clause. The acceptance of a
new multiple three-fourths voting regulation suggested by a Western
pastor, coupled with a solid vote of rejection by the sixteen Western
masses, insured the defeat of the proposed union. In each approach
much of this opposition stemmed from a fear of liberalism in the
membership of the negotiating denominations and the fear that the
distinct Ditch Reformed heritage and mission would be lost. Such
negative thinking about what the Church might lose rather than what it
might bring to a union, as well as the disunity within the negotiating
bodies and tactical errors in the procedures employed for achieving
union contributed to these defeats.

The Reformed Church in America has evidenced a consistent
fillingness to co-operate with other denominations and even to court
with them in union negotiations but owing largely to the one union it
did achieve in 1850 it probably will never unite again. Nevertheless,
the idea of a union has refused to die and since 1962 the Church has
been negotiating with the Southern Presbyterians. Whatever the outcome
of this approach it is unlikely that the Church can long maintain both
its current distinct identity and its present degree of unity.

The mchigan State University
he Graduate School

   

A Century of Ecumenical and Unionist Tendendes in the
Reformed Church in America: 1850-1950

A dissertation
byt
Q“- ‘5
finest H. Post, Jr.

Submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements
for the degree of

 
 
 
 
  

Doctor of Philosophy
April, 1966

 

Y-.——‘--- - 7.-- ‘w‘ ll"('-‘Vt"'"_"l_"':‘

  

......-...Il.

   
  
   
 
   
   
 
 
 
   
  
   
 
 
 
  
  
   

We; .0 . .

' . m Re 4...". A
. 1. file #025:qu '
‘ ~ The f’xrnv-J

n. mafia-aw ‘ -_ _
ARK-Lin ..... ..

Pro~'.Ll'>“ n . ‘

35, The Swat: .2! . :' '.

‘ P188011; (.9 :"" .’ " .x~':u‘

, Emmerich, 'Zr' ‘. - .. -

1 - Midsuston, I . »' . . - , H ' ’ V .
Go-opex-etfm n.

Pudglivr 1“.” ' - n. \I 'r» 'It'5
Wittma .’ ' '.’-‘:<: H "T- ‘

Insmxm'x-‘z'. " “ . 1.6.“: ». )-’ '"I’i' . .. “9 '1
-“ file Dev Dunc 1. Ha r!

m Mon: Ito ‘ . ‘r I“ _'C s'e'ir‘ ~~-r’rwt§ot u
Mr to 4639'771ut.‘ »: , ‘- :‘A' » ”an 11"",15) -';
”Wm: 11‘ 9-117.- ‘::'!;.' a; -L 3‘ - .4. '
Wants a 1.5. La. ‘95». norm. 1:72.15? , ' I
er. ‘.. 'rv‘ iv in. Cm. (Wanna, lhflkke)

    
  

‘ Writing of It» ."‘ec'.y*er.‘.¢n (ohm-:2
”out!” on the Foreign Msm’on Fields

_mmmx wanna} I“

I.& ma. (Gel-Inn Referred) Approaehed
me on Union

d Federll Union Accepted
‘flete

We“ in 159a and 189‘)

holy"

 
   

TABLE OF CONTENTS

MACE 00......000000IOOOOOOOOOOOOIO0.0.00000000000000IOOOOOOOO

Chapter
I. Name" O.C.OOOOOOOOOOOOIOOIOOOOOIOOOOOOOOCIOOOOIOO

The R.C.A. in 1850
The Westward Advance
The Ecumenical Movement

II. THE REFORMED CHURCH BACKGROUND: NEWS AND

W“ I...COOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOI....QOOCOOOOOOOOOOOO

Pro-1619 Church Organization

The Synod of Dort and Aftermath

Planting the Church in New Netherlands
Education, Ordination, and Revivalism
Livingston, Father of the Church (1766-1825)
(Jo-operation and Schism

Fledgling Union with the German Reformed Fails
Conditions in the Netherlands (1792-1850)

III. THE SUCCESSFUL UNION AND ITS AFTERMATH: 1850-1886 eeeee

The New Dutch Imdgrants
“he Union: Its Importance and Schisnatic By—Product
Nadir to Reapproachment, German Reformed (1853-710
Presbyterians and Pan-Presbyterian
Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. (North, 1870-75)
Presbyterian Church in the 11.5. (South, 1870-803)
Beginning of the Presbyterian Alliance
Relations on the Foreign fission Fields

H. mm WWW: 1886.1893 .0.00000000000000000000CO

R.C.U.S. (German Reformed) Approached
1888 Conference on Union

Goal of Federal Union Accepted

The Debate

Tho Voting in 1892 and 1893

Failure Analysed

 

 

 

THE INCREASING ECUMENICAL IMPETUS: 1893-19” eeeeeeeeee

Continuing Interchurch Co—operation
leadership in the Council of Reformed Churches
Federal Council of Churches Participation
Unsuccessful Union Agitation

R.C.U.S. Preoccupied

Northern Presbyterians Rebuffed
Prelude to World Council of Churches Membership
The Controversy Over Orthodozw

THE UNITED PRESBXTERIAN APPROACH: 1944-1950 ...........

the United Presbyterian Initiative

Early Hopes and Progress

Opposition and Delay

The Revised Plans of Union

Final Presentation and Debate

Adverse Decision of the Lower Judicatories
Summary of Rejection

CONWSION 0......00I0.0.00.00.000.00....0...‘..........

mmm .0...COOOOOO0.0...0.0.0.0000...COOOOOOOOOOOCOIOOCOC

1%

19k

26 9
280

 

a a
ale
7, I
per.

‘O‘\A
60.1

I.‘

 

 

PREFACE

While there are several twentieth century histories of the
Reformed Church in America they have normally been written as brief
introductory works for the use of catechism or Sunday school classes.
This Church has produced no serious historian comparable to the nine-
teenth century's Edward T. Corwin. A Manual of the Reformed Quroh
in America, which he initiated, is now in the process of being up-
dated after the passage of more than forty years, yet a great deal
remains to be done. The official histories of the Church's boards
remain to be written and many areas of its social and intellectual
attitudes in relationship to our developing nation remains to be
explored in depth. This study is an attempt to make a beginning in
this research through an investigation of the Church's ecumenical and
unionist tendencies.

The author wishes to record his appreciation and gratitude
for the guidance and encouragement provided by Dr. Harold Bond Fields
of the Department of History of mchigan State University. 1319 co-
operation of severd librarians greatly facilitated the research and
writing of this dissertation. Especially helpful was the assistance
of the Rev. Peter N. Vanden Berge and staff at the Gardner Sage
library, New Brunswick Theological Seminary and the invaluable usage
of this library's Church Union file and archives of the Reformed
Church. has Mildred Schuppert and staff at the Beardslee library,
Western heological Seminary as well as Mrs. Anne Catlin and staff

iii

 

 

iv
at the Beeghly library, Juniata College proved both interested and co-
operative. Row access to the resources of the rhetorical Society of
the Evangelical and Reformed Church, the Lancaster Theological Sounary
library and the Pittsburgh Theological Seminary library was granted
respectively by Miss Elizabeth Kieffer, Dr. George H. Brisker and
Dr. James S. Irvine.

An indebtedness to Dr. Lester J. Kuyper for making available
his collection of papers covering the entire period of union negotia-
tions from 1945-50 can be only inadequately expressed. To the
officers of the Church, its clergy, seminary presidents and faculty
members, those both acknowledged and unacknowledged in the following
pages who in any way-helped, the author would express his thanks.
this must apply also to Dr. Don H. Yoder of the University of

Pennsylvania and may others outside the Church.

 

 

 

CHAPTER I
IN'IRODUCTION

The mid-nineteenth century proved to be a landmark in the
history of the Calvinist-bred Reformed Church in America.1 This
Church, begun in New Amsterdam and based predominantly in New York and
New Jersey, had slowly become Americanized during its previous 222
years of continuous ministry in North America. Now it embarked on a
century of expansion and internal development during a period denoted
by the great development and expansion of both the United States of
America and the worldwide Christian movement. "In a young country like
the United States, any institution, civic or ecclesiastical, that has a
continuous existence of well nigh two hundred years, is worthy of
record."2 If such a statement has validity the recording of a century
of the history of an institution currently over 330 years old is
Justified.

The Reformed Church in America in 1850 was a smell Protestant

denomination in a nation where official church membership was not always

 

lune current name for the Church had been adopted in 1867.
Its official designation in 1850, at the beginning of this study, was
the Reformed Protestant mtch Church. The Dutch Reformed Church or
even the Dutch Church were unofficial appelations used during much of
the period and will upon occasion appear on the following pages.

23. n. J. Klein, A mates; of the Estern med of the Reformed
M in the thited States Lancaster, Pa.: Eastern Synod, 1 3 ,
Preface. The Rev. Klein's history deals with the formation and growth
of what formerly was known as the German Reformed Church.

1

 

2
practicable or highly regarded. Only an estimated 15 per cent of the
nation's 23,200,000 population were members of Christian churches; of
this number, 33,500 were communicant members of the Dutch Reformed Chm'ch.
Historically, the most important aspect of the next one hundred years for
this church was its expansion into the West.

About the time the Methodist and Presbyterian missionaries helped
blaze the Oregon Trail, this Dutch Church finally crossed the Allegheny
Mountains and organized a church at Fairview, Illinois. has year the
North and South compromised politically to permit California to enter the
Union as the thirty-first state, the Reformed Protestant Dutch Church
negotiated the important union that brought the immigrant Holland Glassis,
centered around Holland, Michigan, into its ro1d.3 Thus, while "West"
meant West Coast to the people of the United States in 1850, to the Dutch
Reformed Church it meant Illinois and Michigan. This two thousand mile
lag in respective spheres showed how drastically this forerunner of
American Protestant denominations had failed to keep pace with the
challenge of the American frontier and the expanding American population
growth.

Before the end of the nineteenth century the Reformed Chm'ch in
America had pushed its limited frontier out into the Dakotas, only to

 

3The incorporation of these and succeeding inmdgrant congrega-
tions assumed additional importance when the initial plantings, en-
couraged and aided by the Reformed Church Board of Domestic Missions,
failed to prosper. By 1850 the Classes of Illinois and Michigan, in
existence since 18H1, had recorded the names of sixteen churches of
which eleven were still on the Church's roll. 01‘ the first twenty-one
congregations organised within these early Western Classes all but four
eventually died out or transferred to other larger and more Americanized
denominations. See the yearly Acts and Proceflgs of the General Synod
of the ormed Protestant Dutch Church in North America New York:

la; 8 5

Reformed Protestant Dutch Church, 2-1 50 t of. Elton H. Eenigenburg,

A Riot Risto of the Reformed Church in America (Grand Rapids, Mich:
Douma Publications,|1958 I ), p. 76.

3
find that the United States Census Bureau had already declared the American
frontier non-existent. 0n the world scene the picture was different. The
{ Reformed Church had found it easier to carry the Gospel to Asia than to
their non-Dutch neighbors at home. Frequently in conjunction with others
but also on its own initiative, the Reformed Church in America had planted
missions in Arabia, Borneo, Ceylon, China, India and Japan.

In the twentieth century, during the interval following the re-
vivalism of Dwight Moody, Ira Sankey, Billy Sunday, and preceding the
crusades of Billy Graham, this incompletely Americanized church had reached
the West Coast. The Church's geographical and physical growth during
these one hundred years proportionately strengthened its Western branch
in relation to its Eastern branch. The introduction into the membership
01' the Church of a stream of Dutch immigrants with a schismatic background

in the Netherlands led to new internal stresses. Their professed seal

1'0? doctrinal purity and Dutch heritage led the Western branch to adopt

’11 isolationist attitude as well as a receptivity to revivalism and
rmItilmmentalism. This zeal proved inadequate to prevent schisms in the 18505
“‘1 18808 within the Western branch itself and it almost developed a
dichotony within the Reformed Church. As the Rev. Herman Hamelink
d9'cribed this situation, "the old Eastern and the newer Western branches
°t the church live together and work together within the same household

in a somewhat uneasy, but also perhaps somewhat healthy tension.”

By 1950, along with other Protestant denominations, the Church
h‘d witnessed an internal struggle concerning "Modernism”, and a
decnmng interest in its Sunday School and catechistic instructional

\

“Christian Unity and Church Union: a Study of the Ecumenical
‘pproach of the Reformed Church in America" (unpublished M. S. T.
dissertation, Union Theological Seminary, 1964), p. 5.

 

 

programs. The country, now 150,700,000 strong, found 53 per cent of its

1,

citizens professing church membership. The Reformed Church in America
had grown to over 183,000 communicant members, gathered into 763 churches,
organized into 42 classes, serviced by 88h ministers. It received guidance
from a group of professional administrative officers and support from
three colleges and two theological seminaries.5

The great population growth and increasing desire for church
membership had raised one central question: ”In providing for the growing
religious needs of the United States, shall the various churches work
singly or together?"6 How did the Reformed Church in America respond to
these ecumenical and unionist opportunities that arose within the United
States during these one hundred years?7

The word ”ecumenical" has today become a common word in the
vocabulary of ever increasing numbers of people both in the United States
and throughout the world. Its current vogue owes much to the meetings of
the Vatican II Councils and the gatherings of the world Council of

Churches. The word derives from the Greek word ”oikoumene" by which they

 

5Though the number of communicant members in the Reformed Church
in America remained in almost the same ratio to the total national popu-
lation during this one hundred year period, it declined relative to the
number of church members in the nation. In 1850 it contained approximately
0.96 per cent of the estimated church members in the United States while
by 1950 this figure had fallen to about 0.23 per cent.

6Howard G. Hageman, Lily Among the Thorns (New York: Curriculum
Committee of the Board of Education of the Reformed Church in America,
1953), Po 139.

7This study concentrates mainly on the Uhited States because on
the Afro-Asian mission fields it had become less a question of whether
one would work singly, and more a question to what extent one would co-
operate. at. Norman Goodall, The Ecumenical Movement: What It Is and
Nhat It Does (2d ed.; london: Oxford university Press, 15655, pp. 33:39.

.x’ f

 

 

 

 

5
referred to "the whole inhabited werldm§ This word also appears

fifteen times in the New Testament, usually in a geographic sense.
After the fall of Rome it apparently acquired the Christian connotation
of representing the whole of the Christian church. The Reformation
shattered this concept but the world wide missionary endeavors and the
various interdenominational gatherings of the nineteenth century helped
resurrect the word. Today it has again become almost synonymous with
Christian unity and universality. '

Presently the word is seldom employed alone, mainly being used
in the context of the "ecumenical movement." Martin Marty's definition
of the ecumenical as ”the movement or spirit which seeks to find and show
forth the oneness of Jesus Christ's Church in the whole world"9 is a
rather typical definition. The beginning of the modern ecumenical move-
ment is frequently attributed to the 1910 World Missionary Conference
at Edinburgh, Scotland.10 The three major movements emanating from this
conference, Faith and Order, life and Work, and the International
fissionary Council, have since found union within the World Council of
Churches. Though the World Council of amurches appears at the focal
point of this movement, there are additional ecumenical organisations of
an international and interdenominational character which extend down to

the local churches.n Ecumenism to some members of the clergy is the

 

a’Ruth Rouse and Stephen C. Neill (ed. ), A Histo of the Ecumen-
ical Movement: lfilz-lgfi (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, I935).
p. 735 ff. lists and explains seven historical uses of this term.

9Church Unit and Church Mission (Grand Rapids, Mich: m. B.
lard-an Publishing Company, 1 , p. 13.

1°Rouse and Neill, op. an, p. mi.

uThe Reformed Church in America, a charter member of the World
Council of Glurches, participates in the Alliance of Reformed Churches

 

A

 

 

 

6

most dynamic force in Christianity today, a force which even its

opponents are compelled to notice. “me literature on the movement
has grown so voluminous that bibliographies on its various facets are
now being published.12

The Reformed Church in America is based on a reformer who was
stilling to cross ten seas to heal the divisions in Protestantism, one
whose “passion for ecumenical unity induced an ecclesiastical tolerance
that was unusual in his day and is still distasteful to many who profess
themselves Christians."13 The Reformed Church historian Edwurd r. Corwin
described his Church as one which "cheerfully recognized all evangelical
Christians as brethren in Christ. . . . It has ever been among the
foremost in organising and supporting all the great union societies for
evangelistic publication or work. "11" This statement has continued to
remain true during the twentieth century, though not without protest
against the enlarged programs of some ecumenical bodies. In 1962 a
section in its annual budget was labelled "Ecumenical Appropriations”
(now termed ”Support of Inter-Church Relations"). Yet this Church has

 

Throughout the World Holding the Presbyterian System of Government,
The National Council of Churches of Christ in the U.S.A., and various
united church and interdenominational mission efforts on the world
mission scene.

12Paul A. Crow, Jr., The Ecumenical Movement in Bibliogaph—
ical Outline (New York: Department of Faith and Order, National

council of Clmrchee, 1965).

13.1ohn 1'. McNeill, The Risto and Character of Calvinism
(New York: Odord University Press, 19555, p. 229.
“A Manual of the Reformed Church in America (hth ed.; New

York: Board of Publication of the Reformed Church in America, 1902),
p. 285.

 

 

 

7
had an ambivalent attitude toward the ecumenical movement. A sub-

structure to this drawing together through large ecumenical organiza-
tions is the closer union and not mere cooperation of two or more of the
divisions of Christ's earthly church.

The Church's attitude toward union, since the incorporation of
the Holland Classis in 1850 and the development of a Western branch, has
fluctuated only in the warmth and duration of the courtship, but the
outcome has always been the same. During the one hundred years from
1850-1950, only two union approaches reached the important stage of a
vote by the Classes, and both ended in defeat. Despite this unfavorable
precedent from the past, the Reformed Church in America is again deeply
involved in union negotiations. The advocates of this union with the
Presbyterian Church in the United States have approximately three years
in which to correct the tactical errors of previous negotiations, to
overcome the fears of the opposition, and to deal with the "rule or

ruin” threat by elements primarily prevalent within the Western branch
of the Church.

 

 

CHAPTER II
THE WORKED CHURCH BACKCROUND: NETHERLANDS AND AMERICA

Understanding the Reformed Church in America during the period
from 1850 to 1950 requires some knowledge of its history both in the
Netherlands and in America. This is true whether one considers this
Gaurch in its entirety or by its geographical areas, for Dutch immigrants
have played a vital role in its growth and development. Yet the Reformed
faith, the basis for this Church, did not originate in the Netherlands
and once it reached the Low Countries it did not initially receive an
enthusiastic reception.1

Missionaries had established the first Christian church in the
Netherlands in the eighth century and in less than a century had spread
their religion over the entire country. By 1517 the way had been pre-
pared for a reforming faith, but conditions among the Ditch were not con-
ducive to the innediate acceptance of Protestantism. The teachings of
the Reformers had much in common with the teachings of a previous local
movement, ”The Brethren of the Comon life." This preaching and teaching

movement was founded by Gerhard de Groot in 1378 at Deventer. His

 

1The Netherlands of this time consisted of 17 provinces which
encompassed most of the present day Netherlands and the present day
Belgium, an area still referred to as the Low Countries. These provinces
were culturally divided with the hitch in the North, the French-speaking
Walloons in the South and the Flemish in between. The northern half has
frequently been called Holland, though technically the name belongs to
but a single province.

‘

 

 

9

pietistically motivated disciples gave name to the movement when they
pooled their resources and lived in common. Their objective was to
lead a moral life, do good and revive the desire for learning through
the providing of schools and teachers. The New Testament, read in the
vernacular, provided their main guide for living and text for study.
Erasmus, one of their pupils, supplemented their labors with both a new
translation of the New Testament and through his famous satirical book,
I_n Praise of Fog. This movement helped to create an enlightened and
somewhat purified Church.2

Politically, the Netherlands was the inheritance of his Catholic
majesty, Charles V, King of Spain and Euperor of the Holy Roman anire.
Charles, born in the Netherlands and influenced by his early contacts,
at first granted concessions and a benevolent rule to these comrcially
prosperous and materially minded people. Thus, without major complaints,
though religiously curious, the Dutch initially appeared unlikely to
disturb their status quo.3

The strong feelings of Charles V against the Protestant heresy
and the easy comurdcations with the centers of the Reformation via the
Rhine River, made non-involvement an impossibility. In the 1520s

Lutherans and Luther's writings appeared but soon they were outnumbered

 

2Howard G. Hageman, lily Among the Thorns (New York: Board of
mucation of the Reformed Church in America, 1953), PP. 32—37. Cf.
John T. McNeill, The His and Characteristics of Calvinism (New
York: Oxford University Press, 1957 , pp. 25 57.

3111111”: H. Prescott, mete of the Rei of Phili The Second,
Mn (6 ed.; Philadelphia: J. B. Iippincott Company, 13915,
p. 151. Prescott, contrary to the popular contention that materialism
competes with religion for the loyalty and devotion of man, felt that
the prosperous Netherlanders with their wide commercial contacts were
“well advanced in the arts of civilisation . . .", giving them an in-
quisitive frame of mind that ”naturally turned to those great problems

 

 

‘D

 

10
by a group known as the Anabaptists. The most noteworthy Anabaptist
leader proved to be Menno Simmons.“ Charles' decrees, the introduction
of the Inquisition in 1522, and subsequent executions beginning in 1523
could not stop the spread of these teachings. However, the increasingly
severe decrees did cause thousands to flee the country.

The Protestant Reformation did not originate as a united movement
but prior to the year 1529 there remained the hope that a unity might
be achieved. The same year the Diet of Spires labelled as Protestants
the adherents of the Reformation, the leaders of this reforming movement
finally met but failed to reach complete agreement. The failure of
Ulrich Zwingli and Martin Luther to agree on the question of sacraments
at this Marburg meeting doomed the Protestant movement to a seemingly
endless period of disunity, the current ecumenical movement notwith-
standing. The faith as interpreted by Zwingli and given orgaxdsation,
doctrinally and governmentally, by John Calvin became known as the
Reformed faith and the basis of the future Dutch Reformed Church of the
Netherlands. This fdth spread from Western Europe into Central Europe
and as Reformed, Presbyterian or Congregational churches throughout
much of the world.5

 

in religion which were agitating the neighboring countries of France
and Germarw."

“Their stress on religious liberty, separation of church and
state, and unwillingness to serve the state as office holders or
soldiers made them particularly repugnant to the Spanish authorities.
Today Mennonite followers of this sixteenth century leader are still
in evidence even in pots of the United States.

5011 the European continent the Reformed Churches of Rance,
Ctr-aw, Hungary and Switzerland are still in existence though the in-
itial Bohemian, Polish, Italian and Spanish Reformed Churches succumbed
to the persecution they encountered. E. T. Corwin, A Manual of the

wormed Church in America (hth ed.; New York: Board of Publication of

the Reformed Church in America, 1902), p. 3.

 

 

 

11
The Dutch Reformed Church owes its beginnings to groups of

 

refugees who gave birth to the Church outside the boundaries of Holland.
John K Lasso, a Polish nobleman, in 1550 organized the first of several
churches formed among some four thousand Dutch religious refugees and
residents in London. The order of worship he developed for this Church
of the Austin Friars later became the basis for a revised liturgy
accepted throughout the Dutch provinces. Other Dutch refugee churches
of the Reformed faith were organized in various cities of the Palatinate.
Meanwhile, persecuted French Calvinists had sought refuge among the
bench Walloons of the southern provinces. From small churches meeting
secretly in the southern area, the Reformed faith spread northward,
frequently under the guise of literary societies.

The scattered congregations stood desperately in need of organi-
zation and mutual support. To help unify the beliefs of his Walloon
congregation, Guido de Bros drew up a confession of faith in 1559 which,
though slightly modified, is known as the Belglo Confession of Faith
and remains today as one of the three standards of unity of the Reformed
Church in America. The second standard, the Heidelberg Catechism, was
written in 1563, at the behest of Elector h-ederick of the Palatinate,
by Ursinus and Caspar Olevianus. It failed to unite the Lutheran and
Reformed in. the Palatinate, but it did help unite the Reformed Church
in the Netherlands and proved a great instrument of indoctrination of
Iuoceeding generations of their young. These two church standards were
Idopted provisionally at a meeting of Dutch and Walloon pastors and
11°th in Antwerp in 1566. In June of the same year, the first public
looting and preaching took place in the North. his and later services
"are held under the protection of armed men, for the Spanish authorities

were still opposed to such heresy. From such field preaching, the

 

 

12
Gaul-oh adopted the enblem of the "Lily Among the Thorns."

The Church, now sorely harassed, completed much of the organi-
zation of its polity outside the Netherlands at the Synods of Wesel
(1568) and of Wen (1571). Thus the initial formation of the Dutch
Reformed Church took place before there was an independent Dutch nation.
let its final organisation and the achievement of its position of
dominance occurred only after its cause and the cause of national in-
dependence became one and triumphed.

The political rupture between Spain and the Netherlands had sev-
eral causations. In 1555 Charles V, frustrated in his ambition to don-
inate all of Europe and in his desire to crush the Protestant heresy, re-
signed in favor of his son Philip II. Spanish born and with no special
attachment for the Netherlands, Philip decided to tighten his rule over
them in order to enforce the decrees of the recently adjourned Council
of Trent (15ll5-63). His resolve was further strengthened by an icono-
clastic outburst in 1566 which damaged a large number of Catholic churches
and cathedrals throughout that country. While before he had tried to re-
activate the Inquisition in a covert manner, he now prepared to unleash
a reign of terror to stamp out all Protestantism in the Netherlands.

His earlier attempts were looked upon as a subversion of power
and liberties by the leading members of the gentry, Catholic and Protes-
tant alike. The Netherlander already possessed more guaranteed political
immunities and rights than any other people within the Empire and
possibly all of Europe. Their gentry to secure peace, the necessary
prerequisite to their continued prosperity, was now willing to permit

religious toleration also.6 Yet the very boldness of the chief

 

6Correspondenoe de Philime II, tom. 1. p. 2I+o in Prescott. 22.

 

‘

13
boneficiary of this toleration, the Reformed, encouraged further resis-

  
 

tance to the king.

The entrance in 156? of a Spanish army under the Duke of Alva
to enforce Philip's will led to armed resistance. The fight begun for
religious toleration, with the goal of ridding the country of the Duke
of Alva and the Spanish Inquisition, turned into a war for independence.
Prince William of Orange-Nassau, who in the course of this opposition
adopted the Reformed faith, became the main leader of the resistance
meant. The religious overtones of the movement became so prominent
that the ten southern provinces withdrew to remain loyal to the Roman
catholic faith. The seven northern provinces laid the basis for the
DUI-tel: Republic when they came together in 1579 in the Union of Utrecht
tilt}: the motto, Eerdracht Maakt Hacht.7 These provinces invited William,

 

greedy Stadholder of Holland and Zeeland Provinces, to be their leader
Clad. declared their independence from Spain. The most serious fighting
“a now past and in 1609 a twelve year truce ended the war. Finally in

\

g" p. 205, recorded the cement of the country's regent, Margaret of
m, "I accuse none of the nobles of being heretics, but they show
uthttle seal in the cause of religion, while the magistrates shrink from
N .ir duty from fear of the people.” Ibidu ‘p. 1&2. In ruling the
e‘hherlamis, Charles V was in reality the head of a confederaoy of

I .publics and this is the position that Philip It also inherited.

This political motto meaning “union makes strength" appears
mglow the coat-of-arms adopted by the Reformed Church in America.
‘uaas Qiurch's most prostinent historian, E. T. Corwin, while writing

bout this preliminary period of the Netherlands' church history, in
‘h outburst of ecumenical feeling stated: ”This ought now to be made
motto of Protestantism in the federation of all evangelical

es.“ op: cite-9p. 7. A second motto appearing above the coat-

”-arms is Nisi Dominus Frustra, "without the lord all is vain."
kid 13. Demarest, me Reformed Church in America: Its Ori n
Qaloant and Giaracteristics 15th ed.; New York: Board of Publica-

on of the Reformed Chm'ch in Amrica, 1889), p. xii, noted this
latter inscription was found on a coin issued at Ghent in 1582.

  
  
 
  

 

‘ 14

198 Spain acknowledged what Europe had already accepted, the inde-
pendence of Holland. Meanwhile, the Church held its first national
Synod within the country in 1576 at Dort (also known as Dordrecht) but
the organization of the national Dutch Church did not reach its comple-
tion until the famous Synod of Dort (1618 -19). Its full recognition
“ the established church, though by no means the only legal church,
“a not achieved until 1651.

Before such a state of outward security was reached, a theo-
logical dispute threatened the unity of the Reformed Church. As it
‘ttempted to settle this dispute, the Synod produced the final standard
of unity accepted by the Reformed Church in America, the Canons of
Dart.8 The controversy evolved around the doctrine of predestination
and liberty of conscience and found its chief spokesmen on the faculty
or the University of Ieyden. Unfortunately, the dispute also assumed
Political connotations.

Jacob Arminius, a professor of Theology for six years prior to
lu... death in 1609, proclaimed the idea of the co-operation of human
‘34-; in achieving salvation, or conditional election. This meant that
.‘t-he decree of election embraces only those who repent, believe, and
I>Qfitssevere . . . .“9 After his death, Arminius' followers, especially
s'3—1llion Episcopius, gave form to his views through the Remonstrance of

3—610 and the Confession and Declaration of 1622. bands Gomarus, also
x

8131s Reformed Church in America, in accepting the doctrinal

N118 elucidated by this ecumenical gathering, omitted its preface

conclusion as well as its rejection of the errors of the Remon-
3“Til-ants and the sentence imposed against them. These parts were not
mid“ necessary in the environment found in the United States of

 

    

 

M0111, 02. fits, Pa 26‘}.

 

15
a professor of Theology at the University of Leyden, led the orthodox
Calvinist group and was the chief opponent of Arninius and Arnirdanism.
Gamma restressed that those elected of God to salvation were uncon-
ditionally called solely through His grace and incapable of sliding
gm from their calling.

The controversy not only disturbed the students at Leyden but

196. to antagonism among congregations and their ministers. It caused

the intervention of the magistrates, led to riots and some felt,

thz’eatened a civil war.]’0 Arminius desired a reflsion of the Con-

fession and Catechism and was even willing to accept the support of the
government to convene a national Synod for this purpose. The Reformed
Clamoh rejected this interference and the government's contention that
the magstrates should share ”in the ecclesiastical business relating
‘50 the calling of ministers and discipline."11 They countered by
questioning whether those who mix dissented from the doctrines of
the Church should still be allowed to minister in that church. The
sates-General under the leadership of John Olden—Barneveldt consis-
hn‘e-Jy supported the Remonstrants and prevented any ecclesiastical
dis delining of their ministers. Neither numerous negotiations nor
"3 Qifer to divide up the property of the Church had been able to
u‘tere harmorw. The Reformed Church now stood ready to call a
“Renal Synod to resolve the sad state of affairs.
In 1617, the tide suddenly shifted. Prince Mamice, son of

“Julian of Orange and the elected Stadholder or military leader of the
\
1°Ibid.

nhaurice G. Hansen, The Reformed Church in the Netherlands:
Q A.D. 13m to 1.1). 18% (New York: Board of Publication of the
RBrett-med Church in America, 18814), p. 135.

 

 

 

16
nation, gave his support to the Gomarists. He claimed the oath he took
in 1586 upon asstmption of office bound him and the States-General to
defend the Reformed religion. While this may have had some bearing
on the case, it is more likely that Prince Maurice used this situation
to curtail the power of the Dutch aristocracy and their republican
tendencies. His apparent goal was to make the House of Orange the
hereditary Stadholders of the Netherlands. After he had imprisoned
Olden-Barneveldt and Hugo Grofius, the leading supporters of the Armin-
ians, the States-General passed a resolution on November 11, 1617, that
called for the gathering of a great fined of the Reformed faith to
settle the controversy. So in the end, the government intervened and
not only called this great synod into being, but underwrote its cost
through an assessment on the provinces. A new basis for the alliance
of church and state had been laid which approached the degree of
togethemess the Arminians had previously advocated.

The Synod of Dort opened on May 13, 1618. Approximately twenty-
eight foreign delegates from England, Germamr, the Palatinate and
Switserland, along with thirty-one Dutch ministers, twenty elders and
five4professors, mainly of the Gomarist party, composed the Synod.12
Erma the moment it convened, the Synod conducted itself as an eccle-

siastical court before which the Arminians (Remonstrants) appeared as

 

lzT'here are slight discrepancies in the various sources con-
earning the number of delegates. In contrast to the above figures by
Ccrwin, op. cit., p. 11, of. Hanson, op. cit., pp. 111244, claims there
were 26 foreign delegates, 21 elders and 15 political deputies.
Neither account contains the total number of Remonstrant ministers and
professors present though a diagram of the meeting hall in Hansen's
account indicates twenty places at the center table assigned to the
accused. Demarest, op. cit., p. 38, notes 13 Remonstrant ministers were
cited to appear for whom Episcopius, Arminius' successor at Leyden,
acted as the spokesman. This account again differs slightly on the
number of delegates and political observers sent by the States-General.

 

 

 

17
the accused party. They, for their part, claimed that the gathering
had no authority and should be a conference for the exchange of opin-
ions. Despite an able defense by Episcopius, the evasive and obstruc-
tionist tactics of the Arminians caused them to be harmed from the
Synod on January 16, 1619. For the remainder of the 154 sittings
extending over a six month period, the accused were judged solely on
the basis of their available writings. Fbccept for the Bible, no
other reference works were permitted in the meeting room.

It has been claimed the result was a foregone conclusion. In
the end, the Arndnian party stood convicted of views inconsistent with
the Scriptures and the Confession of Faith. After much discussion, the
Synod restated as canons of doctrine the tenets which the Remonstrants
had sought to mitigate. These included unconditional election, limited
atonement, total depravity, irresistable grace, and the perseverence of
the saints, tenets commonly called the "Five Points of Calvinism.”

This was the major accomplishment of this ecumenical Synod. After the
departure of the foreign delegates, an additional twenty—six sittings
produced legislation regulating the internal affairs and the relations
of the Church. These Post-Acta gave special attention to the Heidelberg
Catechism. Declared to be in accord with the Scriptures, it was to be
the basis for instruction in the home by the parents and also the source
for the Sabbath afternoon sennon by the ministers. The Synod also
sought and received authorization from the States-General to precede
with a new Dutch translation of the Bible, which was completed in 163‘}.

The fact that the Synod suspended the cited Remonstrants from
their offices until they acknowledged their errors was not too surprising.
lhe lower Judicatories were asked to take appropriate action against

 

 

18

those not already cited who remained inclined to error. The States-
General approved the decision of the Synod and soon about two hundred
ministers were deposed. Those who refused to accept this action were
deported out of the country and all. Remonstrant meetings were forbidden.
Tide seemed out of keeping in a nation where the Pilgims and other
religious groups had found sanctuary and toleration. This temporary
lapse in tolerance may have resulted from exasperation at the prolonged
period of controversy and the fact that the Remonstrants refused to
withdraw from the Church and be known as a sect. Without a doubt the
lack of tolerance resulted from political complications due mainly to
“an intensely bitter, personal controversy between two ambitious high
dignitaries."13 Four days after the departure of the foreign delegates
Prince Maurice had his political rival and the supporter of the Reman-
s‘ln'ants, Olden-Barneveldt, beheaded. The dependence of the Reformed
Church upon the secular powers of the State during this crucial period
proved to be an irreversible trend. "The State felt it had gained an
advantage and it was not disposed to give it up."1u

In a recent evaluation of this period a minister of the Reformed
Church in America wrote:

Though we must approve the theological decisions reached by 7

the Synod, we can only be ashamed of its political consequences.

For while it represented the triumph of the orthodox Reformed
faith, it also represented the triumph of Prince Maurice.15

 

13Demarest, Q. cit., p. 30. The political. involvement appears
evident from the fact that in the same year after Prince Maurice died
(1625) full toleration was granted to the Remonstrants permitting the
establishment of Remonstrant congregations.

1“Heneen, op. cit., p. 183.
15Hageman, 92. cit., p. 55. me was borne out by the in-

creasing influence of the State over the Church as well as by the fact
that Haurice's family, the House of Orange, eventually became

 

 

19

The defeat of the Spudsh Armada and the twelve year truce which
began in 1609 ushered in a period of unparalleled oomercial expansion
and colonization. The Dutch, already well known for their commercial
enterprise aui naval daring, enjoyed the golden period of their history.
m 161“, Holland had more sailors than the British, French and Spanish
oo-hdned.15 It was in this period that Henry Hudson (1609) established
not only the Neflzerland's claim to North America but also the beginnings
of a lucrative fur trade. Therefore, business reasons rather than
religious reasons, prompted the first settlements in New Netherlands.

Still the Church and the State did not allow the businessmen to
ignore the claims of religion. It became common practice for the great
trading companies, chartered by the State, to carry a chaplain aboard
their ships. In the aftermath of the great Synod of Dort, the Dutch
West India Compamr in 1623 sent out its first colonists, mostly Walloon
refugees, to supplement the traders who had established posts in New
Netherlands as early as 16116. When Peter Minuit, the new director,
arrived in 1626, he brought seeds, plants, domestic animals and tools
to help establish New Amsterdam; he also brought the beginnings for
the establishment of a Reformed Church. He had been accompanied by two

Comforters of the Sick, Jan Huyck and Sebastian Jansen Krol, who acted '

 

hereditary Stadholders of the Netherlands and in 1815 hereditary
Howell-80 ‘

of. P. H. Ditchfield, The Church in the Netherlands (Inndon:
Wells Gardner, Darton and Compaw, 3935, p. 26§ ff. for a critical
pro-Rom Catholic interpretation of this Synod of Dart. He feels
the entire Arminian-Gomarist controversy awakened men to the true
nature of Calvinism with its intolerant spirit and caused increasing
defections from that faith.

16Ward R. Tannenbaum, Civilisation Since the mddle
Ages (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 15655, p. 153.

 

 

20
as lay chaplains.17 Requested by the Company and appointed by the Con—
sistory of Amsterdam, their duties included not only looking after the
sick, especially the dying, but the reading of the Scriptures and ser-
mons on Sunday. Governor mnuit, an older in the French Reformed Church
at Wessl, made sure such services were held. Because they had always
believed in an educated and trained ministry, the organization of the
first church awaited the arrival of an ordained minister.

Nine years after the 1618-19 Synod of Dort, the Rev. Jonas
Mohaelius, a graduate of Leyden and a former chaplain to Brazil, arrived
at Manhattan Island. On April 10, 1628, three days after his arrival,
he organized a Dutch Reformed Church with about fifty communicant
members and celebrated the first Lord's Supper in New Netherlands. In
l6levthe Rev. Johannes Megopolensis formed a church at Albany. Alto-
gather, thirteen churches or preaching stations served by fifteen min-
isters were established prior to the Ehglishconquest of the area in
1664.18

The Church in America during these years stood in relationship
to the Dutch West India Company much as the Church in the Netherlands
did to the State. The Synod of North Holland held ecclesiastical
supervision over the colonies. This Synod in 1621+ delegated the calling
of ministers, Comforters of the Sick and schoolmasters to the Classes
within whose boundaries the headquarters of the various trading companies

 

17Jan Huyck is also referred to in other sources as Jan Huygen
and described as unuit's brother-in-law and ‘a deacon in the mteh

Reformed Church at Weael. Cf. John R. Brodhead, Hist of the state
of New York (New York: Harper and Bros., 1853), I, 125, and Elton H.
Eenigenburg, A Brief Hism of the Reformed Church in America (Grand
Rapids, Inchd Douma Publications, 95 9 P- 32.

13mm, 9. cit., pp. #243.

"’e

 

21
were located. By 1629 most of these companies had centralised their
operations in Amsterdam so the Classis of Amsterdam maintained the imme-
diate oversight of New Netherlands. The West India Company reserved the
right to approve the calls extended by the Classes and in return agreed
to pay the salaries of the appointees. Men the Company sought to im-
prove the prosperity of their colony and increase its population by
creating patroonships, it likewise required the patroon and his colo-
nists to provide for a minister and a schoolmaster.

In 1640 the Reformed Church formally became the established
church azxi the only church publicly permitted in New Netherlands.
Religious tolerance did exist nevertheless as in the mother country.
While no one was persecuted for his views, the non-Reformed could
worship only in his home, unless he obtained special permission. After
Peter Stuyvesant became Governor (Ian-61+) arless lenient attitude
toward the sects developed. "The immediate cause of the first exhibi-
tion- of religious intolerance in New Netherlands was ecclesiastical
Jealousy and a too rigid construction of duty. '19 The years 1656-59
and 1661-63 were periods of persecution, especially against the Quakers,
although the Company firmly rebuked Stuyvesant several times for his
policies. Sttvvesant, who had been elected an older in the Church on
hanhatten, also sought to improve the observance of the Sabbath. A
series of Sabbath laws including an anti-liquor law were passed and a
second worship service instituted in the afternoon.

After the mglish conquest of New Netherlands in 1661}, the Dutch
received excellent term of surrender. Deanne Samuel Drisius wrote to
the Classis of Amsterdam:

—_

19Brodhead, op. cit. I, 617.

 

22
It is stipulated in the articles (of surrender) that

the religion and doctrine whculd continue as heretofore, and

the ministers shall remain. We could not abandon our con-

gregations and hearers. We Judged we must continue with

them, for a time at least, and perform our offiggs, lest they

should become entirely scattered and grow wild.
The control of the Classis of Amsterdam could only be a nominal rela-
tionship over these new English citizens. The condition of the Dutch
Church, despite its recognized existence, at'first deteriorated after
the conquest. The six remaining ministers no longer received a salary
from the Dutch West India Company and their congregations were not
accustomed to providing for their support. Soon their number was re-
duced to but two; replacements for the pulpit and additions to the pews
were few when Dutch immigration all but ceased. A thirty year dispute
now occurred when the Dutch, French and English dissenters who consti-
tuted ninety percent of the population resisted the attempts of the
English governors to make the Church of England the established church.
This common opposition could not prevent the passing of a mnistry Act

in 1693 meant to establish the Anglican Church nor did it prevent the

 

Dutch Church from tald.ng separate action to protect itself. Fearing
for the privileges granted her in 1661+, the Dutch Church in New York
City petitioned filliam III, King of England and former Stadholder of
the Netherlands, for a charter safeguarding these privileges. The
“Garter of the Reformed Protestant Church in the City of New York"
granted on May 11, 1696, formed the basis for a Dutch Collegiate Church

 

zoletter dated Manhattan, September 15, 1661; as quoted in
clesiastical cords: State of New York comp. Hugh Hastings (7
Vols.; Albany: James B. Iyon, state Printer, 1901), I, 560-62. Also
reproduced are the “Articles of Capitulation on the Reduction of New
Netherlands," pp. 557-59 in which Article 8 insures the Dutch their
liberty of conscience in Divine Worship and church discipline.

 

23
Corporation which still exists today.21 The local assembly dominated
by the Dutch had already sought in 1683 and 1691 to secure toleration
for all “Persons or Person which profess Faith in God by Jesus Christ,
His only Son,"22 except Romanists.

Ecumenism looks forward to more than just toleration of other
anxietian groups. Interestingly, in describing William III arm! his
Reformed Church upbringing, Corwin sheds some light on just what toler-
ance had meant to the Reformed faith in the Netherlands since 1625.
"He was, therefore, very tolerant in matters of church government and
nodes of worship; hence he could easily-become an Episcopalian. '23
This interflow of members between various Protestant denominations,
even more common on this side of the Atlantic Ocean, should provide a
local basis for ecumenism. In America, the Dutch had granted English
Presbyterians religious freedom in the 1640s; The Ditch Church in the
Fort (New York City) for some fifty years permitted the Anglicans to
use their sanctuary following their own services each Sunday and for
a number of years baptized children of latheran parents. In the 1680s
the Pranch Huguenots, who fled to New York after the Edict of Nantes
was revoked, were welcomed into the membership of the Reformed Church.
The same was true of the German Reformed members from the Palatinate
who settled in the Hudson and Mohawk Valleys beginning in the second
decade of the eighteenth century. This integration of nationalities
continued to such an extent that by 1850 frequently half of the names

of the consistory members of many. Ditch Reformed Churches in New York

2lCorwin, op. cit., pp. 79—81. This was the first of a series
of charters issued to the Dutch Reformed in America.

22Ibid., p. 67. 23Ibid., p. 61.

24
4and.New Jersey were non-Dutch. The reluctance of the Church to abandon
:1ts exclusive use of the Dutch language and ways conversely caused many
of its young people, those born in a predominately English-speaking
environment, to seek out more Americanized churches.

By the beginning of its second century in America, the Dutch
IReformed Church.had not only been firmly rooted, but a new spirit
moved the Church. From 1701-37 the number of congregations increased
by'thirty—six, an increase of almost 100 percent. From now on the only
threat to its existence would come from.internal disputes, unless one
considers the ecumenical movement a threat to denominationalism.

Revivalism, education and ordination were the crux of the
problems faced. Prior to the Revolutionary War, much of the history
of these problems could be traced through the life and activities of
the Rev. Theodorus Jacobus Prelinghuysen (1691-1747) and his sons.
Frelinghuysen's evangelistic preaching in the Raritan Valley of New
Jersey in the 1720s foreshadowed the Great Awakening which rekindled
a new interest in religion in many of the American colonies.zu He
shook up the more conservative ministers with his attack on the comp
placency and dry formalism of the Church and his questioning of their
own converted status. He found.no difficulty in preaching in Presby-
terian pulpits or in evidencing a brotherly spirit toward evangelists
of other denominations.

Wherever he travelled he saw the immense need for more minis-
ters. He was disturbed by the cumbersome process of asking the
Classis of Amsterdam to seek out pastors willing to emigrate or the

even slower process of sending Ministerial candidates from America

2thOiu, 02s ate, Do We

25
to the Netherlands for education and ordination. He sought a means
by which the American branch of the Dutch Reformed Church could
educate and ordain its own ministers. A possible solution was a
Coetus, a sub-classical ecclesiastical assembly or, if need be, an
independent American Classis. Such thinking also made a Reformed
Church college in the colonies a necessity. History has vindicated
his ideas and eventually they all came to pass.
In 1738 a conference of ministers and elders petitioned the
Classis of Amsterdam for permission to form a Coetus. Though delayed
for nine years, such permission was finally received, but it had little
authority and lacked that one most desired prerogative, the right to
examine and ordain candidates to the ministry.25 Later, after two of
his brothers had died while returning from two years of study and or—
dination in the Netherlands, the Rev. Theodore Frelinghuysen of Albany,
son of the revivalist, led a campaign to create an American Classis
with sufficient authority to make such voyages unnecessary.
In 1753 the Coetus adopted a draft of such a proposed Classis.

Domino Johannes Ritzema, of the New York Collegiate Church and the
secretary of the Coetus, now led a small minority of other ministers
into the formation of an opposition group called the Conferentie. This
Small group of conservative Calvinists who opposed the revivalistic
faction wanted to abandon the Costus and renew the old ties with the
Classis of Amsterdam; they realized the importance of a learned ministry

but opposed a Dutch Reformed college in the colonies and warned the

¥

25mm these nine years the Synods of North and South
Holland tried unsuccessfully to unite all Presbyterian, German and
Dutch Reformed churches in America. Only after the Synod of South
Holland granted a Coetus to the German Reformed Churches of Pennsyl-
vania, which it was supervising, did the Dutch secure their Coetus.

26

Classis that ”American-made ministers would bring about a total separa-
tion of the church from Holland. . . ."26

The majority group, the Coetus, which met again in May, 1755,
assumed the powers of a Classis and authorized the Rev. T. Freling-
huysen to solicit funds abroad for a denominational college. During
the next sixteen years a controversy raged between these two groups
which divided congregations and families and led to acts civil and
physical which disgraced religion. The Coetus group proceeded to
ordain ministers as it saw fit and in 1766 obtained a charter for
Queen‘s College in New Jersey.27 The Classis of Amsterdam suggested
the groups compromise and support the establishment of a Professor-
shipof Divinity in conjunction with Princeton College, but both
parties objected.28

To add to the turmoil, the Rev. Archibald Laidlie delivered
the first sermon in the English language ever preached in a Dutch
Raumdmumonmnlu,m&,meJMkmwfi9Tuemuue

 

26Corwin, o . cit, p. 109. At that very same time they were
warning of American-made ministers, the Collegiate Church of New York
Qty had a petition before the New York Assembly to create a Dutch
Professorship of Divinity in the proposed King's College so that the
youth of the Ditch churches would not have to reside several years
abroad. This petition proved unsuccessful.

27Demarest, op. cit., p. 73. This charter from Gov. William
Franklin had several serious defects and a new charter was secured

in 1770 with the object of providing a well trained ministry for the
hitch churches. ,

23mm, p. 76. Demarest noted even the Clusis of Amsterdam
was weary and grieved by the American controversy and was quite
willing to grant them the right to manage their own affairs as soon

as they could come to an agreement and insure the pmetuation of an
Odufi‘td £1118 E2.

29Alexander Gunn, Memoirs of the Rev. John H, Limgston (New
York: Rutgers Press, 1829), p. 103. The young people educated and

living in an English speaking environment frequently had such imperfect

27
adopted to help maintain the interest and allegiance of the younger
.Americanized element in the church, caused the filing of a lawsuit by
‘those dishards who not only loved the sound of the Dutch language but
apparently felt the truth was not as easily elucidated in any other
language. This civil suit failed and with increasing rapidity, espe-
cially in the aftermath of the Revolutionary War, English replaced the
Ditch language for the main worship services. By the 1830s the tran-
sition had been.made but in 1764 this seemed to indicate that the
Cbllegiate Church consistory had adopted a relatively neutral attitude
'toward.the contending factions.

The final reunion of these parties awaited the conversion and
«ordination of the Rev. John H. Livingston (1746-1825). Iivingston,
.a.the graduate, abandoned his law studies to pursue a call to the
ministry. Initially undecided whether to enter the Dutch Reformed,
the Episcopalian, or the Presbyterian ministry, he chose the church
of his parents as the one most in need of his services. He left in
1766 for his training in the Netherlands determined to find a way to
‘heal the breach in the Church in America. -He received willing co-oper-
ation from the Synod of Nerth Holland and the Classis of Amsterdam.in
jproducing a plan of union and.independence. Both his own correspond-
ence and that of these ecclesiastical bodiesorevealed conditions in
America were favorable for a settlement. "The members of the Coetus

Of course would not object, and those of the '«Conferentie were disposed

‘

knowledge of the Dutch language as to make most sermons meaningless. The
Rev. Gunn, who wrote these memoirs at the behest of the General Synod,
discusses in more detail the English language controversy ( pp. 99-109 3.
131-5 5). He concluded that the English language should have been intro-
duced 50 years earlier 'if the future prosperity of the church had been

properly consulted. " Ir. Livingston felt it should have commenced 100
years before.

28
to listen to anything that came from Holland."30
In 1771, his studies completed at the University of Utrecht,
Livingston was duly ordained and proceeded to New York City as pastor

of the newly built Fulton Street Church. Soon his consistory sent out

invitations to all the Church's congregations for a convention in New
York Qty in October. This meeting delegated to a Committee of Twelve
the preparation of a plan of union. Mth the selection of Dr. Living-
ston as one of the four neutral members, the committee also inherited
a prepared plan. This Plan proposed the organization of a system of
American church judicatories, though correspondence would continue with

the Church in Holland which could also act as a court of last appeal on

doctrinal differences. The Plan further proposed both the establishment

of a Professorship of Divinity and the founding of schools. With the
twenty-five year old Dr. Livingston presiding, the convention accepted
the ‘Plan subject to the approval of the Classis of Amsterdam. The
requested approval arrived in January, 1772, and before the end of the
Year most of the congregations had approved the Plan. Henceforth peace

and a presbyterial form of government descended upon the Dutch Reformed

Churches in America. This accomplishment and his later contributions

to education and missions caused later generations to acknowledge John
Henry Livingston as the ”Father of the Reformed Church.”

The success of an independent church to these education-
conscious people rested upon the Church's ability to supply a well

Oducated and trained ministry in adequate numbers to pea-nit its perpetua-

—_¥

3°Demarest, op. cit., p. 76.

29
tion and expansion.31 The heart of the Plan of Union was the agreement
to provide both schools and a Professorate of Divinity. In 1770 an
agreement had been reached to locate Queen's College (Rutgers) at New
Brunswick, New Jersey, and instruction commenced shortly thereafter.
The conditions of its founding and the unsettled times left it a weak,
struggling institution. Its future, much in doubt before 1810, improved
when the college instituted a Theological Department under Dr. J. H.
Livingston who also became the president of the college. This combina-
tion of the Professorship of Divinity and the college did not occur
earlier because of the partisan feeling of the former Conferentie and
Costus~adherents.

The Revolutionary War, which complicated the beginning of the
denominational college, destroyed or damaged over half the Dutch Reformed
Church's buildings and postponed initiation of professorial instruction
in theology.32 Dr. Livingston had been suggested for this position in
1775 by the Classis of Amsterdam, in lieu of a requested Dutch theologian.
Nine years later he was finally elected Professor of Theology by the
same Synod which appointed Dr. Hermanus Meyer as Instructor of Sacred
Languages.33
quate support and multi-locations. In 1812 a new constitution was

The earlier history of the Professorate is one of inade-

 

31Corwin, op. dt., p. 126. The need was obvious for there were
about 100 congregations and 3# ministers at the time of this reunion.

32The war was fought mainly in the areas where the Church was
located. The British were not too disposed to respect the property of
a church which considered the revolution a "JUST AND NECESSARY NARA”
Ibide’ Pa 1270

33Proceedings of the Reverend General Meeting of Ministers and
E1ders=of the Dutch Reformed Churches in the States of New York and New
Jersey, 1735, as published in The Acts and Proceedin s of the General
§z§w of the Reformed Egotestant Dutch Church in North America (vol. I

30

adopted; soon the faculty was enlarged and a sincere effort to endow
the seminary was undertaken. Fortunately, New Brunswick Seminary has
never had to depend solely on Rutgers (Queens) College to provide her
with ministerial candidates. Until about 18h0 Union College, a non-
denominational college which had grown out of Domine Dirck Romeyn's
Schenectady Academy, had contributed as many students as had Rutgers.

Like the nation, the Church had been partially prepared for
separation. The Revolutionary War cut communications with-the Nether-
lands and ”with the success of civil liberty (1783) came to all denomin-
ations ecclesiastical autonomy with all that is involved therein . . . ."3l4
As an indication of their ecclesiastical autonomy, the vague titles for
their judicatories were dropped. The ”General Body" became the "Synod"
and the five ”Particular Bodies” became the five ”Classes.” In 1788
a committee was appointed to draw up a constitution for the Church in
the English language. This meant a review and translation of all the
creeds, standards and articles of government in the light of the Ameri-
can environment. There were few changes made in the standards or creeds,
but seventy-three ”Explanatory Articles” were drawn up mainly by Dr.
Livingston to explain their application to the Church on this side of
the Atlantic. mth the Church increasing in size and with great oppor-
tunities for future growth, the organizational structure was enlarged.

Consistories, Classes, Particular Synods and a General Synod
governed the Church within the provisions of this new constitution. As
the Church grew, full.time officers were employed to supervise its

mission, education, publication, welfare and retirement concerns.

 

[1771-1812] New York 3 Board of Publication of the Reformed Church,
1859). The latter hereinafter referred to as W.

3“00min, op. cit., p. 132.

31

The Church had evidenced a firm trend toward Americanization
in every aspect except its name. The charters received from the
English Crown beginning in 1695 referred to the church as either the
Low Ditch Reformed Church or the Low Dutch Reformed Protestant Church.
The 1771-72 Convention called the highest church court the General
Assubly of the Low Dutch Reformed Church in the Provinces of New York
and New Jersey. Following the Revolutionary War the "General Assembly”
became the ”Most Reverend Synod” and the word ”Provinces" yielded to the
word ”States.” At the time of the 1792 constitution this had changed
to the General Synod of the Reformed Dutch Church in the United States
of America. The 1819 New York legislature incorporated the Church as
the General Synod of the Reformed Protestant Dutch erch. A running
debate ensued until the word ”Dutch” was dropped from the Church name
in 1867. Some claimed these previous names had kept the Church from
attempting to reach others than the Dutch and those already of the
Reformed faith in New York and New Jersey. An article of May 23, 1840,
in the Christian Iptelligencer (p. 178) revealed not only the depth of
feeling this topic engendered but also revealed the tenacious, schisnmtic,
suspicious conservatism of many Dutchmen. The writer claimed he would
Just as soon see the ministers and congregations who opposed the name
Ditch in the Church title withdraw from the Church. He felt this would
be but a preliminary step to further change which would dismember the
Church -' am'way.

Such separations were not unknown in the Reformed Protestant
Dutch Church. In 1822 the Rev. Dr. Solomon Freeligh and four sus-
pended ministers with portions of their consistories and congregations

had aeceded and formed “The fine Reformed Dutch Church in the United

32

States of America." The Rev. Froeligh had been called in 1786 by the
Church of Hackensack and Schraalenburgh which were legally Joined as
a single corporation but with each retaining its own consistory.
mess churches had been split and feuding since 1748; factions had
developed over support for favorite ministers, the Coetus and the
Revolutionary War. The Rev. Froeligh brought a temporary peace but
lost control of the situation and through indiscretion was about to
be disciplined by the Church when he seceded. An ”attempt was made
to vindicate the secession on doctrinal grounds and looseness of
discipline."35 They charged the Church had failed to support strongly
a strict interpretation of the Five Points of Calvinism and was wide
open to error. This secession never prospered because it continued
to be schismatic and because it was too much the product of one man's
efforts.

bring these early formative years, all was not dispute and
schism for the need for co-operation and brotherhood was also recog-
nized. A large degree of local ecumenicity prevailed within the
Church by 1850. Baptised metabers received from other denominations
never had the validity of their baptism questioned. Likewise, educated
ministers quite easily stepped across denominational lines despite the
varied requirements for licensing and ordination. he Dutch Reformed
were also in the forefront of a movement which opened her Coamunion
Observances to Christians of other churches.

35Ibid., p. 479. Jacob Brinkerhoff, ‘nle Risto of the True
MOT—'22 Etch Qurch E the United States of America (New York:
E. B. Tripp, 1873 , pp. 30-31. Brinkerhoff, who attended the organiza-
tional meeting of this church, claimed Froeligh seceded because while
he had been a Doctor and Professor of Religion at Hackensack since
1792, m. Iivingston had been chosen over him as Professor at the New
Brunswick Seminary in 1810. file Presidency of means College went

with this appointment which he greatly desired.

33
Friendly relations existed with most churches of the Reformed

family. The establishment of Hesbyterian churches had been unopposed
during the Dutch colonial period and the German Reformed in Pennsyl-
vania had had their first minister ordained by his Dutch brethren.
Neither the Batch nor the German churches had been enthusiastic about
the suggestion made by their supervising Synods in Holland (1746 )7 that
they unite with the Prosbyterians into one body. Yet the respected Dr.
Livingston also hoped that within his lifetime "some genius equal to
the task would arise, to draw a plan for uniting all the Reformed-
churches in America into one national church."36 This he failed to
witness but in 178”, attempts were begun to promote fraternal correspond-
ence between the Presbyterians, the Associate Reformed and the Dutch
Reformed.

Articles of Correspondence were signed in 1785, a revision
proposed in 1800 and new articles signed with the Prubyterian Church
in 1822. Initially this resulted directly in a few friendly visits,
an exchange of church mnutes and some comi ty agreements. These
churches, more accm-ately individuals and congregations of these
churches in and around New York City, co-operated in founding the" New
York Missionary Society (1796) and the following year a similar group-
ing in upstate New York founded the Northern Missionary Society. The
efforts of these voluntary missionary societies centered primarily on
the American Indian. To enlarge the scope of their operations these

churches approved in 1817 a constitution for the United Foreign

_ h.—

360°rwin, op. cit., p. 287.

34
‘Missionary Society.37 In 1821 this society absorbed the New York
Missionary Society.

‘A tract published by this society reputedly led Dr. John
Scudder, a medical doctor in New York City, to exchange his practice
there for the life of a medical missionary. Dr. Scudder, unable to go
to India under the auspices of the Reformed Church, left in 1819
under the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions.38
The Dutch Church, short on ministers and money, and with numerous
opportunities in the established areas, that same year abandoned a
promising beginning in Canada which the Rev. Robert MbDowell of the
Classis of Albany had cultivated for twenty years. In 1826 an amal-
gamation of the United Mssiomry Society and the American Board of
Commissioners took place. The Church was finally aroused to the duty
and challenge of foreign missions but felt too inexperienced to attempt
it alone. From.1832-57 it sent out missionaries in co-operation with
the American Board. There were numerous other interdenominational
agencies which the Dutch Reformed Church.urged its congregations to
support during the early years of the nineteenth century. Besides the

 

37Dr. Livingston acted as vice-president of the New York

lissionary Society which also received the participation of the Baptists'
churches of the area. He also acted as vice-president of the united
Fbreign Missionary Society. This ardent supporter of missions stimu-
lated an interest in domestic and foreign missions not only among the
membership of the Dutch Reformed Church, but also among its aspiring
young ministers. In 1811 he helped found the Berean Society (Society

of Inquiry) at New Brunswick Seminary "to diffuse among ourselves a

seal for the missionary cause.” Hrs. Hm. I. Chamberlain, “The Church

in Foreign.lands,” Tercentenggy Studies 1228: Reformed Church in
cat a Record of Be a, compiled by Tercentenary Committee
on Research and Publicationt New'York: Reformed Church in America,
1928), P0 l"95o
”Later when the Dutch Reformed Church began its Arcot mssion

in India three of Dr. Scudder's sons soon arrived on the field and
there are descendants to this day laboring in India.

35
above organizations, The American Bible Society, The American Tract

Society, The American Colonization Society (Liberia), The American
Seaman's Friend Society, The American Sunday School Union, and The
American Temperance Union all were supported with funds and personnel.
The American Bible Society still receives support from and makes an
annual report to the General Synod.

Uhion opportunities also continued to materialize. In 1816
an approach was made to the Associate Reformed Church. This culminated
in 1820 in the development of a plan to bring union under the name of
the Reformed Protestant Church in North America. under this Plan "the
standards of the two churches were adopted and individual congregations
were allowed their own customs and usages."39 This demanded very little
sacrifice of the Dutch Reformed Church. The General Synod accepted the
Plan and.its Classes, by the constitutional two-thirds majority, also
accepted the Plan, but the Associate Reformed had.failed to vote its
approval. In 1838 and l8ho the Associate Reformed Synods now joined
with the Synod of the Reformed Presbyterian Church in the Convention
of Reformed Churches and invited the Dutch Reformed to discuss a "close
amend!“o Although this invitation was declined, closer ties with the
Presbyterian family remained a possibility for the Dutch. The Church
in 1839 had approved the standards and catechism subscribed to by the

Presbyterian churches.""1 One more Pan-Presbyterian attempt for closer

 

39Corwin, op. cit., p. 287.

“Christian Intelligencer, June 13, 18140, p. 186. This report
an the General Synod meeting notes that the Committee on Correspondence
desired instead to restore correspondence with the Presbyterian Church
which had been broken off in 1838.

ultinutes, R.P$D.C,,gl§39, p. 261. This occurred when the
Church included the westminster Catechism and Confession as suitable

36

union occurred when the Presbyterian General Assembly proposed a con-

ference in 18“? to include the Associate Reformed, the Associate Pres-
byterian, the Reformed Presbyterian and the Dutch and German Reformed

churches. The resulting Convention of Representatives of Presbyterian
Denominations resolved to co-operate in correspondence, in ministerial
exchange, in missions, and in further conventions. The General Synod

of 18h9 was given this report but further action was never recorded.

Onion efforts did not end here. All during the nineteenth
century, and even prior to that, a peculiar attraction existed for
its sister church, the German Reformed Church. What constituted a
sister Reformed Church during this period? Dr. J. W; Nevin, a.pro-
fessor at the German Reformed's Mbrcersburg Theological Seminary, in
1840 said the name ”Reformed” referred to a collection of churches in
various countries, under a variety of constitutions and evidencing
other differences, which had ”rejected Rome without following
Luther.“u'2 In America differences developed despite the common shep-
herding of these two churches by the Synods of Holland and the common
problems each faced.

The most serious problem was a shortage of ministers and the
handicap of a foreign language. The Dutch Church made offers in 1762,
1770, 1818 and 1819 either to found joint seminaries or to permit the
German Reformed to share her educational facilities. The older sister

had passed her language crisis before the German Reformed Church faced

 

for use in the Onion Sunday School program.

”Christian Intelli encer December 19, 18b0, p. 35. when 1,

no mention of Calvin but the less precise Heidelberg Catechism is offered
as a worthy authoritative standard for all the Reformed Churches.

37
up to this problem. The announced intention to use the English lan-

guage in the belatedly founded German theological seunary caused a
temporary split in her church from 1822-37.“3

The Dutch Reformed General Synod of 179+ announced its in-
tentions to seek friendly correspondence “and prosecute it to a union
with the German Reformed Church of Pennsylvania. '4’“ Transportation
difficulties and the distances involved conspired at first to limit
correspondence to friendly letters and an exchange of General Synod
Minutes, but after 1827 a rather regular exchange of fraternal delegates
occurred. This correspondence continued uninterrupted until 1853, but
its influence was limited. The Dutch delegate to the German Reformed
Synod of 18% acknowledged his ignorance of the importance of the
German Reformed denomination before attending their Synod and felt
”may of our members and ministers are in a similar state . . . ."u5

The Dutch Church suggested a union in 1820 but the German
Reformed continued to be more interested in a union with the German
Lutherans. After these Lutheran talks collapsed in 1837, the interest
of scattered Classes in union with the Dutch Reformed brethren became
evident. Offsetting av tendency toward hasty action, the Eastern

 

“3John B. Frantz, ”The Return to Tradition: an Analysis of
the New Measure Movement in the German Reformed Church, " Pennsylvania
History - Quarterly, XXII (July, 196+), 31!}. Prof. Frants contends the
new period of revivalism which swept new American churches during the
first half of the 19th century was fed by confident Americans who re-
fused to acknowledge doctrines which did not permit them to help deter-
mine their own salvation. Revivalism also lent an impetus to the lan-
guage transition in the German Church and attacked its normal emphasis
on tradition. J. Kevin's article in 1818, “The Anxious Bench: a Tract
for the Times" attacking revivalism was a turning point in this con-
troversy. This is an early stage in the development of the Mercersburg
”1.010” e

“mates RePeD20e. 12 2’ pa 258s
“christian Intelligencer, November 21, 18%, p. 70.

38
Synod issued a statement in 1840 which evidenced an attitude so like
that frequently associated with the Dutch Reformed Church.
Let the idea be forever silenced that the interests of
religion require the German Reformed Church in this country
to merge itself in other denominations, or to lay aside its
distinctive character as something unique. For . . . upon
the alternative of her existence or non-existence, there 4
would hang most fearful odds to the Christianity of America.

Despite this proud, confident statement, by 1842 the Rev. Joseph
F. Berg as a delegate from the German Church proposed discussions for a
closer union.“7 The Dutch General Synod immediately accepted this sug-
gestion and both churches appointed committees. These committees sched-
uled a Committee of Conference which met at Philadelphia on March 28,
1843 and drew up a plan of co-operation. Neither church was ready for
organic union at this time and accordingly the Plan called for the forma-
tion of a thirty-six member advisory Triennial Convention, two-thirds of
whose members were to be from the German Synods and one-third from the
Dutch General Synod. It suggested that the congregations of the two
churches beyond the Ohio River which were too weak to support a minister
should join together and affiliate with either church. The Dutch Reformed
agreed to seek to divert some of its seminary graduates into the German
Reformed Church which had a desperate ministerial shortage.“8 The first

“63. M. J. Klein, The motor-E of the Eastern Synod of the
Reformed Church in the united States Lancaster, Pa.: Eastern Synod,
1W3}, p. 1%.

”Donald H. Yoder, "Church Union Efforts of the Reformed Church
in the united States to 1934“ (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, university
of Chicago, 1947), p. 52, claimed the 1841 centenary celebration of the
German Reformed recalled its American origin and its close relations

with the Dutch Church during the colonial period and helped prepare the
woy for Berg's suggestion.

 

“B'Plan of a closer connexion between the Reformed Protestant
Butch and German Reformed Churches, adopted by the Synods of the said
Churches respectively," Minutes R.P.D.C.. 1843, p. 180. The German

 

39
Triennial Convention, if approved, was to meet in Harrisburg, Pennsyl-
vania on the second Thursday of August, 1844.
The 1843 Dutch General Synod passed the plan down to its

Classes which approved it eight to five, though this was not a majority
of the twenty-two Classes. The General Synod of 1844 took three days
to approve the plan and then did so only after a motion for postpone-
ment failed.49 Almost immediately the plan came under scrutiny in
the Dutch paper because the advantages of this union seemed to lie so
predominantly with the German Church.50 In a fashion reminiscent of
the colonial shepherding of this church, the Dutch Reformed were again
being asked to provide ministers and money. The German Reformed Church
in one century had grown to more than twice the size of the Dutch
Church. The much larger influx of German immigrants seemed to promise
an even greater disparity in size, if ministers could be procured.
Such speculation did not in itself mean abandonment or failure for the
Triennial Convention plan. The Dutch Committee on Correspondence had
noted

although we descend from a more cautious and calculating

race than theirs, yet we trust they will find that if we

are apt to be slow, we are sure, and once linked to them in

the race toward perfection our s e will be to outdo them
in brotherly kindness and charity.

 

Reformed had become a decentralized church because of the distance and
transportation difficulties. IMost of the power to govern was in the
hands of independent regional Synods which normally convened together
triennially. Both the Eastern Synod and the Ohio Synods were partici-
pants in this agreement with the Dutch Reformed.

49~Genera1 Synod,” Christian Intelligencer, June 15, 1844,
p. 190. Article Two on voting occasioned most of the debate.

5°Ibid., July 13, 1844, p. 206.
51Minutes n.2,p.c., 1844, p. 310.

40

The meeting at Harrisburg, August 8-9, 1844 gave no indica-
tion of the trouble soon to develop.. Ten delegates represented the
Dutch Reformed while the German Synods had fifteen. A committee
appointed to introduce new suggestions for action proposed five. The
first three again showed a tendency to seek union by way of the sen-
inaries. They provided for the close co-operation of the seminaries
whose graduates could accept calls in either church. The Dutch also
pledged assistance for the German domestic mission field. With a one
thousand dollar grant its General Synod in 1845 took the first step
in fulfilling this pledge. Only the suggested use of the same didac-
tic theological text-books failed to win the approval of the denomin-
ational bodies.52

Real progress toward union seemed possible but the two men
who were to stir the disruptive fires of controversy had both been
present at Harrisburg. John Williamson Nevin (1803-1886), a former
Presbyterian, an emphasizer of tradition and the current one man
faculty at Hercersburg Theological Seminary, was a delegate. Philip
Schaff (1819-189B), completing his journey from his native Germany
to Mercersburg to Join Dr. Nevin, was an observer. In fact, the in-
augural speech of Dr. Schaff late in October 1844 entitled “The
Principles of Protestantism! initiated a "hue and cry" both within
and without the German Reformed Church.53 This address emphasized

 

52Minutes R,P.D,Q., 1845, pp. 426-30, contains these pro-
posals including the selection of Reading, Pennsylvania as the
location of the next meeting.

53Yoder, op. cit., p. 56, feels Dr. Nevin's sermon on ”Catho-
lic unity” at Harrisburg “was one of the earliest fruits of the devel-
oping 'Hercersburg Theology'.' That Dr. Nevin had ideas similar to
Schaff's is not denied but he did not have to defend publicly the views
expressed in that sermon.

41
his belief in the historical organic development of the Protestant
church out of what was good in the Roman Catholic Church prior to the
Reformation. For Protestants this provided a new line of succession
back to the Apostolic Fathers and the New Testament Church. Even more
alarming at that time was his idea that this development would continue
until Protestants and Catholics finally united again. This speech,
made by a recent emigrant in the aftermath of the Kensington riots in
Philadelphia and during the era of Know-Nothingism, was ill-timed
politically and unacceptable to much of American Protestantism theo-
logically.

Ir. Joseph Berg of the German Church first attacked Schaff
in the summer of 1845. By August the Dutch organ, The Christian In-
telli encer, Joined the attack followed by the Lutheran Observer and
much of the rest of the Protestant press. The Philadelphia Classis
made a six count indictment of his expressed views before the Eastern
Synod at York in October. After four days of investigation, a large
favorable vote showed the charges had not been substantiatedjh' His
triumphant enlargement the next spring of these views in book form,
along with Nevin's The gustical Presence, completed the basis upon
which the Mercersburg Theology evolved. This theology, with its high
church emphasis, shows Nevin and Schaff's

emphasis on the visible, objective Church, their placing

the Church over the Bible in authority and between the
believer and Christ, their objectifying of sacramental

 

 

quames I. Good, History of the gformed Qurch in the United
States in the Nineteenth Cantu New York: Board of Publication of
Reformed Church in America, 1911), p. 227. Professor Good devotes six
chapters to the discussion of the Mercersburg Theology controversy and
tries to prevent his Calvinistic background from prejudicing this

coverage. He notes Nevin was not a Romanist but at points his in-
fluence was Romanizing. Ibid., p. 314.

42
grace, their veneration for Catholic liturgical forms
and their admission that the Catholic Church is a ”true
Church.'55
The Committee on Correspondence of the Dutch Church was sorely
vexed. After working so hard and apparently successfully for closer
relations with the German Reformed Church, it had now received an
overture from the Classis of Bergen to abrogate the new ties with that
body. The delegates to the York Synod meeting had duly reported back
the struggle which had ensued and still continued. The Committee
claimed a proper interest in points raised by the debate and the pub-
lications of the Mercersburg professors because of "the great influence
which, from the terms of correspondence between us, each Church may
exert upon the other . . . ."56 It appointed a special committee to
discuss the situation with the German Church. The latter church felt
a matter concerning doctrine should more appropriately be dealt with
at the next Triennial Convention at Reading in 1847. This decision
did not spare Dr. Schaff from having to defend himself before the
1846 German Synod, this time for asserting a view similar to that of
Purgatory. Once again Dr. Schaff escaped a reprimand but only because.
he apparently had not yet taught this view at Mercersburg and professed
no intention of doing so.57
The Dutch Synod met in June, 1847 and considered a summation
presented by the Committee on Correspondence of the Triennial Conven-

tion relationship with the German Church. The report noted that there

55Yoder, op, cit., p. 57.
5 utes R.P D.C. 1846, p. 31.

57Good, op. cit., p. 242. This is the ”fiddle State” con-
troversy.

43

had been only perfect tranquility in the relations of the two churches
prior to the Plan of union. Yet shortly after embarking upon a plan,
whose ultimate design must be complete amalgamation, diversity of
opinion on some important points was revealed. This had not been re-
solved nor had any of the objectives been achieved for which the Con-
vention had been formed. ”Our union is not closer, neither have plans
for usefulness been set on foot; there are none in prospect, none in
progress."58 The proposal adopted called for dissolution of the Tri-
ennial Convention agreement unless the 1847 Convention fully removed
all doubts and questions from the minds of the Dutch delegates. An
alternative relationship also involving the German Reformed arose in
the Presbyterian General Assembly's invitation to a, Pan-Presbyterian
conference on Christian Onion.

The German Reformed historian James I. Good stated, “The
most important event of 1847 was the abrogation of the Triennial Con-
vention because of the Mercersburg theology."59 The meeting took
place at Reading, Pennsylvania, August 11-13. Nothing happened to
resolve the difficulties the Dutch felt existed and by the third
session they notified the Convention that they were unanimous in favor
of its dissolution. The Germans were reluctant but in the debate that
followed the "Rev. Dr. Taylor brought matters to a crisis by reading
from Nevin's book on the Heidelberg Catechism of 1847, where be de—

clared there was no doctrinal unity between the German and the Dutch

58mnutes R.P.D.C,, 1&2, p. 139.

59Good, op. cit., p. 259. Dr. Schaff always considered his

controversy was with the dominant Puritanism and methodism.of that
period. £943., p. 227.

144
Reformed."6O Finally, Dr. Berg proposed a resolution for dissolution
and with the vote of the Rev. Leinbach and the nine Dutch delegates
it carried. This occurred despite a last minute effort by the Presi-
dent, Dr. Wblfe, to declare the vote void for lack of unanimity. The
Germans scheduled the next meeting for Chambersburg but the Convention
was doomed. The June 1848 gathering of the Dutch Church confirmed
the action of its delegates and a fledgling union effort had failed.

The union effort failed because of the withdrawal of the
Reformed Protestant Dutch Church despite the pleadings of the German
brethren. It had not existed long enough to justify the predictions
that this type of union must lead to organic union or that the problems
of any part must infect the whole. The action was premature in that
it didwnot wait for the outcome of the disquieting debate within the
sister church. Failure resulted also because of the differing degrees
of Americanization within the two churches. The German churches were
still in the midst of a lengthy language transition which complicated
both.denominational understanding and the assistance the Dutch Church
oould.render the German domestic fields. This, coupled with concern
over being a perpetual minority in the union, led to frustration and!
a foreboding sense of failure.

Regardless of the fairness and accuracy of branding the
evolving Marcersbm-g Theology as a Romanizing influence, it remains

the official reason for the rupture.61 It continued to be the major

60Ibid., p. 262.

6J-McNeill, op. cit., p. 368, claims the Mercersburg Theology
was a modernisation and enrichment of American Calvinism, though he
sees inclinations toward Lutheranism.in the stress on Christology and
liturgical worship. Cf. Harmelink, ”Church unity and Church Onion (unp
published MtS.T. dissertation, union Theological Seminary, 1964): PP.
53'55e

45
source of controversy in the German Reformed Church. By 1851 severe
criticism caused the Mercersburg Seminary professors to offer their
resignations. Both the trustees of the Seminary and the Eastern Synod
of 1851 expressed confidence in their orthodoxy. Though the Synod
later claimed this was not an endorsement of all their views, this
was the impression gained by the Dutch fraternal correspondents. The
General Synod of 1851 accepted the interpretation placed on this action
by their delegates and.reduced the size of their delegation for the
next year as a sign of protest. Relations further deteriorated and in
1853 after another review of therhbrcersburg Theology it suspended
Correspondence between the two churches with the following resolution:
That this Synod do hereby express, in the most decided

and unequivocal manner, their protest against all those

sentiments of a Romanizing nature and tendency which are

technically known as the "Mercersburg Theology,” as being

essential departures from.the faith, as calculated to lead

yet farther astray from the old landmarks of truth and to
undermigg the great principles of the Reformation from

Popery.

The same conviction had caused Dr. Joseph Berg and several other German
Reformed.pastors to leave their church as early as 1851. The same
reason was cited by the German Classis of North Carolina when it de-
clared its independence in 1853.63

Meanwhile two hundred years of religious toleration and the
Enlightenment had led to controversy and schism within the Reformed
Church in the Netherlands. Since the toleration of the Remonstrants in
1625, the Canons of.Dort "never seem.to have been regarded as having

quite the same authority in Holland as the[:Be1g£§] Confession and the

62Minutes 3.9.13.0“ 1853, p. 319.
63Klein, op. cit., p. 226.

46
[Eeidelhera Catechism. "6" The increasing liberty of thought undoubt-
edly lessened the evangelical ardor of a portion of the Dutch clergy.
This, however, did not prevent John Livingston and others sent over
by the Reformed Church in America from returning home with an
acceptable orthodox training.

The French Revolution brought a change in the relationship of
the Church md State in the Netherlands . Conquered by the French,
whose republican government had enthroned ”reason" as its atheistic
religion, the national church was disestablished in 1796. The theo-
logical faculty of the universities was absorbed in the philosophy
faculty from which dogmatics were excluded. Next, the country yielded
to a Napoleonic regime but the Church was still adrift. In 1812 the
political fortunes of the Bonapartes began to wane and on November 13,
1813, William Frederik of Orange returned from England and was en-
throned as King William I.

William had new ideas of the position of a State Church in
its relationship to the government. On January 7, 1816 a new law re-
organized the Church and made its main officials appointees of the ldng.
The old reformed name "Gereformeerde Kerk" yielded to that of the re-
organized Church, the 'Hervormde Kerk."65 This became a fact accom-

plished but a controversy arose over the introduction of a slightly

 

“James H. Mackay, Rplipions Thougpts in Holland mrin the
Nineteenth Conga (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 19115, p. 3%.

65The Gereformeerde Kerk organization had been seriously dis-
rupted by 1816 and some new plan of reorganization was essenflal.
Netherlands born Professor James Eelman, New Brunswick Theological
Saunary, interviewed September 9, 1965, felt the condition of the
church was so hopeless that William's reorganization saved the original
church. He based his belief in part on J. Th. De Visser, Kerk en Stat
(Groningen, The Netherlands: n.n., [33. 192i] ), III, 229-30.

 

47
modified ordination vow. In the past, candidates accepted the stand-
ards of the Church because (quip) they were in harmony with the Scrip-
tures; in 1816 they only pledged to accept them in so far as (qggtggug)
they harmonized. This permitted liberals and later modernists to enter
the Church and made doctrinal discipline almost impossible. This made
for some very uncomfortable situations for the Government allocated
the number of State Churches and ministers to a community upon the
basis of population. In towns with multi-churches the ministers did
not have a specific church to serve but circulated according to a
published Domine list.

In the 1820s the poets Willem Bilderdyk and Issak da Costa
led a reaction to eighteenth century liberalism which restored some
hope to those struggling to preserve the purity of the Church's doc—
trine.66 Shortly after this Hebert Haldane of Switzerland.began a
new evangelical awakening which reached some of the educated people of
Holland. Eventually even the common people were stirred by a new
religious revival. By 183“ those who considered themselves the de-
fenders of the old.Reformed faith petitioned the General Synod for an
authoritative interpretation of the 1816 ordination formula. The
action of the General Synod did not satisfy this group.

Soon afterwards Hendrik De Cock made a vicious rebuttal to
an attack on his negative attitude toward national church policy and
the use of unsound hymns in worship services. For this rebuttal and
his known attitude he was suspended from.his ministerial office. De
Cock publicly announced his act of separation from the Hervormde Kerk

on October 13, 183”. Up to this time they had debated their predicament

 

éémNeill, op. cit., p. 369.

’48

as had the earlier Puritans and the Separatists. Soon five other
supporting ministers were disciplined and seceded with their congre-
gations from the State Church.67

A country whose government had countenanced religious tolera-
tion for over two centuries now would not permit freedom of worship to
this small number of Seceders whose numbers by 1850 did not exceed five
thousand. The government employed old articles of the Napoleonic code
to prevent these people from meeting for worship.68 The result in-
cluded fines, intimidation and the (1th of troops among these
people. heir economic circumstances deteriorated along with this per-
secution, and with the failure of the potato crop in 18%, may were
now willing to embark on a new life elsewhere. It is out of these
early Seceders and the following flow of Dutch immigration that
”practically all the churches of the Reformed Church in America west
of the megheniee find their origin . . . ."69

 

67These ministers were H. P. Scholte, A. Brummelkam, S. Van
Velsen, G. F. Geselle Meerburg and C. D. L. Bahler. A. C. Van Realte,
a brother-in-law of Brummelkamp and Van Velsen, was rejected for or-
dination in the State Church because of his views and was ordained
instead by a Synod of fellow Separatists on March 2, 1836. See Albert
Hyma, Albertus Van Raalte and His Dutch Settlements in the United
{Grand

States Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1E7},
p. 35.

 

68me Van der Meulen, Hollanders : The Dede t of Their
Objectives in Ehrope and America ln.p., First Reformed Church of
Zeeland, Michigan, n.d. , p. 19, quotes Article 291 prohibiting asso-
ciation of more than 20 persons without government consent and Article
294 which requires consent of municipal authorities to use one's
house as a meeting place.

69M86nbm'g, OEe Cite, Pe 78e

CHAPTER III

THE SUCCESSFUL UNION AND ITS AFTERMATH
1850-1886

Dutch immigration was not a new phenomenon either to the
country or to the Reformed Protestant Dutch Church. The Church and
past immigrants had become Americanized to the extent that only for
sentimental reasons did the Church still retain the designation
'Ihtch" in its title. Proud of its heritage, it considered itself a
child of the pro-1816 Gereformeerde Kerk rather than the Hervormde
Kerk and sympathized with the plight of the persecuted Seceders
(Afges cheidene ) .

On the eve of an immigration that began a new and decisive
chapter in the history of the Reformed Church in America, the murch
continued to experience a new growth while its educational institutions
had almost solved the perennial minister shortage, the bane of Ameri-
can Protestantism. The nation round about it had doubled in popula-
tion in the last twenty years and confidently looked forward to in-
creased sise and importance. Growth, mobility and optimism challenged
the Calvinistio ideas established by the Puritan and Dutch fore-
fathers. Unitarianism had risen out of a revolt against the tradi-
tionalism of the Congregational Church in New England. Those who
could not go this far tended to replace Calvin'e wrathful God with a

#9

50
benevolent God of love. Pressures existed on the churches to overlook
the necessity of creeds, doctrines and an educated clergy for the sake
of material progress. These were pressures the Reformed Church had
been resisting.

The ten thousand Dutch immigrants who flowed into the country
in the next quarter century were an insignificant number among the
millions of arrivals. However, they had significance for the numeri-
cally small Dutch Reformed Church. They came mainly from the Seceder
group in the Netherlands. These ministers and members had initially
desired only a provisional separation until the State Church resumed
a faithfulness to its standards.1 By 1839, first the Rev. H. P.
Scholte and then the others felt compelled to apply for legal status as
a new sect. The following year William II ascended the throne and
their official persecution ended but not the discrimination against
them in employment nor the ridicule of their children in the schools .
The great majority were from the lower economic classes and suffered
greatly from the poverty, overpopulation and taxation policies current
in Holland. They suffered also from the quarrels and divisions which
rent their little denomination. letters from previous emigrants and
the movement of large numbers of Germans and even some Dutch neighbors
to America helped cause them to view this as a possible solution to
their problems.

The finisters and other leaders selected the United States

 

lumiar 0. Van mck, ihe Union of 1850: a Collection of
Papas, ed. by the Permanent Committee on History and Research of the

General Synod of the Reformed Church in America (Grand Rapids, Mich:
”.111“ Be mama Pum’hing 00., 1950), pe 2e

51

rather than a Dutch colcxw because it permitted religious and educa-
ticnal freedom.2 To the majority of their followers, while this was
important, it may have been of secondary importance to the improve-
ment of their dire economic position. To help prepare the way a letter
was written dated May 25, l8h6 and addressed ”To the Believers in the
United States of North America,” which explained why they were emi-
grating and what they hoped to do in America.3 ihis letter found its
way to the Rev. I. N. Wyckoff, a Dutch Reformed pastor of Albany, New
York, who had a translation published in the Christian Intelligencer,
the official paper of his church. The letter had not been addressed
to any particuln‘ denomination because, after their trials and tribu-
lations in the Netherlands, they were not yet seeldng out new eccle-
siastical bonds.

Contact had been established inadvertently with the Dutch
Church in America, though the latter had been following the Secession
in the pages of the Christian Intelligencer for several years. The
Rev. Dr. ‘nlcmas De Witt of New York City, while in Holland during the
sumer of 1846, had visited with Domine Scholte and learned first-hand
of these plans. He noted in a report to the General Synod that ”the
tide of emigration has commenced, and soon, two important colonies

 

2Albert ma, Albertus c Van Raalte and His Ditch Settle-
ments in the United States Grand Rapids, mchu mlliam B.
Eerdmans Publishing 00., 191W), pp. 4647. Brummelkamp and Van
Realte expressed this in their 181+6 pamphlet, Enigation: fl We
mar Emlgation to North America and Not to Java. Dr. Eyma feels
there were practical reasons also, i.e., distances involved and an
established trend of edgration to America.

3Ibide , pe She

52

from this class will be founded in the WestJ'u while the majority of
the Seceders may not have previously known about this small Reformed
Gaul-ch in America, their educated leaders knew of its existence.
learned Dutchmen remembered the recent presidency of Martin Van Biron,
a member of this Church, and some knew of the visits of the Revs.
Abeel (1834) and Ferris (1842) who had sought permission to do mission-
ary work in the Ditch East Indies. There also had been an exchange of
General Synod innutes with the State Church.

In the Netherlands, emigrant societies had been formed to
give organisation and direction to the proposed settlements as well
as to assist destitute Seceders. Now societies were formed in Albany
and New York City to aid and protect the expected Holland emigrants.
On November 18, 18%, Dr. Thomas De Witt and an elder welcomed the
Rev. A. C. Van Rallte (1811-76) and fifty-three followers to New York.
ibis advance guard of several thousand had been sent to find a suitable
location and buy adequate land for the colcrw. ‘mough originally
planning to settle beyond the Mississippi River or possibly in Ms-
consin, Van Raalte had wintered in Detroit. Before spring he had in-
spected, purchased and moved to a site which became Holland, mchigan.5

l'hflle Acts and Proceedi s of the General cd of the 30-
formed mMM—Wn
Ward to as Innutes

R,2,D,C.,fie_ar,]. This is the first reference in the mnutes to what
is later called the Christian Reformed Church in the Netherlands.

 

5Classis Holland: Minutes lens-1858, trans. Joint Conaittee
cf the Christian Reformed alurch and the Reformed Church in America
(Grand Rapids, Mich.: Grand Rapids Printing Company, 1916). p. 17,
dates the beginning of this settlement as February 9, 18“? when six
men and one woman reached the site.

‘

t A

53
Fortunately, enroute to America he had acquired the ability to con-
verse in English which enabled him.to negotiate the necessary land
transactions and profit from the preferred assistance both.in New
York and Michigan. The first of the organised congregations arrived
in June when the Rev. Cornelius Vander Meulen and about four hundred
followers founded nearby Zeeland, Michigan. Then followed the Rev.
EL A» Ypma at vriesland and pastorless congregations at Drenthe and
Graafschap. The following year the Rev. 8. Bolk's congregation
founded Overisel. By 1849, about three thousand.inhabitants popup
lated the colony. Others, because of the difficult times and.iack of
sufficient employment opportunities, settled instead in Grand Rapids,
Kalamazoo and other Western Michigan cities.

While they provided the initial nucleus for the next union
effort of the Eastern based Dutch Church, other extension areas had
also become known. By lth, Dutch settlers had come to Wisconsin,
the initial goal of the Van Raalte group. Some of the earliest
Dutch emigrants went to Eilwaukee, although in 18u5 Alto became the
first Dutch settlement in the state. In 18“? church buildings were
constructed in both places and the following year a church was
organised at Cedar Grove.6 About the same time, Dutch congregations
were formed also in the areas of Chicago, Illinois and Pella, Iowa.

Another of the original Seceder ministers, the Rev. B. P.
Scholte, led the 788 followers who had preceded him to St. Louis

 

6E1ton H. Eenigenburg, A Brief Histc of the Reformed
Church in America (Grand Rapids; ' MichL: Doumagxl Pu. ' h' '11" 'c' 'a'ti"'o' 'nm958] ).
p. 85. Domine Zonnie's church at Cedar Grove soon united with the
Presbyterian Church. This occurred much more frequently with the
English speaking churches planted by the Board of Domestic Missions
than with the immigrant Dutch churches.

54

over the prairies to found Pella in August of 181+7. These people
arrived via New Orleans and, having settled beyond the organized limits
of the Reformed Church, had not at once come in contact with the old
Ditch Gmrch. Domine Scholte, on the other hand, had landed on the
East Coast and spent much of the winter near Albany, where he re-
putedly declined the offer of an area church.7 Scholte, whose inde-
pendent mind had caused his suspension by the Seceder Church in the
Netherlands in 1840 , continued his independent ways in Iowa and refused
to unite with arm church. His settlement prospered, being a way
station for many on the way to the gold fields of California. His
church prospered for a time, but it was too much a one-man movement.
In 1856 a pcup broke away and affiliated with the Dutch Reformed
Church, and upon his death in 1868 his church further divided.

The immigration that finally established the Western branch
of the Church was not confined solely to Ditch immigrants. The German
ianigrants to America greatly outnumbered the Ditch and a segment of
this movement, mostly East Mesians, soon joined the Ditch Reformed
Church. This was not an entirely new situation for there had been
German sister conpegations in New York and Eastern Pennsylvania for
over a century. A batch Reformed pastor, the Rev. Dr. John C. Guldin,
had charge of the German Evangelical Passion in New York City for over
twenty years. He had also been the General Missionary to all German
i-dgrants at this port from 1842-52. This minister, spurred on
partially by distaste for the Mercerng Theology, helped the Dutch

 

 

7Leonora R. Scholte, A Stran er in a Strange Land: the
M of a Dutch Settlement in Iowa EGrand Rapids, mchd filliam

B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 19565, p. 36.

55
Board of Domestic Missions open up a new field of endeavor among
these incoming German Reformed Brethren.8 An early group established
itself at German Valley, Illinois in 18147, but the real influx began
after the 1848 Revolution in Europe. Additional settlements were
made in Iowa in 1854 and then in South Dakota and mnnesota. Fifty-
one more German congregations had joined the Church by 1870.9
Further gains were realized from those of both nationalities who
never proceeded amr farther than New York and New Jersey.

The Reformed Church had been hesitant about the opportunities
and responsibilities in its own backyard. Earlier it had forfeited
a beginning in Canada, and neglected an opportunity to expand into
Kentucky because they seemed beyond the pale of an Eastern Church.
The Board of Domestic Missions, created in 1832, had organized two
feeble Classes in the West within whose boundaries there suddenly
appeared thousands of kinsmen. The opportunity was unique, but it
required men and money, and for a year the Church hesitated again.

Frontier life proved demanding and left little time for cul-
tm-al activities, but the necessities for the Dutch of church and
school had to be satisfied. Inadequate food and shelter produced
sickness and death and even some question as to the success of this

venture in the woods of Western Michigan. The churches not only

 

8Edward '1'. Corwin, A Manual of the Reformed gurch in America
(hth ed.; New York: Board of Publication of the Reformed Church in
America, 1902), pp. 501-02.

9George Schnucker, "The German Element in the R.C.A.,"
Tercentengz Studies 1228: Reformed Church in America: a Record in
Begnnings, compiled by the Tercentenary Committee on Research and
Publication (New York: Board of Publication of the Reformed Church
in America, 1928), p. 419.

56
tended to the immigrants' spiritual needs and physical well being
but even solved local Judicial disputes. This helped to create a
cultural apartness which additional waves of immigrants tended to
perpetuate.

To strengthen the spiritual life of the colony, representa-
tives of the churches gathered at Zeeland on April 23, 18h8 and
created a self-styled Classis.10 These people represented the
spectrum of Seceder beliefs held.in the Netherlands. The first
meeting produced debates and decisions on the nonretirsment of
Consistory members and the non-observance of definite Christian
festival days, sources of later trouble. Indicative of the nature
of these Dutchmen and their past associations, the Clerk, Domine
C. Van Der Hbulen, thought it noteworthy to record that ”Psalm
133:3 was sung, in the conviction that we have had a meeting in
peace and.1ove, to edification."11

The Board of Domestic Missions in 1848 called on the Reformed
Church to beware lest the active measures of other denominations
swallow“up their kinsmen. As a result, the newly organised Holland
Classis received an invitation to attend the annual Synodical I
meetings of the Dutch Reformed Church. The 18fl8 fall meeting of the
Classis acknowledged receipt of this first official recognition.by
the Church in the Ehst but felt compelled to decline the inyitaticn.
They based their refusal on the difficulties connected with a new

settlement, but the expense involved was a major consideration. The

 

10Classis Holland: Minutes 18h8-1858, p. 18. The church
at Drenthe was not represented at this first meeting.

nIbide, pe 24.

57
Board of Domestic Missions in November comssioned the Rev. I. N.
Wyckoff to visit these Michigan settlements and seek to establish
some official relationship with them. The Board had selected a
known friend of the colonists and one fluent in the use of the
Dutch language. The Rev. Wyckoff proposed to carry out his assign-
ment after first completing a prior commitment to represent his
Church at the Presbyterian General Assembly in Pittsburgh in May of
1&9. Bis appearance before this group revealed an ecumenical con-
cern. On this occasion, convinced that these Presbyterians were
brothers "good and true," he expressed the hope ”that this fraternal
correspondence and union may continue until all the divisions of the
'sacramental host' shall be marshalled into one great arm of truth
and love."12
After his arrival in Western Inchigan on June 1st, he toured
the various villages of the colony. On June 1+ the ministers, many
of the elders and interested members met in a day-long meeting at
the call of the Rev. A. C. Van Raalte. Besides the information
each party received about the other, the importance of the conference
was suned up in the three questions asked by the Eastern delegate
and the answers of the Western brethren. Wyckoff reportedly asked:
I. What confession and form of government is held by
the churches emigrating from the Netherlands, and settling
in mchigan, and what is the state of their development?
II. Do these churches desire to unite themselves with
the Dutch Reformed Churches in the United States of North
America?

111. Are those churches in wantfl3

 

121mm» 3.1mm“ 1850, p. 36.
”Taken from a report made on this conference and its request

58
The answer to the last question was visually obvious. Some of the
‘brethren, while thankful for past individual assistance, were a bit
disappointed it had taken the Church two years to discover their
plight. In a report made to the Board of Domestic Missions the
answers to the first two questions were summarized as follows:
On comparison of doctrine, a perfect agreement with our
standards was found. In the order of their churches, they
believe each church and consistory should direct and manage
its own concerns; and they incline to the idea that an
appellate Jurisdiction of superior Judicatories is not so
scriptural as a kind and fraternal conference and advice.
Each of their churches appoints as many elders as seems
desirable, and they are always in office until they are
dismissed as guilty and unworthy, or removed by death. As
the result, they agreed, with those explanations, to join
our Synod . . . but as a separate Classis . . . .
Because of later events, the most quoted part of this report is
Domine Hyckoff's assurance at their hesitaney over a new ecclesi-
.astical connection

that it was the fartherest from our thoughts to bring

them.in bondage to men, or to exercise ecclesiastical

tyranny over them. And I stated they would.be most per-

fectly free, at any time they found an ecclesiastical cone

nection opposed to their religious prosperity and enjoymeflt,

to bid us a fraternal adieu, and be by themselves again.1
wyckoff may have exceeded the immediate intention of the Board.in
proceeding to terms for a union. Regardless of the logic behind this
assurance, he exceeded an individual delegate's authority if this was
meant to grant a conditional nature to an organic union.

Van Raalte's report on the proposed union, dated July 10, 1849

 

for union signed by twenty elders and four ministers, dated July 10,
181.9 “ antOd in Van Eek, OEe Cite, ppe 72-7ue

luRepgrEts of the Board of Domestic Missions (New York:
Board of Publication of the Reformed Church in America, 18b9-59),
Pa lbs

59

and signed by twenty-four ministers and elders, was sent to the
churches. It claimed the colonists had always considered themselves
part of the Dutch Reformed Church and desired to unite with the
American branch and send their delegates to its ecclesiastical
assemblies. At its April, 1850 meeting, Classis commissioned Dr.
Van Raalte to attend the Particular Synod of Albany ”to give and
to ask all necessary information which may facilitate the desired
union.'15 They felt prompted to do this because such oneness was the
declared will of Christ and their common confessional standards and
principles of church government made such a step seem natural. They
frankly admitted that the help and encouragement they had received
since arriving in America awakened “in us a definite desire to make
manifest our fellowship and to ask for the hand of brotherly fellowa
ship in return."16

The forethought of the Rev. Isaac wyckoff and the generosity
of the members of the Particular Synod of Albany made it financially
possible for Commissioner Van Raalte to appear at their meeting in
IMay of 1850 at Schenectady, New'York.17 All agreed after an exchange
of information that union was desirable but a long debate broke out
on the proper procedure. The debate centered on the propriety of the

western.Michigan churches constituting themselves as a Classis and

 

15C1assis Belland: Minutes 1848-1858, p. 37. The letter
bestowing this Commission was signed by the Rev. S. Bolks, the

president of Classis for that particular meeting.
16Ibid.

17Ibidt, p. 38. Also in his report to the October 30, 1850
meeting of Classis, Van Raalte noted that he had called.upon the old
Dutch Church to assume the responsibility for the gathering into
churches of other Dutch immigrants and the need for help in the
education of their youth.

60
asking for admission as the same when the Dutch Reformed Church re-
quired Classes to be organised by a Particular Synod with the per-
mission of the General Synod. Some members would have preferred ad-
mitting them as individuals or separate churches but in the end the
General Synod was asked to decide the matter.

On the recommendation of a special committee of the General
Synod, the latter body on June 5, 1850, simply passed a resolution
”that the Classis of Holland be received under the care of the General
Synod and be Joined to the Particular Synod of Albany."18 The North-
ern Presbyterian Church had made organic additions in this manner
before but the method differed greatly from.previous approaches to
both the Associate Reformed and the German Reformed Churches.

Uhion had been accomplished because of the common origin of
the two church groups and their common standards of faith. The ini-
tiative of Drs. wyckoff and De Witt played a distinct part. The
Reformed Church in America being almost thirty-five times as numerous
as the Holland Classis had no fear of these kinsmen for whom they
felt a moral responsibility to shepherd. A second resolution of the
1850 General Synod had

Resolved, That the religious conditions and.necessities
of the Holland emigrants, wherever they are dispersed

throughout our country, be commended to the particular
attention of the Board of Domestic Missions. 9

 

18Minutes R.P.D.C. 18 O, p. 69. No mention was made of any
conditional nature to this union. Neither Van Raalte nor wyckoff

protested that such an emission was an oversight of a previous
agreement, nor did the following sessions of the Classis of Holland.

19Ibid.

61
The 1854 General Assembly further instructed the Board to make
additional plantings in every prominent place so as to provide a con-
tinuous line of churches westward from.the Atlantic. That the Board
took this assignment seriously is evidenced by the founding of
approximately 150 churches during the next decade. It was ably
assisted by the new Classis of Holland which initially took over-
sight of all new immigrant churches from Buffalo to Pella, Iowa before
additional Classes were formed in the west. Yet the gap between East
and Host was never successfully closed.

The leadership of the Rev. A. C. Van Raalte is the primary
reason why the immigrant Dutchmen made an ecclesiastical connection
inl850.20 His superior education and the respect due one's Domine
solidified his position as the founder, sustainer, and leader of the
Holland colony. To Dr. Van Raalte this was not an absorption of his
people but a reunion with the true Church he had never deliberately
abandoned. He alone knew the extent of the assistance already re-
ceived from the Dutch Reformed Church and the need for continued
assistance and fellowship. Already the Rev. Pieter Zonne at Cedar
Grove, Wisconsin had joined his congregation to the Presbyterian

 

20of. Hymn, op. cit., pp. 201-02 and 210-11. He not only

records Van Raalte's positive influence in Michigan for union but
in the areas of Wisconsin and Illinois as well. Hyma feels he was
so influential he could even check his opponents in all these
areas. ”Not until after his death did the Christian Reform Church,
which was founded by his adversariesCl85i], gain much headway.”

Most Christian Reformed writers stress the influence of
Von Raalte in the colony and.in promoting the union but conclude
that these negotiations, which extended a little longer than a
year, were hasty and bound to cause dissatisfaction. Cf. John

KrOllinga, The Christian Reformed Church: a St in Orthodo
(Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1;”, P. 29.

62

Church and, without an acceptable church hone, a further scattering
of the immigrant flock seemed probable. Not all the diverse elements
in the colony were completely happy with this association but the vast
majority of the Holland Classis approved. Their letter to the 1851
General synod, which they did not attend, spoke of their ”desire to
form continually closer and more cordial union. ”21

It is difficult to overstate the importance of this union, so
widely discussed in the Inchigan settlement and so important to the
future growth and development of the Reformed Church. Daring the
next fifty years, the Western branch grew in numbers until it con-t
stituted one-third of the Refer-ed Church in America, primarily as a
result of the action pioneered by Dr. Van Raalte.22 However, numbers
alone do not illustrate the importance of this union, for the Dutch
dedication to an educated ministry also proved influential. filth
the encouragement of the Rev. John Garretson, Corresponding Secretary
of the Board of Domestic Missions, an English academy began operation
in Holland in October, 1851. Van Raalte donated five acres of land
to insure the school's establishment which soon came under the care
of the General Synod. 23 In 1863 a collegiate department was added
which in 1866 emerged as Hope College. Its main purpose being to

 

21mrmtos R.P.D.C., 1851, pp. 11+7J+8.

220cm, op. cit., p. 1&1. His son, Charles E. Corwin, A
Manual of the Reformed Church in America: 1628422 (5th ed.; New
York: Board of Publication and Bible School Work of the Reformed
erch in America, 1922), p. 89, provided the statistic that 50,000
immigrant members Joined the Church from 1850-1920.

23Dr. Van Raalte is reported to have said, ”This is nv anchor
of Hope for this people in the future.“ E. T. Corwin, A Manual of
the Reformed Church in America: 1628-1292, lith ed., p. 1 .

63

train Whatern men for ministry in the west, it was only natural that
theological studies were offered at its inception. After a struggling
and.intermittent existence, the theological department separated in
1885 and was renamed the western Theological Seminary. Additional
academies and parochial schools also had their origin in the succeed-
ing years but the further development of the public high schools even-
tually crowded most of them out of existence.2u

In 1915 a Baptist.institution, which had been founded in
Pella, Iowa in 1853 with the Rev. Scholte's assistance, was deeded to
the Reformed Church in America and chartered as the Central University
of Iowa. At the time these educational institutions were rising in
the west, Rutgers College was slowly slipping from the control and
domination of the Reformed Church. The State of New Jersey organised
a college of agriculture and mechanical arts in 1865 to qualify for
the benefits of the Merrill Act. Originating as a department within
Rutgers College, it continued to grow in size and influence until
1917, when Rutgers was named a State university. This wrought a
change, for before the end of the century under consideration, the
majority of ministers in the denomination were no longer alumni of
Rutgers and union Cellege but of these two western colleges.

The Rev. John Garretson, on the same visit to the west in
1850 that produced a plan for the Holland.Aeademy, had continued on
to Iowa. His visit and questions were reminiscent of Dr. Wyckoff's

 

mParochial schools seemed necessary in the 1850s to the
people in the Classis of Holland.because they felt the district
school only imparted a ”colorless Protestantism.“ Annual Report
of the Board of.Domestic Missions of the Reformed Protestant Dutch
""""'EF""""""""""""""""""““"""“""""

“MOI! 1 9 P0 730

61}

‘visit to the Holland settlement the preceding year.25 In Iowa he en-
countered a warm reception but the leadership dominated by H. P.
Scholte was not ready to resume any wider ecclesiastical relations at
this time. In 1856, after a visit by Van Raalte and others from the
Holland settlement, a segment broke away from Scholte's leadership
and organized a Reformed Church. Initially this church became a
member of the Classis of Holland.

In New York City the Church had already begun the relocation
of its churches as its members retreated uptown in the face of the
settlement by large numbers of immigrants in various downtown areas.26
The ambitious plans of the Board of Domestic Mssions did not always
receive the necessary financial support requested from all the Eastern
churches. The Board appealed to the General Synod to urge the large
number of congregations that never contributed to the Board's
support to live up to their responsibility in this matter. Appeals
were also made in the Christian Intelligencer. Dr. G. W. Bethune
rounded them that if the Dutch Church was worth maintaining in
New York or Buffalo, it was also worth‘expanding.” In the same

medium some Westerners wanted more Eastern pastors and laymen to visit

 

251mm Report of the Board of Domestic msslons of the
Reformed Protestant Dutch ChurchL1851, p. 13.

26Christian Intelligencer, February 10, 1853, p. 126. The
article did not object to churches moving uptown with the wealthy
but deplored the failure of the mtch Reformed and Prasbyterians
to leave some churches below Canal Street to minister to the new
incoming people.

27Ibid., May 10, 1855, p. 177. Dr. w. R. Gordon, trying to
motivate the churches around New York, said he would pledge 3% of
his salary to the support of Domestic Missions.

65
their new churches to encourage brotherly love and a feeling of
living unity.

Dissatisfaction on the part of a few of the Hollanders over
this union produced a schismatic by-product which the Eastern branch
of the Qnurch did not for marry years properly assess. The Rev. Van
Raalte's action in 1850 was consistent with his previous attitude
evidenced in the Netherlands. The presence of Van Velzen's followers
in the colony "made a dispute on the matter of union almost inevi-
table."28 Shortly after the completion of the union, an immigrant,
stbert Haan, who had spent almost two years in the East, arrived
at Vriesland, Michigan. He had come out of the Van Velzen faction
in the Netherlands. This group had opposed the continued intercourse
and co-operation between the Brummelkamp-Van Raalte faction and the
orthodox elements remaining within the Established Church in the
Netherlands. Mr. Haan was a dissatisfied and restless spirit.
Arriving after the hardships of the first few years, his tales of
laxity in the Eastern branch of the Church and his questioning of
the wisdom of the union of 1850 may have caused these earlier
pioneers to reject his bid to be an elder in their church. His
appearance before the Holland Classis in 1851 to protest the non-
retirement of elders and the non-observance of Christian festival
days brought a rebuke for his dangerous manner of making accusations.29
He soon moved to Grand Rapids, a well-established American city, where

28Kronluinga, op. cit., p. 31. Dr. Kromminga is currently the
President of Calvin Theological Seminary at Grand Rapids, mchigan,
the seminary of the Christian Reformed Church.

zgclassis Holland: Minutes 1848-1858, pp. 58-61.

66
he became an elder. Yet his agitation continued, now against the
conduct of affairs within the Grand Rapids Church, the Classis of
Holland and the entire Dutch Reformed denomination.

Elder Haan soon found sympathetic listeners, despite the proven
inaccuracy of some of his charges and the fact that others in the
Holland settlements had likewise resided among the Eastern brethren.
These latter colonists, the delegates to General Synod, and the
committee sent to visit the New Brunswicszheological Seminary raised
no question about the Dutch Reformed Church's orthodoxy. Many Eastern
churches had long used numerous hymns as well as psalms in their
worship services and evidenced some irregularity in the preaching of
the catechism, but neither practice was forced on the new wosterners.
Many of the immigrants could.not understand or appreciate the aspects
of religious toleration permitted by the separation of church and
State in America. Later arrivals could not appreciate the need felt
by the early struggling pioneers for the Union of 1850. Haan acted
as a catalyst, a spokesman who turned a spirit of distrust and come
plaint into a movement of dissent and ultimately secession.30

After two previous minor splits and secessions by parts of

the congregations at Graafschap (South Holland faction) and Drenthe,

3OCf. George Stob, "Gysbert Haan and the Secession of 1857,”
Reformed Journal, March, 196“, p. l#. This article by the pastor
of the Wheaten (I11.) Christian Reformed Church was an answer to a
three part article, "Gysbert Haan: a Study in Alienation," by
a Reformed Church layman, Dr. R. John Hager. This series from
lkwember, 1963 through January, 1964 was meant to lay a foundation
for the reunion of the two churches by destroying the credibility
of Haan, the major cause of separation, both as an expert in
Reformed Church theology and practice, and as an ambitious but
unstable individual.

67

Haan began a small but significant secession movement in 1856. On
April second, he had appeared before the Holland Classis accused of
having spread from hearsay evidence a rumor among the churches that
the General Synod had agreed to an open communion among all denominp
etions.31 He also had caused discord in his local church by disputing
the re-election and orthodoxy of a fellow elder. After a hearing,
Classis declared the elder duly elected and a classical examination
satisfied everyone but Haan as to his orthodoxy. Producing a thirty
year old brochure of charges by the seceded.True Reformed Dutch
Church, he felt he could not vouch for the orthodoxy of the denominp
ation either. .On April It, 1856, he wrote a letter of resignation
from the Grand Rapids Consistory and left the Church.32

The seed thus planted and continuously watered bore additional
fruit when a year later four letters of secession greeted the spring
Classis meeting of 1857.33 The Rev. K. Van Den Bosch, the pastor at
Noordeloos, having arrived in the country eight months earlier,

3101assis Holland: moutes 1848-1858, pp. 187 a 201+-07.
Also recorded was the fact that Haan had previously written to the

Netherlands complaining about church government as exercised by the
ausis e

32R. J. Hagar, ”Gysbert Haan: a Study in Alienation,”
Reformed Journal, December, 1963, p. 12. Eager noted that after
four years Haan apparently reversed his position regarding the life
elderships which resulted.in another quarrel and a temporary return
to the Reformed Church from 1861-69. Ibid., November, 1963. p. 7.

3311» Rev. Henry Beets in his book The Christian Reformed
Church: Its Roots, Historv Schools and.Nflssion work zGrand Rapids,
Mich: Baker Book House, 19535, p. 65, has stated the Rev. Kleyn
and the larger part of his congregation had.withdrawn on January 25,
1857. Haan's persistence and arguments had temporarily won him.over.
”Haan with all his faults was one of our men of the hour. There

would, humanly speaking, have been no Return in 1857 to the stand,
point left in 189, without stbert Haan." Ibid., p. 70.

 

68
renounced his fellowship with the Zeeland Consistory with vague
charges of churchpdestroying heresy. The Rev. H. G. Kleyn of Grand
Rapids, originially the first pastor at Graafschap in 18#9, stressed
the need to separate from all Protestant denominations, implying
there could.be but one true church. The consistory at Polkton
(Coopersville) withdrew because ”your denomination fraternizes with
those who are in opposition to the doctrine of our fathers.” only
the consistory at Graafschap, speaking for 113 of the Church's 130
members, listed any specific reasons for their secession. They

stated as their reasons:

(1) The collection of 800 hymns, introduced contrary to
the church order.

(2) Inviting (men of) all religious views to the Lord's
Supper, excepting Roman Catholics.

(3) Neglecting to preach the Catechism regularly, (to
hold) catechetical classes, and (to do) house visitation.

(h) That no religious books are circulated.without the
con30nt Of Other denondJIations e e e

(5) And what grieves our hearts most in all of this is
that there are members who regard our secession in the

Netherlands as not strictly necessary, or (think that) it
was untimely.

(6) In the report of Rev. wy off he gives us liberty to
walk in.this ecclesiastical path.

The Classis merely accepted the letters as notifications and took no

 

3“81.ssis Holland: Minutes lane-.1858, p. 243. one four
letters are recorded on pp. 2 3. Haan offered additional reasons
in 1871 (1.0. Free Masonry) when he finally published his justifica-

tion for the 1856-57 secessions. Ԥtem.van Eon Belasterden (Grand
Rapids: C. Nienhardt, 1871); see Van Eyck, op. cit., p. 107.

69

action to censure or excommunicate those who separated, though it
denied their right to secede for the reasons given. In the discussion
that ensued, the charges were labelled as unsubstantiated accusations
and were refuted, except numbers three and.six, which were ignored.
The fifth reason to which they attached so much importance disregarded
the fact that the Classis of Holland.regularly took collections to
support the Seceder's Seminary at Kempen in the Netherlands and paid
the fare of destitute Seceders to emigrate to the Uhited States.
The supposed faults of an.isolated few were attributed to the whole.

Ever since April, 1857 these American seceders, who organized
themselves into a Classis on October 7, 1857 and took the name of the
Holland Reformed Church in 1859, have found it necessary to justify
their separate existence. Over the years the main justification for
this church, now known as the Christian Reformed Church in America,
has centered on the necessity of preserving a pure and orthodox
Calvinistic faith. In the early days of the secession, this con-
tention was rebuffed, for the Rev. Kleyn returned to the Classis of
Holland.in a matter of weeks acknowledging his error and acknowledging
the Dutch Reformed Church as a doctrinally sound onus-eh.” The
seceder's first appeal of April 29, 1857 and succeeding appeals to
the Christian Reformed Church in the Netherlands for recognition and
affiliation were not well received until the early 18803.36 EVen
the independent and elderly Seceder minister, H. P. Scholte.in Pella,

 

35_Ql_gssls Holland: Minutes labs—lags, pp. 252-5“; Van

Eyck, op. cit., pp. 136:37, illustrates Kleyn's attempt by letter and
speech to influence other seceders to return.

36Beets, op. cit., pp. 61-62.

70

Iowa, had only the harshest words for their action. Some are of the
belief that the real cause for the separation lay with the leadership
of Dr. Van Raalte and the steps he took to encourage the Americaniza-
tion of the area.37 Once the colony had been securely established,
opposition to the policies of this leader broke into the open. The
diverse and schismatic nature of these poorly educated settlers proved
to be a contributing factor in this separation. A.bitterness and a
competitiveness developed between these separated Dutch immigrants
which colored all their reflections and judgments on the justification
for this separation. Ninety years later, Dr. Albertus Pieters de-
scribed the current Christian Reformed Church in America as a splendid
Christian denomination, but could say nothing good about the original
secession in 1857. He Judged

it was compounded of the dense ignorance of the Graafschap

Consistory, the unchristian malice of K. Van den Bosch, the

unexcusable weakness of G. Klein, the stubborn will of

Gijsbert Haan, and the base slanders circulated about Dr.

A. C. Van Raalte.38

The Eastern section of the Reformed Church at first paid.nc

attention to the loss of a few'mcre western churches in the year

1857. The Belland Classis had failed to make a report to the newly

 

37Siebe c. Nettinga, "The Church in Mchigan," Teroentengz
Studies, pe l‘58s

A collateral source of criticism was Van Raalte's endorse-
ment of a book,‘ghe Chll to the unconverted, by the English Puritan,
Richard Baxter. While preponderantly sound doctrinally, it con-
tained a few passages on the doctrine of election which the min-
isters of the Classis chose not to defend; cf. Kromminga, op. cit.,
pe 32, or “33818 Hound: Mnu‘bos 1&8-1828I We 11” & 1 1e
Hyma, op. cit., p. 233, felt this opposition to Van Raalte was one

larged to include an antagonism.of the whole of the Dutch Reformed
Church.

38Church Herald, July 11, 19M, pp. 5 a. 14. Dr. Pieters,
raised in Holland, Michigan, was a former Reformed Church missionary

71

created Particular Synod of Chicago or to the Board of Domestic
Missions. Only a reflective study of the General Synod's statistical
tables of the Classis of Holland for 1858 and 1859 evidence the dis-
turbance which agitated this Classis. The Reformed Church historian,
E. T. Corwin, in his 1869 edition of A Manual of the Reformgdgghurch
in America makes no mention of this beginning of the Christian
Reformed Church. His third edition in 1879 acknowledged that some
"elements of hyper-Calvinists and reactionary tendencies separated
themselves . . ."39 but he failed to recognize the significance of a
movement which had grown from 250 to a little over 3,000 communi-
curves.40 After 1882 the East finally became aware of this struggling
little church, although it still failed to understand its importance
as a factor in the melding of the character of the Wbstern branch of
the denomination.

The pronounced policy of the Board of Domestic Missions since
1857 had been to foster new churches in the destitute areas of the
west instead of supporting feeble congregations in the older churched

sections of the East.“1 This policy had resulted in an exceptional

A_—

to Japan and an emeritus Professor at western Theological Seminary.

39A Manual of the Reformed Church in America:_ 1628.l_8_78
(3rd ed.; New Yerk: Board of Publication of the Reformed Church in
America, 1879), p. 81.

Both the 1889 history of the Church by David Demarest and that
of his son William H. S. in 1927 refer to the Christian Reformed
Church as originating as a result of a new secession in 1882. See
letter from Professor Albertus Pieters, Western Theological Seminary,
December 23, 1927 to W. H. S. Demarest, expProfessor of Ecclesiastical
History, New Brunswick Theological Seminary, correcting this miscon-
ception §Church Union file, folder entitled "Secession of 1882,”
N.B.T.S. .

“OKromminga, op. cit., p. 235.
“Imnutes R.P;Q.C.,1857, pp. 220-21.

72
amount of growth, particularly prior to 1882. In that year, a
smoldering difference of opinion over whether the General Synod
should prohibit church members from membership in secret oath-bound
societies caused a new secession and ramifications in relations with
the Christian Reformed in the Netherlands .

Most Dutch immigrants from Europe viewed such societies as
radical, liberal and anti-Christian. As early as 1853, a statement
against Free Mhsonry had been expressed in the Holland Classis. Each
year from 1868 to 1870, Holland and Wisconsin Classes sent overtures
to the General Synod proclaiming Free Masonry a great and growing
evil and asking that the General Synod disapprove it for church

members.“2

In 1868 the Overture Committee declared that the General
Synod should not even offer an opinion on such an abstract question.
This recommendation was sustained by a vote of eighty-nine to nine-

teen.“3 Renewed overtures the following year caused the creation of

a special committee to consider the matter. It reported in 1870 that

 

uzThis is not meant to imply that Anti-Masonic opposition was
unique with this immigrant people. Baptists also felt membership in
secret societies to be inconsistent with church membership. An
Anti-Masonic agitation had broken out in 1826 which affected the
politics of Western New Yerk and Pennsylvania and spread to other
parts of the country. Perhaps the overtures of 1868 were spurred on
by a National Christian Convention opposed to Secret Societies which
assembled that,year at Pittsburgh. Kenneth S. Latourette, A Histogy

of the EXpansion of Christianity, vol. IV: The Great Cent in
Ehro e and the United States of America: A D. 1800 - AgD. 1235 (New
York: Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1951), p. hOl.

“3The Acts and Proceedin s of the General od of the Reformed
Church in America for 1868 (New‘York: Board of Publications of the

Reformed Church in America, 1868), p. 463.

Ibide, pe 335s Genera synOd by C. 112-? v0“ Offidfl-ly
approved a constitutional amendment changing the name of the Church
from the Reformed Protestant Dutch Church to the Reformed Church in
America. Hereinafter all Acts and Proceedings of the General Synod
after 1867 will be referred to as Minutes R.C.A., clog].

 

 

 

 

73
the General Synod could not properly act on a question not purely
ecclesiastical which might involve consistorial prerogatives of dis-
cipline. In an attempt to grant a degree of satisfaction, it mentioned
that it believed the "path of prudence and safety lies outside of all
oath-bound secret societies in connection with which obligations may
be expected which conflict with the liberty of individual Christian
conscience.“

This did not satisfy the Western branch of the Church which con-
sidered the lodge an evil threat but differed on how to deal with this
threat. has alternatives were to bar lodge members from church mem-
bership or to allow them to remain, patiently trying to convince them
of their error. In the East, the question of lodge membership seldom
arose. Confessing acceptance of the Church's standards and leading a
blameless life was adequate. The Christian Reformed group had already
barred lodge members and they "constantly reminded the new immigrants
in the hatch Reformed Glurch of their failure to gain their point in
this respect. .1; 5

The Classes of Grand River, Holland, Illinois and Esconsin
raised the problem anew before the General Synod of 1880. The editor
of the Christian Intelligencer predicted in May that the Free Masonry
controversy would cause the most debate and attention at the General
Synod. To end the agitation over this question, he hoped that the
problem would be met squarely and one final deliverance made on this

 

“haunt” R,C,An 1820, p. 97.

h5John Kromdnga, “The Christian Reformed much: a study in
Orthodoxy“ (abstract of unpublished Th.D. dissertation, Princeton
Theological semen-y, 19'»). p. 2.

7h

matter.“6 The General Synod met in Brooklyn on June 2-10 and a
serious debate on the subject occupied parts of three days. The
editor published the complete discussion, convinced it "will be in-
teresting as one of the most memorable discussions in our ecclesias-
tical history.“n7 In their overtures the four western Classes
warned that the continued agitation of the question had caused a
critical situation which could lead to division and discord among
them.and also the loss to the denomination of new emigrants from the
Netherlands. They then presented testimonials from.Masonic books and
persons who had renounced the order and asked for a blanket declara-
tion against Free Masonry. The charges were met by respected members
who admitted to being Masons and denied the accuracy of many of the
charges or that a conflict of interest arose between their oaths to
Christ and His Church and those to the lodge.

under such circumstances how many concessions could this
Judicatory be expected to make when these four Classes only repre-
sented 8 per cent of the membership of the Church? While they had
not been subjected to coercion on this matter, they already debarred
lodge members from communion in their churches. This was actually
tantamount to setting up a new test for church membership, a practice
which the constitution forbade. The western delegates admitted this
was the practice in their local congregations but noted ”when we
attend our Particular or General Synod we are sometimes obliged to
hear the gospel preached and to receive the connunion from the hands

 

“5nuy 20, 1880, pp. 1-2.

“7Chrlstdsh Intelli encer June 17, 1880, p. 12. Th. .ntir.
debate is found on pp. 3, 4 & 12.

75
of those we would disfellowship. Hence we are necessarily inconsis-

tent and offend our conscience.“8 Some of these delegates had refused
to accept communion at this 1880 General Synod session because they
thought a serving older to be a lodge member.

After several unsuccessful attempts to pass amendments, the
Committee on Overture's resolutions were adopted. The second reso-
lution summarized the majority viewpoint

that while, on the ex parte evidence of the memorials now
before it the Synod cannot properly give its official testimony
for or against Free Masonry and other oath-bound secret
societies; and while it holds as sacred the indefeasible
rights of all its ministers and members to their individual
conscientious convictions and liberty of speech and action,
subject only to their prior loyalty to Christ and His Church,
yet it hereby declares that no communicant member, and no
minister of the Reformed Church in America ought to unite
with or remain in any society or institution, whether secret
or open, whose principles and practices are anti-Christian,
or contrary to the faith and practice of the Church to

which he belongs.“9

The General Synod would not make what it considered ”a hypothetical
decision, leaving it to the individual conscience and the individual
church to apply to the individual cash-50 Additional but decreasing
numbers of overtures were presented over the next three years.

The 1883 General Synod asked its members for the sake of
Christian love and the unity of the Church to refrain from.Joining
the Masonic lodges and similar orders, but this appeal was both too

48th. R=CeAe. 1880, Do 53“.
”Ibid., p. 536.

5°01d Colony [9. N. Zabrisldcfl, “The Synod," Christian
Intelligencer, June 17, 1880, p. 2. This writer, absent'from General
Synod for a number of years, was deeply impressed by the western
delegates who no longer sought out the back seats but now freely
entered into the Synod's action and discussions.

76

little and too late. To some in the west, Free Mhsonry had become a
. test case of the Church's purity of practice and being. After
failing to gain the object of their overtures, some three hundred
families containing one thousand members seceded in 1882, most join-
ing the Christian Reformed denomination.51 To others in both the
East and the west, the debate and vote in 1880 had ”transferred the
question to one of loyalty or schism..”52

The Holland Christian Reformed Church, mainly because of its
strong stand against Free Mhsonry, now received the open recognition
of the Christian Reformed Church in the Netherlands. This recogni-
tion helped them gain the adherence of a majority of a new wove of
Dutch immigrants who arrived in the last two decades of the nineteenth
century. In the continuing struggle to win the allegiance of the new
immigrants and to win members awry from each other, both stressed
their Dutch heritage and conservative orthodoxy. The Christian
Reformed Church prolonged the retention of the Dutch language and the
cultural isolation of its members until their positions could be re-

inforced by the creation of a parochial school systems3 In the

51E. T. Corwin, A Manual of the Reformed Church in America,
hth ed., p. 141. Eight churches including Van Raalte's First Re-
formed Church of Holland, Michigan were seriously affected. Those
who remained made a strong demand for the resumption of theological
instruction at their'western institution, Hope College, to be super-
vised by the Particular Synod of Chicago. This was a matter of
economics but it also insured a western education for western men.
Ibid., p. 207; Minutes R.C.A., 1883, p. 320.

52Christian Intelligencer, June 21, 1882, p. 1.
53John Kromminga, “The Christian Reformed Church: a Study

in Orthodoxy” (abstract of unpublished Th.D. dissertation, Princeton
Theological Seminary, 1989): Pa 4.

77
ensuing years the western branch of the Reformed Church in America,

while continuing to Americanize, showed some tendencies to align itself
with the revivalistic and fundamentalistic movements as a bulwark
against liberalism in religion. Thus the outward appearance of Ameri-
canisation only served to camouflage the fact that within the Church
the Eastern and Nostern sections had failed to achieve the true broth-
erly oneness envisioned by the Uhion of 1850. This union and its
secessionist aftermath affected the Nostern branch's attitude toward
all future union approaches and consequently the receptivity of the
entire denomination.

This proved particularly true in the negotiations with the
German Reformed Church. The Holland Classis had united with the Dutch
Church in time to participate in the bitterness which disrupted rela-
tions in 1853 with the German Synods. They had helped pronounce that
church doctrinally unsound as a result of the dominant position gained
within it by the supporters of the Morcersburg Theology. Since the
continued presence of a Dutch Reformed delegate might have been inter-
preted as an endorsement of the German Church's views, correspondence
was suspended. The German delegates left, feeling their church had
been misunderstood because of the slanderous attacks made in the press.
They predicted the General Synod's action would consolidate their
church.

This prediction did not come true for another ten years. At
the outset just the opposite seemed to be happening. In 1855, the
German.Reformed Classis of north Carolina sent a Commissioner, the

Rev. Thorton Butler, to seek:admission as a Classis into the Dutch

Reformed Church. Their aversion to the Moroersburg Theology had

78
caused their withdrawal from the German Reformed Church. The prece-
dent of the Union of 1850 was still fresh, but suddenly the General
Synod found itself diverted by a lively discussion on slaveholding.
The Committee of Correspondence eventually secured the acceptance but
not the adoption of a resolution by which the General Synod acknowb
ledged favoring this union if the Classis would testify to its accept-
ance of the Standards and Constitution of the Reformed Dutch Church.“
The presentation of this resolution at an extra session of the General
Synod on October 23-26, 1855 occasioned such sharp debate that the
representative of the North Carolina Classis, upon request, withdrew
its application for union. The widespread opposition headed by the
Rev. Dr. Bethune of Brooklyn and the Rev. Duryee of Schenectady'
centered on the two contentions that the admission of members who were
slavehclders would disrupt the peace of the Church and that slave-
holding was a sin. The Rev. Dr. Samuel How of New Brunswick proved
to be the main spokesman for adsdssion of this Classis.55 The debate
continued in the Christian Intelligencer into Mhrch of 1856. This
union movement collapsed when the General Synod of 1856 took no new
action on the matter. In 1858, the North Carolina Classis temporarily
resumed affiliations with the other German Reformed Synods, only to
have the Civil er disrupt relations again.

 

Shanntes R,P.Q.C., 1855, p. 536.

55The withdrawal of the papers seeking union had been
prompted by a.fifty-five to thirty-four vote on October 26 for such
action. The best source of the debate and.issues is found.in the
Christian Intelligencer, November 1, 1855, pp. 68-70; see also
Minutes R.C.A., 1855, Special Session, p. In and Samuel B. How,
Slaveholding Not Sinful (New York: J. A. Gray, 1855).

79

Meanwhile, the war of words in the church papers continued
with the Christiagglgtelligencer providing an organ of expression
for Hercersburg opponents within the German Church. Invectives filled
the air. Dr. Nevin was referred to as Pope John at Mercersburg, and
a reviewer of Phillip Schaff's Church History found evidence of re-
search but called the author a concealed Jesuit. The Dutch Church
began an expanded program of evangelism among the ixmdgrant Germans
to keep the: from dependence on a church contaminated by this Mercers-
burg Theology. A German hymnbook was compiled in 1851; to assist in
this work which the Presbyterians in 1863 adopted for their missions
among the Germans £50.56

The year 1863 marked the beginning of a new phase in the re-
lations of the Dutch and German Reformed Churches. By this time Dr.
Nevin had become inactive and Dr. Schaff had left Mercersburg and
later accepted a position at the Union Theological Seminary in New
York City. Using the occasion of the Tercentenary Comemoration of
the Heidelberg Catechism, a standard accepted by both churches, the
Dutch now sought to reopen the correspondence they had terminated ten
years earlier.

The 1863 Dutch General Synod, feeling the need for closer
contact with other kindred bodies, appointed fraternal delegates to
the judicatories of both the German Reformed and the New School

 

56Donald H. Yoder, ”march Union Efforts of the Reformed
Church in the United States to 1931‘" (unpublished Ph.D. disserta-
tion, University of Chicago, 19W), pp. 71-72, concluded the German
Reformed Church suffered more from this competition among the
immigrants than from the withdrawals of dissatisfied individuals or
even Classes.

80 .
Presbyterians.57 'nlis mood continued to develop. The Committee on
Correspondence in 1861} reported a growing desire among evangelical
denominations in the interest of common work ”for a more intimate
intercourse and even substantial alliance” more fully to demonstrate
the “unity and power of the Church of Christ."58 The General Synod
directed the Committee to initiate correspondence with the United
Presbyterian Church and the Reformed Presbyterian Church and evidenced
a willingness to expand such contact to the entire Presbyterian family
as soon as possible.

The German Church had responded to these efforts to reopen
fraternal relations by appointing a delegate to the 186‘} Dutch General
Synod meeting at Schenectady. Many of the members of the Synod elo-~
pressed surprise that this German delegate, the Rev. George B.
Russell, spoke such good English. In his address before this body he
had predicted ”Brethren, when you cores to know us better, you will
learn to love us more."59

What began as a general reapproachment on the part of the
Ditch murch assumed a more specific nature in some of the German
Reformed Synods. The still somewhat loosely connected German Reformed
Synods met triennially in a General Synod. The “Old Reformed" Synod
of Ohio overtured the gathering in 1866 to adopt "such measures as
will be best calculated to effect a speedy union between these two

”Minutes R,P.D,Q“ 1863, pp. 27h-75.
58mnutes R P D.C 186!» p. #23.

 

59George B. Russell, Four Score and More (Philadelphia: by
the ‘uthor, 1908), pe 2'47.

81

alurches."6o Though the committee appointed to study this overture
evidenced a willingness to begin negotiations with the Ditch, the
General Synod postponed the matter of union until its 1869 session.
By that time the Ohio Synod had been joined by the Northwestern Synod
in seeking favorable action toward such a union. Once again the
German General Synod saw fit to postpone action until union could be
consummated with the cordial consent of both churches.

We rejoice in the growing friendly relation of these two

Protestant bodies, and are ready to co-operate in all proper

movements looking to a closer union, but we do not see our

wtg’clsgglsazt.ghis time to take any more definite action on

The Ohio Synod, annoyed at the delay and hopeful of securing

additional assistance for their work with immigrant Germans, encouraged
the establishment of its own official correspondence idth the Dutch
Qlurch. The Rev. Dr. I. H. Reiter, as their delegate to the 1871
General Synod of the match Reformed Church, spoke in terms which im-
plied the possibility of a formal union.62 Subsequently, the General
Synod appointed a committee to consider union with the Synod of Ohio,
the Northwest Synod and the Classis of North Carolina. In its report,

the coauittee parried the request for organic union but noted that the

-—.___~__

60mm» of the General od of the German eformed Church
for 1866 (Philadelphia: James B. Rogers, 1 7 e p. 59.
Yoder, op. cit., p. 73. Dr. Yoder felt it was the con-on
pietistic inclinations of the Dutch Reformed and the Ohio mod that
prompted this overture.

8651mm of the General mod of the German Reformed Church
for 1 2, Pa 5 e

52mm K. Ievan, ”The Late Union Movement of the Two
Reformed Churches,” gs Mercersburg Review, XXII (April, 1875) 2112,
claims Dr. Reiter had no authorization either from his Synod or his
Church to propose a union.

 
 

 

82
previous barriers to union with the Classis of North Carolina had
disappeared.63 Delegates were appointed to enter into correspondence
with the Classis of North Carolina and also represent the Church be-
fore the annual meeting of the Synod of Ohio. On July 5, 1871, the

Mercersburg men launched a number of attacks in the Reformed Church

 

messenger against the ”new Dutch Crusade” to steal away German

churches.6u

The Dutch correspondents found a warm desire for union on the
part of this southern Classis. Nevertheless, they took no steps in
this direction when they discovered the North Carolina Classis was an
integral part of the Reformed Church in the United States, the name
adopted in 1869 by the increasingly unified German Synods.65 The
Ohio Synod approved the idea of union but perhaps because of the news-
paper debate, overtured the now more meaningful German General Synod
to bring it about. In all, five ecclesiastical courts overtured this
Judicatory for action on union, while the corresponding Dutch body
at an earlier meeting had received no such evidence of union interest
on the part of its Classes. Yet Dr. Philip Peltz, as fraternal dele-
gate, assured the German Reformed brethren that the Reformed Church
in America favored a closer union with them. A.fifteen member

 

63mnutes 3.04,, 18E, pp. 222-23.

6"Jenes I. Good, Histog of the Reformed Church in the 0.3. in
the Nineteenth Century (New Yerk: Board of Publication of the Re-
formed Church in America, 1911), pp. 529-32. Here Professor Good
traces not only the campaign in the Messenger but also the attempt of
the Christian Wbrld, the organ of the Ohio Synod, to defend the con-

stitutionality of the actions taken by this Synod, even its advocacy
Of ‘ mtch mono

65Minutes R.C.A.. 1872, p. #38. The Classis of North Carolina
reputedly said that if her ecclesiastical status changed she antici-
pated a speedy union with the Reformed Church in America.

83

committee representing all the Synods of the Church was appointed to
confer on such a union.

Lacking an organized foreign mission program of its own, the
German Church had sent out its missionaries under the care of the
German Evangelical Missionary Society. Several times since termina-
ting its association with the American Board of Commissioners for
Foreign Missions in 1857, the Dutch Reformed had invited the German
Reformed to send out their men under her Board of Foreign.Rflssions.
Now in 1872, in conjunction with this union approach, the German
General Synod agreed to divide her foreign mission work between the
Dutch board and the German Evangelical Missionary Society.66

The annual gathering of the Reformed Church in America in 1873
found the Church confronted with offers to discuss closer relations
with the Southern Presbyterians and the feasibility of union with the
Northern Presbyterians, as well as the Reformed Church in the United
States. The Committee on Closer Relations with Other Denominations
speculated on just what effect union with each of these three would
have on the Dutch Reformed Church. It evaluated the German offer as
a cry for help in men and money, while such a union itself would not
strengthen the Church except in numbers. Despite this less than en-
thusiastic feeling, it did secure the appointment of an able committee
of fifteen to discuss union with all three of these churches.67

After several delays, a hitch conlaittee of nine headed by Dr.

66Minutes of the General od of the Reformed Church in the
United States for 1822 Zeineinneti: Elm Street Printing Co., 15725,
pp. 32, 1- 2; cf. Yoder, op. cit., pp. 75-77.

671timites men” 1873, pp. 670—77.

an,
H. D. Ganse and a German committee of fourteen headed by Dr. E. V.
Gerhart met on November 18, 1874 at the Race Street (German) Reformd
Church of Philadelphia.68 A free discussion on the doctrines and
practices of the two churches occupied the morning and early after-
noon. Shortly the question rose on whether the Heidelberg Catechism,
the one comon church standard, should be interpreted from a Calvin-
istic or an Arminian point of view (predestination or free will).
Most of the German delegation felt that the catechism authors had not
been primarily concerned about this controversy and therefore had made
no final decision either my.69 As a result, a candidate for the
German Reformed ministry was never rejected for holding either view,
but the Dutch Reformed demanded acceptance of a strictly Calvinistic
view. This proved to be much more important than the minor differ-
ences over confirmation, festival days' observances, and the mandatory
degree of liturgy usage.

Before the resumption of the afternoon session, each committee
met to decide whether union was feasible and under what terms. The
German delegates felt that since the Dutch had initiated this latest
union approach, they should also make the first offer of terms and

thus bear “the greater responsibility in furthering or defeating the

 

68Good, op. cit., p. 612. From the Dutch Church, in addition
to the chairman, there was E. T. Corwin who acted as the secretary
and the Rev. Drs. Van Zandt, Gordon, Taylor, Pelts, and Van Cleef,
and Elders Pryn and Sturgis. ihe entire Committee on Conference
appointed in 1873 is listed in Minutes R.C.A.. 18]“, p. 58.

691:.evan, op. cit., p. 2%. The Rev. Levan had been a delegate
from the Pittsburgh Synod to this meeting and fortunately recorded
quite fully the happenings at the conference and his own reactions
to them.

85

~70 They believed their Church desired this union and they

movement.
personally though not overly enthusiastically felt it could be con-
summated. The Dutch delegates could reach no consensus of views and
asked for a continuation of the discussion. meanwhile, the Rev. Levan
had put together an outline basis for union which had won the approval
of his fellow committeemen. With the acquiescence of the Dutch breth-
ren, he presented the following Plan for discussion:

1e Organic mone

2. Heidelberg Qgtechism, the common standard.

3. The Belgic Confession,gthe Articles of Dort, of gpeat
historical importance to the whole Reformed Church, and of
authority next to the Heidelberg Catechism.

4. One General §ypod. Powers limited and defined.

5. No existing rights of District gpods or Classes to

be interfered with in either bod .
a. The status of colleges, theological seminaries, opphan

homesI liturges, orders of worship, My books, publications
interests to remain unaffected by this union hough the new
General od could establish additional institutions and
prwtices e
7. Church cultus anLcustoms, including confirmation, to
be left gee to the congpegations of each body as n03.
These things to be fundamentally and absolutely reserved

from all legislation py thg_§_e_r_1_gral 337314.71
‘me Reformed Church in America delegation hardly knew how to tell. these
brethren that they could not possibly recomnd article three to their
Church. Finally Prafessor Van Zandt from New Brunswick reputedly
stated he felt the current union sentiment sweeping Protestant Caris-
tianity to be a fad which would soon abate.

They had served the Master in their separate organiza-
tions, and had made themselves a blessing to men. Why
should they not continue in the same course? He could see
no good reason: none, capecially, that could make union
between them imperative.

70%., pp. 2&142. 71Ibide’ pp. 251-52.

72This summarization of Dr. Van Zandt's views appears in Levan,
Q. cit., pp. 252-533 of. Minutes _gf the General Synod of the Reformed
Church in the United States ior 1875, p. 26.

86

He noted the Dutch had also heard rumors of divisions in the German
Church and they “naturally would rather not be a party to them.”
Others spoke more directly to the doctrinal issue but it was obvious
”the union movement was at an end."73

A six man committee appointed to summarize the feelings of
the conference for the respective General Synods declared ”there were
likenesses sufficient to warrant the hope of an ultimate union.” The
opportunity to get better acquainted had further diminished some
supposed difficulties, but those of doctrine remained unresolved.
The summary recognised that ”the differences in doctrinal views be-
tween many parts of the two churches would make organic union un-
acceptable.'7u

Levan, in trying to outline the chief objections in the minds
of both committees, placed the doctrinal difficulties involving the
Belgic Confession and the Canons of Dort as number one on each of
his lists. Even if the Dutch could be persuaded to accept the in-
evitable necessity of down-grading these two standards, when "backed
by so active and intelligent a people as our Dutch brethren, they
would still be an uncomfortable element in the united body.'75 He
also felt the Dutch still opposed the Mercersburg Theology ”and as
this would have been an active factor in the united body, it deemed

it judicious to keep clear of it.'76 The Ohio Synod's paper,

 

73Ihid., p. 25h.

71,60“, age Cite, ppe 612-13‘ Cfe mutes RegeAep 1822,
Po 253-

75Levan, op. cit., p. 255.
75Ibid., p. 25h.

87
Christian World, ackmwledged that the confessions and the Mercersburg
Theology caused the failure of this union approach but questioned how
active a factor this theology would have been in the united church.
It claimed "the only persons who did not regret the failure were the
Mercersburg men who would have been largely in the minority if it had
happened.”77

The Reformed Church in America showed little remorse in the
187n-75 period over the failure of its approach to the Reformed
Church in the United States. It had been conducting a multi-church
approach and.not all these other possibilities had collapsed yet. In
the background also loomed the intriguing prospects of a Paanresby-
terian Ecumenical Council.

A knowledge of and an intimate acquaintance with another de-
nomination is a prerequisite for union, but not necessarily a pre-
requisite for all ecumenical affiliations. Fraternal correspondence
which can provide the beginnings of such knowledge and.acquaintance
had been maintained with the American Presbyterian Church during most
of the nineteenth century. The New School-Old School schism.of 1837
and the later divisions over slavery had complicated matters of
correspondence.78 It was further complicated by protests registered
by the Dutch Church in 1850, 185“, 1866 and 1868 over the acceptance

_

77Good, op. cit., p. 613; cf.. Levan, op. cit., p. 255, who
felt union would create such a predominance of the English-speaking
element that this would create friction with the increasing numbers
of German- speaking brethren.

78After the rupture with the German Reformed Church in 1853,
for a fewqyears the only correspondence the Reformed Protestant
Dutch Church maintained in the united States was with the Old

School Presbyterians. Minutes R.P.D,C., 1855, p. 530.

88
of ministers, members and even entire congregations by various Presby-
teries prior to their proper release by the Classes involved. On the
other hand, the reuniting of the Southern Presbyterian Old School and
New School elements in 186” and the healing of a similar breach by
the Northern Presbyterians in 1869 gave great impetus to a widespread
feeling for union.

While seeking an expanded correspondence and evidencing a
selective willingness to co-operate with other evangelical bodies,
the Reformed Church proved as yet unwilling to talk in terms of or-
ganic union. This was evident in 1867 when she declined an invitation
from the Reformed Presbyterian Church for a general union conference
of churches of the Presbyterian order. The General Synod had re-
sponded that it would take no part in movements ”which are so
evidently tending toward.organic union of Presbyterian bodies in
this country."79

In 1868 the Rev. J. EL Mhtthews sought the support of the
General Synod to create a National Council of evangelical denomina-
tions in the United States. This plan pledged the Council to seek a
fraternal rather than an organic union for the maintenance of common
Christian doctrines and ethics. Though purely advisory, it sought to
promote harmonious and combined efforts to spread the Gospel through-

out the world.80 This first meeting was enthusiastically reported to

 

79Minutes R.P.D.Cp, 1861, p. 195. In 1865 the Reformed Church
had appointed a committee to meet with a committee from the Northern
Presbyterian Church (Old School) but only for the purpose of pro-
noting the efficiency of the evangelical churches and not to create
an anti-Catholic organization as the invitation stated. 'Minutes

RpPeDeCep 186:, PP. 57““‘750
80Minutes R.C.A., 1868, pp. Leo-21.

 

89
the 1870 General Synod by the Rev. Thomas De Witt. The delegation
was continued but the Rev. Mhtthews, one of its chief promoters, had
died in 1870 and the experiment evidently failed to win the support
of the other denominations. It shared many points of similarity with
the international Evangelical Alliance which had been organized in
London in 18h6. The Reformed Church had appointed delegates to attend
this organizational meeting and was represented again at the 1866
meeting in Amsterdam. In 1870 the General Synod bestowed its blessing
on the organization and the purpose of the Evangelical Alliance in-
cluding an American branch organized in 1867.81 Its continued
existence and widespread efforts exerted an important influence on
those seeking closer relations between denominations but who were
fearful of organic union.

The now united Northern Presbyterian Church took an important
step in 1870 prior to beginning new and wider union talks. It
approved the Heidelberg Catechism.for use by its congregations. This
may have been mainly a reciprocal act, for the Reformed Church in
America in 1867 had renewed its endorsement of the westminster
Catechism. The accompanying resolution stated ”That this Assembly
cordially rejoices at the continued and increasing evidences of
agreement and union among those whose symbols maintain in common the
faith once delivered to the saints."82 At its General Assembly

 

8J’Lflnutes R. C.A., 1820, p. 136. Unlike the short-lived
National Council of Evangelical Churches, the ministers and laymen
who supported the Evangelical Alliance and attended its Conferences
did not officially represent their denominations.

BZMtes of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church
in the United States of America (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board
of Publication, 1870), p. 120. Hereinafter'referred to as Minutes

may: bin—m Ue SeAe p [2&1] e

90
meeting on May 26, 1873, it appointed a nine man committee to consider
the desirability and feasibility of union. Its resolution as for-
warded to the Dutch Reformed Church in annual session at New Brunswick
on June‘u, 1873 was brief and to the point.
Whereas, we have long enjoyed fraternal relations with
the General Synod of the Reformed Church in America . . .
a body holding the same doctrines with ourselves; and,
Whereas, we have reason to believe that an organic re-
lation with said Church would be to the honor of Christ,
our one Lord and Head, the extension of His visible king-
dom, and tg the better establishment of our common Presby-
terianism. 3
Though General Synod created a Committee of Conference to meet
with this and other branches of the Presbyterian family, two observa-
tions augured ill for the success of the proposed union. The Committee
of Correspondence presented its thoughts on the effects of a union with
this much larger church. They foresaw the Reformed Church contributing
additional wealth and a loyal block of members but losing its name and
heritage, and possibly creating a schism in its own ranks. Secondly,
the Church considered the reception by the Presbytery of Philadelphia
of the Third Reformed Church of that city on June 9 an unfriendly act
and a violation of the Articles of Correspondence.
The two Joint committee meetings of January 15 and May 1%,
187# revealed a desire for a closely working arrangement on comity
on the domestic mission fields but also showed that any scheme of
union at that time would be premature. It would have to develop from
the "deliberate, well-informed, and general choice of the members of

the two churches.'8u Their report encompassed the above idea and

83mnutee Presbyterian U.S,A., 1823, p. 5157; cf. mnutee
R.C,A,, 1823, p. l .

8“Minutes Freeman”: U.S.A., 1871b, p. 65.

 

91

called for the continuation of the committees to seek a closer union
which would preserve the name and other characteristics of each
church. Fraternal delegate Dr. A. G. Vermilye, in an address before
the 1874 General Assembly, re-emphasized this point when he concluded
his remarks on the subject of union with the statement, I'If the term.
means absorption,.Mr. Moderator, it can not be done.”85

In the hepe of forestalling any positive union action at the
approaching General Synod, a layman, Dr. James Anderson, wrote and
distributed an emotional little pamphlet entitled Church Mhrriage.
In it he invited the restless pro-unionists to leave the Church, for
”she is not.ready for any such matrimonial annihilation and.never will
be."86 Articles in the Christian Intelligencer both before and after
the General Synod meeting of June 3-12, 18?“ indicated others also
felt the need to preserve a separate denominational existence. An
article by E. P. Hyckoff interestingly remarked that “in this country
there are some good things that are neither Presbyterian nor Anglo-
Saxon, and which should hold fast to their individuality, and one of
then is the Reformed Church in America. ~87

 

85Christian Intelli encer, June #, 1874, p. 11.

86.1a.» Anderson, Church Harri e (New York: Press of Rogers
and Sherwood, Mby 187u), p. . In 1 , while 112 meibers of General
Synod had approved the Classes' sanctioned name change, Dr. Anderson
was one of only seven who opposed dropping the word ”Dutch." The
last two pages of this pamphlet contain a declaration he claimed had
already in July, 1867 been signed by 85 members of the recent General
Synod to the effect that the vote in favor of the change in the
Church's name should not be construed as a first step toward ending
the denomination's separate existence.

87"The Question of Uhion,” Christian Intelligencer. July 30,
187“, p. 3 e

92

When the Committee on Conference made its report, the General
Synod was still disturbed over the General Assembly's unsatisfactory
decision on the Third Reformed Church case. The majority of the
Conttee called for continued negotiations toward eventual union,
but a minority report advocated ending all conferences on union.88
A strenuous debate broke out in which the major speeches were made by
the Chairman H. D. Ganse for the majority's position and the Rev.
W. R. Gordon for the opposition.89 Eventually a compromise amendment
was passed by a fifty-eight to fifty-two vote. This ended all con-
ferences with the Northern Presbyterians on union but indicated a
willingmss to confer on the revision of the Articles of Correspond-
ence to secure better co-operation in areas of similar work.90 After
this action the Northern Presbyterians lost their interest in the
union approach. At the next joint committee meeting on March 25,
1875, so few of their committee members attended that nothing could
be accomplished. The Reformed Church committee presented a Plan of
(Io-operation which the Presbyterians, after polling their members by
mail, rejected.” No real effort was made to call a new meeting in

1875. At their last joint meeting in New York City on April 13,

‘ A

88mm» R,C.A,, 1821», pp. 187-89, records the majority
report while the minority report is found on pp. 190-92.

891m gristian Intelligencer on July 2, 1874 devoted parts
of seven pages to cover twelve of these speeches. An aftermath was

a new debate in the paper over the Rev. Ganse's pronouncement that
the Board of Domestic fission's efforts to plant English speaking
churches in the West had been a failure despite the great expenditure
of money.

9°mnutes R.C.A,, 1821;, p. 50.
91Mnutes R.C.A., 1875, p. 259.

93
1876, the Dutch Reformed as per directions would only discuss co-
operation while their Presbyterian counterparts _f__‘I_e__l_._t_ constrained to
discuss only organic union.92 An impasse had occurred and both com-
mittees requested to be discharged when their respective ecclesiastical
courts met in 1876. The old tried and tested fraternal. correspondence
seemed to promise the degree of co-operation sought by the Dutch
Church.

Apparently the decisive factor from the standpoint of the
Reformed Church in the defeat of this union approach was the feeling
that to merge with this luger church meant "to commit ecclesiastical
hari--kal:'i.."93 In addition, the continuing, less demanding negotia-
tions with the Southern Presbyterians and the beginning of an.inter-
national Pan-Presbyterian organization beckoned. Despite the Northern
Presbyterian's deep involvemnt in this latter movement, they had
evidenced a patience and a sensitivity to denominational character-
istics in negotiations with the smaller Reformed Church. At least
this had been the case as long as negotiations had the possibility of
ending in union.

Almost singlehanded, the Rev. William Veenschoten continued to
‘work within the Dutch Church to ”undo the mistake of 187”” and secure

92According to their instructions, when the connnittee was
continued in 1875, they were authorized to confer on co-operation as
well as organic union, but the enthusiasm to continue these negotia-
tions had vanished. They had already proposed organic union with the
United Presbyterian Church and the Cumberland Presbyterian Church and

werzagwaiting their replies. Minutes Presbyterian, U,S,A., 1825,
p. .

93P.D.v.c., "Report on Synod's Action,” Christian Intelli encer,
July 2’ 18?“, p. 20

91;
an organic union with the Northern Presbyterians.9u At one time he
sent out letters to one hundred prominent Reformed ministers asking
their reasons for continuing the Reformed Church in America as a
separate organization. Another time he conducted a poll of twelve
Classes in the denomination on a union with the Presbyterian Church.
He felt he demolished all the major reasons offered for a separate
existence and his later selective poll showed that three-fourths of
the churches in these Classes which responded favored union with the
Presbyterians.95 His campaign culminated.in 1887 with a proposed
eight point plan of union which would have dissolved the Reformed
Church within the larger and thoroughly acceptable Presbyterian
Church. What ”if the Reformed lamb should be eaten by the Presby-
terian lion, we will not be lost. th should we not be content to
be part of the brains, body or even the tail of that noble beast?"96
By 1870 the Dutch Reformed had developed a two-fold interest

in a possible program in the South. One interest centered on the

 

94William veenschoten, A Plan for Organic Uhion (n.p., n.n.,
1887), p. 8. This is a reprint from.the‘Independent, April 7 &:14,
1887.

95Ibid., p. 1. An earlier pamphlet in which he expressed
his reasons for and assurances about this union was entitled Should
the Reformed Church in America Continue a Separate Qrganization?
(Albany: Burdick and Taylor, Printers, 188E). This contained the
substance of a paper read before the Hudson River Ministerial
Association, Poughkeepsie, New’lork, march 31, 1884.

96IM__Q. , p. 3 . He probably gathered encouragement from
fraternal“ delegate E. T. Gorwin's letter to the 1886 Presbyterian
General Assembly. Corwin wrote of past close relations including
federation and union overseas and concluded, 'we rejoice in these
signs of a growing desire for union . . . .' hhnutes Presbyterian
U.S. 1A., 1886, pp. 126-28. No mention of this letter is found.in
the Minutes R. C.A., 1885 or 188____6_ indicating this was done on the
initiative of the delegate and not of his church.

95
evangelization of the freedmen and the other was the possible exten-
sion of the Church through the incorporation of the German Reformed
Classis of North Carolina. In either case, it seemed wise to open a
fraternal correspondence with the Presbyterian Church in the united
States (South) among whose churches they would be laboring. Though
the Church's constitution of 1792 made no distinction between bond
and free nor black and white, the major policy of the Church from
1820-62 was to support the American Colonization Society's efforts
to establish freed Negroes in Iiberia.97 By 1870, the plight of the
freedmen, spiritual and.naterial, as well as his unwillingness to
emigrate became apparent. The Dutch Reformed Church needed experienced
assistance to carry on this work in the South. After the collapse of
their negotiations (1872-74), this was not forthcoming from the German
Reformed Church.

The Dutch Commissioners, the Revs. John A. Todd and W. J. R.
Taylor, received a warm reception at the Southern Presbyterians' 1871
General Assembly and correspondence commenced.98 In 1872, Dr. Joseph
R. Wilson, their Stated Clerk, acted as the delegate from these
Presbyterian brethren and indicated a desire for closer relations
between the two churches. Both churches thereupon proceeded to
appoint committees to explore the nature and.desirability of a
changed relationship.99 The Southern Presbyterians cautiously set

 

973cc Article 59 of the Constitution of 1792; Minutes
R.PeDeCe 1820, Ppe 17-18; mute! R.PeDeCe. 18,42, pa 509; mnut.‘
R.P,D,C., 1 , pp. 212-13; Minutes R.C.A., l , pp. 500-501.

98mnutes R.c.A., 1821, p. 221.

99innutes R.C.A., 1822, p. 1538, and Minutes R.C.A.. 1873,
p. 613.

96

the objective of the first joint meeting as solely the procurement
of mutual information; the Reformed Church agreed.100

The two committees met in New York on February 27, 1874 and
got along so well that they drew up a Plan of Co-operation. The close
agreement they discovered in doctrinal standards, forms of government
and rules of discipline did not blind them to some ”considerable
obstacles to an organic union.“ They explained their action as

follows:

That we fully recognize it to be the duty of the followers
of our Lord Jesus Christ to seek and embrace all proper means
of manifesting such degree of unity in the faith of the Gospel
as may exist among them; and that this unity may, in our view,
be effectually manifested by us in the absence of outward
ecclesiastical uniformity, with which it ought never to be

confoundedb and which ought never to be purchased at the cost
of truth.1 1

This initial outline Plan of Co-operation granted the right of
deliberation to their respective fraternal delegations at General
Assembly or General Synod meetings. It permitted greater liberality
in filling pulpit vacancies with ministers from either denomination
and also in the training and employment of each other's theological
students and graduates. Geographically isolated churches were on-
couraged to reaffiliate with the nearest Classis or Presbytery.

Tentative ideas of co-operation in the areas of Domestic and Foreign

 

loomnutes R,C.A., 1822, pp. 670-71. The Condttee on
Correspondence questioned whether the two churches could actually
strengthen each other with the Northern Presbyterian Church lying
between their two churches. Ibid., pp. 675-76. The Synod of
Missouri made a holder proposition for a union conference with these

other two churches but there is no evidence this proposal was acted
upon.

1°1Minutes R.C.A;. 1824, pp. 53-57, contains both the report
of the R.C.A.'s Committee and the Plan of Co-operation.

97

mssions as well as Publications were made but were to be enlarged
upon and harmonized by the various boards and committees by January 1,
1875. The Southern Presbyterians adopted this Plan at their General
Assembly at Columbus, Mississippi on May 30, 1874 and the General Synod
concurred and continued their Committee on Conference during their
session of June 3-12, 1871+ at Poughkeepsie, New York.102

Upon receipt of the requested reports, the Con-ittee of Con-
ference met on January 15, 1875 in New York. They agreed that in

1. Publication - each denomination's publishing houses would
act as agents for the sale of the other's publications and a children's
paper would be jointly published.

2. Home Missions - the main area of co-operative concern was
the evangelization of the colored population of the South. The main
contribution the Reformed Church could make here would be financial
and these monies would be spent by direction of the Presbyterian's
Home Missionary Work Committee.

3. Foreign Missions - elaborated on the previous plan's listed
goal, the establishment of one united Church in contiguous areas of

l‘bcre

And this agreement is made, not only for the sake of expres-
sing, as it does, the confidence which these two American
denominations have in each other, but, chiefly, with the

view of contributing to the establishment in each missionary
country of a native church that shall grow from its own root.103

 

102Ibid., pp. 53 8: 62.

103Minutes R.C.A. l8 , p. 257. The entire report and Plan
are reproduced on pp. 255-5 . This and other comitments to the
establishment of churches as indigenous as the adoption of an imported
religion permitted, proved of incalculable importance when the wave
of nationalism swept over these areas of the world in the twentieth
century.

98
The recruitment and employment of missionaries for deficient areas
could occur in either denomination.

h. Education - deals specifically with the internalizing of
theological students, their financial support and the need to conform
to the rules of the church from which licensing and ordination were
to be sought.

5. Interchange of Annual Reports - while this is provided for,
a more important part of this section provided that

Any provision of this scheme of co-operative union may

at any time be altered or extended by the Joint action of the
General Assembly and General Synod; and any provision of it
may be omitted or abrogated by either body without impairing
the validity of those other provisions on which they shall
agree.

Though adopted, this Plan never became a vibrant force uniting
these two churches. It led neither to the degree of co-operation en-
visioned nor to demands for an even closer union. The Synod agreed to
welcome agents from the South to solicit funds for their Tuscaloosa
Institute and other domestic missionary work among the colored people,
but the response in the Reformed Church to such appeals for funds was
relatively small. Perhaps the geographical sepu‘ation proved too
great a handicap to real understanding and concern for each other's
problems and efforts. In the next quarter of a centm-y, while the
Reformed Church delegates attended every one of the Southern Presby-
terian General Assemblies, they in return found it possible to attend
only fourteen of the twenty-five sessions of the Reformed Church's

General Synods.lo’+

 

louDiward T. Corwin, A Ingest of Constitutional and modical
legislation of the Reformed Church in America (New York: Board of

Publication of the Reformed erch in America, 1906), pp. 518-bit.

99

All during these three attempts for closer co-operation and
union, an ecumenical council had been in the process of forming.
Agitation for a general organization to include all members of the
Reformed faith had been underway for several years by Presbyterians
on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean. In 1870, President James McCosh
of Princeton university had formally proposed the idea of a Pan.
Presbyterian Council to the Northern Presbyterian General Assembly.
This Assembly recognized that a substantial unity existed which it
was important to exhibit to the world by a closer union of the scat-
tered Presbyterian family. Therefore, in 1873 it appointed a
committee

to correspond with sister churches holding by the West-
minster Standards [Heidelberg Catechism.added later], with
a view of bringing about an ecumenical council of such
Churches, to consider subjects of common interest to all,

and.especia1ly to promote harmony of action in the mission
fields at home and abroad. 05

The General Synod of 1874 approved participation by the Reformed
Church in this enterprise. Two meetings, on December 3, 1874 and
April 8, 1875, of Canadian and united States churches produced a
twenty-two point statement of the nature and goals of the proposed
federation. It would seek among its far ranging ends to work cut a
comity on the foreign mission field, give increased attention to the
great urban areas and other destitute parts of the home mission field
and ”combine the Protestant churches in opposing the errors and inroads
of Romanism. "106

 

lo5Minutes Presbyterian U.S.A., 1823, p. 558. Dr. William G.
Blaikie of Edinburgh had been working equally hard in the British
Isles and a similar resolution was adopted by the General Assembly of
the Presbyterian Church in Ireland in 1873.

1°6Minutes R.c.A., 1875, pp. 260-62.

100

The Reformed Church was represented at London on July 21, 187 5
when, with It. McCosh presiding, a preliminary meeting of twenty-one
churches tied the two movements together. The name, Prosbyterian
Alliance (actually The Alliance of Reformed Churches Throughout the
World Holding the Presbyterian System), was adopted. Through accept-
ance of a proposed constitution, a General Council was provided for
which held its first meeting at Edinburgh, Scotland on July 3, 1877.
The Reformed Church in America has consistently supported this organi-
zation, based on the acceptance of the ”supremacy of Holy Scripture,
adherence to the Consensus of Reformed Confessions and a general
acknowledgement of Presbyterian principles. “107 By the turn of the
century, over eighty national and denominational churches from six
continents with an estimated twenty-five million members and adherents
were represented.108 The Rev. Talbot w. Chambers of the Reformed
Church served as President of the Alliance from 1892 until his death
in 1896.

This organization had played an important part in supporting
numbers of weaker Reformed Churches in mops whose previous existence
was largely unknown on this side of the ocean. It helped create a new
sense of co-operation and tolerance which contributed to the estab-

lishment of an 1892 comity arrangement on the domestic mission fields

 

1°7Ruth Rouse and Stephen c. Neill (eds.), A 111st of the
Ecumenical Movement: 1 -1 (Philadelphia: Westminster Press,
19 9 Po 2 e

1033. 'r. Corwin, A Manual of the Reformed Church in America:
l628-1fi2, 4th ed., p. 283. The size of this organization neces-
sitated the creation in 1884 of a divided Executive Comission. A
Western Section represented North America and an Eastern Section
represented the other five inhabited continents.

 

101

between the Presbyterian, Congregational and Reformed Churches .109
On the foreign fission field it established closer relations between
the workers and led to the affiliation of their parent boards in the
Foreign mssions Conference of North America in 1893. Though not
primarily an instrument of reunion itself, out of the movements
engendered by the Presbyterian Alliance grew the great World Mis-
sionary conference of 1900 and the 1910 Edinburgh meeting.110

Actually, many of the Dutch Reformed Church's tendencies on
the foreign fission field were evident before the organisation of the
Presbyterian Alliance. The Amoy Mission in China established in 1842
developed primarily as a joint effort of the American Dutch Refoer
alurch (1842) and the English Presbyterians (1850). In 1857, the
Reformed Church' s General Synod had instructed her fissionaries there
to form a denominational Classis within the Particular Synod of Albany.
Under the leadership of the Rev. J. V. N. Talmage, the fissionaries
ignored this directive and organized the "Great Presbyterian and
Classical Council of Amoy." In response to a new prompting in 1863,
Dr. Talmage wrote a seventy-four page pamphlet entitled History and
Ecclesiastical Relations of the Churches of the Presbfigial Order,

 

at Annex, daina.m The General Synod refused to repeal its 1857

 

1°9Ibid., p. 223.

11° Charles s. Macfarland, International Christian Movements
(New York: Revell, 1924), p. 95; cf. Rouse and Neill, op_. cit.,
p. 374. The 1910 Edinburgh meeting is considered a twentieth
century ecumenical watershed and the beginning of the movements
which culfinated in the World Council of Churches.

mot. Herman Harmelink, Noaristian Unity and Church Union:
A Stw of the Ecumenical Approach of the Reformed Church in Anueul'ica'I
(unpublished M.S'.T. dissertation, Union Theological Seminary, New

York, 1964), pp. 34-35; and E. T. Corwin, A Digest of Constitutional
and Synodical legislation of the Reformed Church in America, pp. 30-31.

102

directive but also refused to coerce these fissionaries. In Japan,
Reformed Church fissionaries seriously handicapped by governmental
restrictions labored from 1859-72 before the first Christian church
was organized. Along with fissionaries of the Presbyterian Gmrch
in the United States of America and the United Prosbyterian Church
of Scotland, they organized on October 3, 1877 ”The Ihlited (llurch of
alrist in Japan.”112 In India, ”the Arcot Mission sprang from a
union movement, ”113 and readily co-operated with other fissions.
While participation in formal union did not occur until 1901, “the
Reformed Church never tried to establish a branch of its denomina-
tion."1m

me last quarter of the nineteenth century also found the
young people fired with a passion for foreign missions. In 1886, the
Student Volunteer Movement for Foreign Missions had its origin at
Mount Hermon, Massachusetts. It sponsored a tour of colleges and
sefinaries from coast to coast to recruit fissionaries to accomplish

its slogan, ”The evangelization of the world in this generation. ”115

 

mm 1885 the Presbyterian Church in the U.S. and in 1886
the Reformed Church in the United States were brought into the United
Churclsill- E. T. Corwin, A Manual of the Reformed Church in America, 4th ed.,
PP- 3 55. ____....___.__

113Sam Ponniah, "The Contributions of the Reformed Church in
America to the Church of South India“ (unpublished Master's disserta—
tion, Western Theological Sefinary, 1964), p. 42. The Rev. Ponniah
is a native of India and believes the Reformed alurch to have been
very ecumenical in the fission field.

11“Ibdd., p. 151. A Reformed Church missionary, Dr. Jacob
Chamberlain, became the first Moderator of this Alliance of Presby-
terian Churches in South India. Sifilarly, when the Congregation-
alists joined with these churches to form the South India United
erch in 1908, Dr. J. H. Wyckoff became the first Maderator.

115 Samuel Zwemer, ”The Student Volunteer Movement and the

103
At Hope College, Emma Kellen, Albertus Pieters and Samuel Zwemer
became part of the 2,106 recruits this organisation enrolled. Thus
not only the young people were motivated; there was increasing lay
participation.in Christian interdenominational projects.116 Many
Reformed Church members willingly co-operated through the Bible
societies, the tract societies, the Ibung Men's Christian Association,
the American Temperance Society and others. The earnestness that
blurred denominational distinctions on the foreign mission fields and
promoted co-operative Christian endeavors at home continually renewed
thoughts of possible denominational unions.

Reformed Church," Church Herald, February 8, 1946, p. 15.

116John A. Hutchison, We Are Not Divided (New York: Round
Thble Press Inc., 1941), p. 12, calls this increasing lay activity
and interdenominationalism a phenomenon of the American religious
pattern. Rouse and Neill, op. cit., p. 236, expressed the belief
that the national character of many of the interdenominational
societies "helped broaden some of the more provincial denominations,
those formerly limited to specific geographical areas in the East."

CHAPTER IV
UNION CIRCUMVENTED: 1886-1893

After the 1874-75 abortive union attempt, a decade elapsed
before another approach to union between the two branches of the
Reformed Church was undertaken. In 1886, the Dutch branch again.ini-
tiated this new union effort, as they had.begun every previous attempt
except that of the 18403.1 The Dutch Reformed Classes of Monmouth and
Philadelphia overtured their General Synod to take steps toward union.
The Committee on Overtures approved an exploration of union possibili-
ties and recommended the appointment of a committee which could meet
with a similar group from.the German Church. The General Synod re-

sponded by appointing a five man committee headed by the Rev. William J.

 

1Conference on Union Between the Reformed Church in America and
the Reformed Church in the United States (Rhiladelphiaz Reformed
Church Publishing House, 1888), p. iii. (Hereinafter referred to as
the 1888 Conference on union). This official publication on the Con»
ference on union between the R.C.A. and the R.C.U.S. gives the
impression that the 1884 overtures seeking closer relations by the
Pittsburgh Synod and several Classes of the R.C.U.S. may have helped
create the friendly response of the General Synod of the Dutch Church
in 1886. Donald H. YOder, "Church Uhion Efforts of the Reformed
Church in the united States to l93fi' (unpublished Ph.D. disserta-
tion, University of Chicago, 19W). p. 81+. Dr. Yoder feels the first
approach was made in a speech by the Rev. John W; Wagner, fraternal
delegate from the R.C.A. to the 188“ General Synod of the R.C.U.S.,
in which he expressed the hope ”that these two churches in this
country may'be one body." This is such a frequently mentioned,
almost cliche expression by delegates that undue stress can not be
attached to it.

104

105
R. Taylor, D.D., of New York City.2

At its triennial meeting late in May of 1887, the General Synod
of the Reformed Church in the United States reciprocated by appointing
a five man committee. The chairman was the Rev. Dr. Thomas G. Apple,
President of fianklin and Marshall College, Lancaster, Pennsylvania.3
The two committees were unable to meet prior to the convening of the
General Synod of the Reformed Church in America in early June of 1887
and came close to never meeting at all. They did, however, eventually
meet three times within the next three years, and decided that a
feasible plan for unioncould be worked out.

The Dutch General Synod of 1887 was confronted with conflicting
overtures. Six Classes of the Particular Synod of Chicago, encompas-
sing large numbers of nineteenth century Dutch immigrants, overtured
against any step of agitation toward union; two Eastern Classes, Albany
and Schenectady, wanted a possible union with the Northern Presbyterians.

The 1887 Committee on Overtures now reversed the previous committee's

 

2The Acts and Proceedings of the 80th Regular Sessicngcr the
General ”ad of the Ref_ormed Church in America (flew York: Board of
Publication of the Reformed Church in America, 1886), p. 127. (Here-
inafter referred to as Minutes R.C.A., Qearl ). Additional committee
”tubers were the ROVQ Jo mandarf, D.D., tha Rev. J. A. DO Baun, D.D.,
the Hon. H. W. Bookstaver, and E. J. Miller, Esq.

3Rdnutes of the General gynod of the Reformed Church in the
United States for 1887 Dayton, Ohio: Reformed Publishing Co., 1 7),
p. lt7. (Hereinafter referred to as Minutes R.C.U.S., Egg). Dr.
Apple also served the Lancaster Theological Seminary as Professor of
Church History from 1871-98. Other members were the Rev. James I.
Good, D.D., the Rev. George W. Wilhard, D.D., the Rev. Herman J.
mCunik, D.D., md th. Rev. J. Spmglfir Kieffer, DeDe

According to H. M. J. Klein's History of the Eastern mod
of the Reformed murch in the United States (Lancaster: The Eastern
Synod R.C.U.S., lit-35, p. 275, at the October, 1886 meeting of this
same Eastern Synod, its Committee on Church Union had recommended it
urge the General Synod to make efforts to establish closer relations,

especially with other Reformed denominations.

106
stand and recommended that efforts toward church union were not
wise.“ In a rather contradictory move, the General Synod both
adopted the recommendation of its Committee on Overtures and voted to
continue the Taylor Committee on Church Union with the German Reformed
Church.

The two committees, headed by Drs. Taylor and Apple, held a
two day session at the Marble Collegiate Church located at 29th
Street and 5th Avenue, New Yerk City, on December 20 and 21, 1887.
A.round~robin discussion on the general subject of union preceded the
appointment of subcommittees to prepare the procedure and terms for
union. One group prepared the largest and most important conference
for Dutch-German church union ever held. The assignment of papers
relating to union was made and the time and place for this 1888
popular convention set. During these two days, and even at the inter-
vening evening reception at Judge Bookstaver's home, a feeling for
union seemed prevalent.

The only area of disagreement centered on what type of union
should be effected. The first day Dr. J. A. De Baun strongly urged
that a federal type of union be the basis for discussion. At the
next session, he startled the German delegates by reading a rather
detailed draft of a plan for federal union. They, for their part,
desired a much more integrated type of organic union. The adopted
report seemed to concur with the latter. Dr. J. Spangler Kieffer

 

l(Minutes R.C.A., 1882, pp. 368-69. Herman Harmelink,
”Christian Unity and Church Union" (unpublished MtS.T. dissertation,
Uhion Theological Seminary, l96h), p. 63, suggests the committee was
unduly influenced by the 6-2 margin in overtures against union senti-
ment and failed to consider the opinion and desires of the Classes
which had not expressed themselves by overtures.

10?

described the situation in his diary.

Yesterday, there had been a collision between two different

kinds of union, now this report evidently decided in favor

of one of them as against the other; but it was instantly

claimed that it covered both. There was ambiguity at the

very beginning; ambiguity which would cause trouble.5

The Philadelphia Union Conference of April 3 and 5, 1888, was
large, important and colorful.6 This site was probably chosen be-
cause it represented one of the few geographical areas where the two
churches overlapped. It was also easily accessible to the vast
majority of the Dutch Reformed churches still concentrated in New
York and New Jersey and the large German Reformed concentration in
Pennsylvania. Despite the logic of this location, only nineteen of
thirty-three Dutch Classes and twenty-two of the fifty-four German
Classes were represented. The conference assembled in the First
Reformed Church (German) at 10th and Wallace Streets and concluded
its session the following day in the Second Reformed Church (Ditch)
at 7th and Brown Streets.
One can not help but wonder at the forethought that went into

the assignment of the nine papers which covered the six major topics
presented at this conference. The committee selected to formulate an

expression of the conference and to publish the discourses, conmlented

 

5mm under "My First Visit to New York”, [December 188E ,
HS Diary, March 15, 1887-March 15, 1890. (mstofioll Society of the
Evangelical and Reformed Church, Fackenthal Library, Franklin and
Marshall College). Dr. Kieffer was so upset that he had abstained
from voting on this part of the report.

6Forty-four ministers and laymen of the R.C.A. plus 1014.
R.C.U.S. ministers and laymen were in attendance. Each Dutch Church
delegate was given an orange ribbon to place in the button hole of
his coat, and each German Church delegate was given a red ribbon.

It was not only these ribbons but the occasional apostrophe and
symbolism of some of the speeches that gave this conference color.

108
on the ”remarkable unanimity exhibited in all the papers."7 The
clarion call was for union and the speakers stressed the lack of insur-
mountable obstacles between these closely related churches.

The tone of the meeting was set by the opening address of Dr.
Thomas G. Apple, the chairman of the Joint Committee on Union of the
Reformed Churches. He professed to direct attention to two points,
namely, that the present abnormal divided state of the church should be
rectified, and that this rectification would require sacrifice.8 Feel-
ing that denominations had already served their special mission and
were no longer justified in their existence, he suggested that the
proposed union might be but an initiator of a wider "Unionistic move-
ment.” Before he finished, his speech actually anticipated all the
areas later expounded.

The historians, Professor E. T. Corwin and Professor J. H. Dubbs,
speaking on ”The Historical and Doctrinal Relations of the Two Churches“,
agreed that separation on the basis of language and geography was no
longer valid. Differences in church standards and in the articles of
church government were also considered inadequate reasons because each
had modified them to suit conditions found in America. Both professors
played down the significance of the previous failure of the advisory
Triennial Convention of 1844 and strongly called for union. Dr. Corwin

stressed that this was really a call for reunion and at one point he

 

71888 Conference on Union, p. iv. The similarity was also
noted in the editorial, "The Philadelphia Conference," Christian
Intelligencer, April 11, 1888, p. 3. There may have been a purpose in
asking Dr. Drury, the editor of this official R.C.A. paper, to offer
the opening prayer of the conference. The Christian Intelligencer
consistently supported this union venture.

81888 Conference on Onion, p. 7.

109

stated: “It is UNION which we all want, and for many excellent
reasons."9 This representative of the Dutch Church concluded that it is
”now our common privilege, together in initiating measures large, and
broad, and catholic that the greatest spiritual results may be obtained."
Here he showed his anticipation of a wider unionistic movement also and
asked, ”Ought we not do this at a very great sacrifice if necessary?"10
Dr. Dubbs closed, perhaps too significantly for some Dutchmen with their
hyper-consciousness of all Romanish influence, by quoting St. Augustine:
”Let there be in necessary things, unity; in doubtful things, liberty;
in all things, charity."ll This proved a very apt expression of the more
liberal approach of the Reformed Church in the United States to all
union efforts.

The remaining speeches of the first day were given by Dr. A. P.
Van Gieson on "The Canons of Dort”, Dr. D. Van Horne on ”The Present
Conditions of the Two Denominations” and Dr. E. 8. Gas on ”Church Uhion
for the Evangelisation of the World."12 These speeches revealed no real
disharmonious features in standards, geographical distribution or extent

of Americanization of the two churches, and asserted that their missionp
aries were pleading for union.13

 

9Ibid., p. 18. 101bid., p. 3h. 111bid., p. ha.

12”The Philadelphia Conference,“ The Christian Intelli ncer,
April 11, 1888, p. 3. The editor felt the happiest hit of the conference
occurred during a discussion in which Dr. van Gieson noted that the
Germans ”had.the impression that their Dutch neighbors take particular
delight in firing off the canons of Dort. This is a mistake.”

Dr. D. Van Horne was eminently qualified for his topic, having

been raised and ordained in the Dutch Church and currently serving as a
pastor of a German Church in Philadelphia.

13In Japan where the foreign mission efforts of the two churches
overlapped, their missionaries had already been joined together in the

United Church of Christ in Japan. The following day Dr. Mabon expressed

110
The presentations the second day went to the heart of the union
question and dealt with the real and probable obstacles as well as the
advantages to be gained by this proposed union. The topic for the

morning was ”The Obstacles to Union, and Methods of Overcoming Them";
the speakers were Professor W. V. V. Mhbon of New Brunswick Seminary

and President G. W. Hilliard of Heidelberg College. In the afternoon,
the Rev. Peter Moerdyke of Grand Rapids, Michigan, and the Rev. Conrad
Clever of Baltimore presented ”The Advantages of Union."

Unlike Dr. Apple, Dr. Mabon could not accept the idea that
denominations were completely outmoded. He felt the ”diversities in-
herent in these two churches must be retained, but reconciled by a
higher unity of end to be gained by a unity of administrationflm+
This statement apparently renewed Dr. De Baun's earlier call for a
federal type of union.

Dealing more specifically with his topic, he found the general

hindrances to union to be (1) indifference arising from ignorance and

 

lack of association of the churches with each other, and (2) the
departure of the churches from their raison d'etre, the evangelizing

of the world. The more particular incumbrances were enumerated as race,
language, customs, polity, property, church boards and doctrinal

standards. Only language and doctrinal standards appeared as serious
barriers to union. Regarding language difficulty, he counselled:

we should have no more fear of being Germanized by such a
union than we have of being Hollandized by the increasing
immigration from the Netherlands. The English Synods of our

 

the opinion that ”the union of our missionaries in the manifold service
of the kingdom.is sure to be followed at home.” 1888 Conference on
Uhion, pe 76o

1“Ibid., p. 77.

111
sister church had in 1888, 1116 congregations, and the
German Synods only 312 . . . . In our own denomination at
the same time there were between 90 and 100 Dutch Reformed
Churches holding their services in the Hollandish language
and from.forty to fifty in the German. About four hundred
only, about one half of the ministers in the Reformed ChurCh
in the United States can use the German language. These
facts indicate the proportions of the foreign elements in
the two churches.”1
The solution jointly or separately required more bilingual ministers
until the process of Americanization had run its course.

Dr. Mabon appeared more wary of doctrinal standards as a
disharmonious factor than had the speakers of the previous day. The
fact that the Reformed Church in the Uhited States did not require
its ministers and professors of theology to subscribe to the Belgic
Confession and the Articles of the Synod of Dort had helped disrupt
the talks of 187u-75. On this issue Dr. Mabon at first appeared a
dogmatist, stating: ”The Reformed Church in America has no reason to
abandon, and is not likely to abandon, either of these standards,
which make an essential part of her history."16 Yet he inserted a
conciliatory statement when he acknowledged that ”as a fair latitude
of interpretation is assumed by our own men, the same is due to all
who will enter into union with us in labor, life and doctrine.-17

Dr.‘Williard's subjective obstacles to union differed from
Dr. Mabon's general hindrances only in their stress on ”prejudice"
which could pervert all the facts about the subject as to make a
"right“ decision almost impossible. His long rhetorical sentence on
particular differences reveals much unfounded prejudice evident

among elements in each church against the other.

 

15mmtes R.C.A., 1829, p. 130.
161888 Conference on Union, p. 81.

17Ihid., p. 83.

112

As to the extreme and diverse views that are sometimes falsely
attributed to us by which our Dutch brethren are represented
as Calvinists of the straitest sect making our salvation
rest wholly in the divine decree, whilst we are charged with
a form of high churchism which resolved the whole idea of
religion in a mechanical observance of certain rites and
ceremonies; or of entirely opposite views of the sacraments,
the one viewing them as mere empty signs without any objec-
tive reality, whilst the other attaches a magical force to
them, as if all who observe them are sure of the blessing

of regeneration and salvation; or of an equally strange
divergence of the one into extreme spiritualism, and of the
other into dead formalism; or of a strange diversity in the
means employed for the salvation of men, the one sanctioning
revivals and evangelistic work, creating a chasm between us
of such depth and breadth as to make it impossible for us to

fraternize and live together in harmony it is sufficient for
us to say that all suc and similar statements are misrepre-

sentations and exist more in fancy and imagination than they
do in reality, and that when we come to compare views . . .
as we are now doing in this conference, there is no sign,
whatever, of any such extreme views as we have referred to;

but in the place of it tge most cordial Christian greeting
and delightful harmony.1

Actually Dr. Hilliard suggested that the foremost obstacle should be
the impracticability of opening up a subject after the unconsummated
attempts of the past. Yet he would not count these as failures if

the subject refused to be suppressed and forced a new action such as
the 1888 Conference. ”The world and Church have both moved with
wonderful rapidity during the last forty years, so that we can new
approach the subject of union with a boldness and confidence that our
fathers would have shrunk from."19

The afternoon speeches emphasized previously claimed advantages
of greater energy, efficiency, prestige and importance at home and
abroad, as well as the restoration of an historic error and the fact it

 

18Ibid., pp. 90-91. See, also, his delightful comparison of
the relations between the two churches to that of two shy lovers
approaching marriage. Ibid., p. 89.

19Ibid., p. 88.

113

would honor Christ's prayer for unity found in John 17:21. The ReV.
Moerdyke, claiming to represent the western Synod of Chicago, spoke
of their feeling that they were too distant geographically from their
Eastern brothers for them to really understand their burning ques-
tions. Union would avert the "dangerous symptoms” arising from lone-
liness and isolation and would result in more compact Classes and
Synods with greater weight and power. The German Church would provide
a bridge between the Dutch churches of the East and west. Then
recalling an advertisement he once saw on the western side of a large
Grand Rapids factory, he concluded:

Brethren, the finger of God has advertised in words of

holy calling and proffered equipment upon the western side

of our broad domain: ”Room and power to let." Let us as

discerning churches read this sign of 58° times and go
forth consolidated to occupy the land.

Unless one sees a warning sign in the position taken by Dr.
Mabon on church standards, the only real disturbing note in this
harmonious conference occurred in the discussion period following the
Rev. Moerdyke's speech. At this time the Rev. w. H. Phraener,
Irving Park, Illinois, calling himself an American pastor of the
Reformed Church in America in the west, predicted~failure for this
union. He claimed many pastors seeking to Americanize their denomp
inatien felt closer to the Presbyterian Church than to a body a

majority of whose ministers spoke German.21

 

20Ibid., p. 124. The Rev. Moerdyke, pastor of an American
speaking church in Grand Rapids, may have been representative of his
Michigan Classis but his views were not representative of the entire
Particular Synod of Chicago.

21Another disappointed advocate of union in 1887 with the
Presbyterian Church, U. S. A., the Rev. William Veenschoten (”The
Philadelphia Conference,” Christian Intelligencer, May 2, 1888,

pp. 2-3) supports this view and bitterly comments on how all the

114

The conference ended with the acceptance of the report of
the Committee on Resolutions which approved the calling of the con-
ference, judged its sentiments to be for closer union and recommended
the continuance of the two committees toward this goal. It predicted
"present obstacles will gradually disappear, and in the end, in some
form just and acceptable to both branches, union may without much
delay be attained.”22 Hopefully the resolutions were to be forwarded
to the two General Synods by the Joint Committee in anticipation of
the adoption of the report for union in 1890, when next the General
Synod for the Reformed Church in the Uhited States convened. The work
of the Committee on Resolutions was not completed until all the
lectures and debates had been published in book form and widely dis-
tributed in both denominations. The committee, in the introduction
of this book, took the opportunity to express the following sentiment
on the subject of a more comprehensive union movement:

we pray that this union should it be successfully consummated,
may be the harbinger of a still more extensive union of the
Reformed Churches of this country, and when the twentieth
century dawns upon us, may the time have come when all the
Evangelical Churches of America shall be ripe for some form
of union that shall best concentrate their energies and
activities for the extension and final victory of our

blessed Redeemer's Kingdomtz3

 

objections used against a Presbyterian union could be applied to this
proposed union with the German Reformed Church also, but at this
conference they were blithely disregarded.

See Editor's rebuttal, Ibid., p. 1. Also consult the Rev.
J. A. Davis, "What Shall we Do About Church Union7,” Christian
Intelligencer, May 30, 1888, pp. “-5. This former advocate of union
with the Presbyterians offered a more reasonable attitude toward the
proposed new union talks, which he hoped would be a first step to a
united Presbyterian and Reformed body.

221888 Conference on Union, p. 131.

231bid., p. iv. The members of this committee were the Revs.
E. V. Gerhert, D. D. Demarest, J. B. Drury, N. Gehr, and D. Cole.

115

The Rev. J. Elmendorf of the Couaittee on Union of the Reformed
Churches included a report of the Philadelphia Conference in an overall
progress report to the 1888 General Synod of the Dutch Church which met
on June 6. He recommended that a Union Committee be continued with any
further instructions the General Synod might have for its guidance.
Unlike the delegate from the Reformed (lurch in the United States, Dr.
J. S. Kieffer, who spoke later to the Synod, Dr. Elmendorf did not feel
imediate and decisive action toward union was presently necessary.
Nevertheless, with regard to this union movement, he cautioned: “It
is also proper, if not essential, that it shall be kept sacredly free
of premature ecclesiastical action and that it shall not be mixed up
with any schemes or proposals for union with other diurchesflzu
Knowing that two years remained before a real decision on the proposed
union would have to be faced, the General Synod readily accepted the
committee's report and recommendation.

Dr. J. S. Kieffer, speaking later at the time allotted for
fraternal delegates, discussed the current status of the German Church
and conveyed the impression of its almost universal sentiment in favor
of union with the Reformed Church in America. More important, he gave
the Dutch General Synod a clearer insight into the main theological
movement of the last half century in his Church, Christology. This
Christ centeredness and the Heidelberg Catechism appeared to him to
be an adequate base for union, for he stated:

 

Zumnutes R,c,A., 1888, p. 619. Already the Committee on ,
Overture had received an overture from the Wisconsin Classis protesting
organic union with the German Reformed Church. Ibid., p. 607. It is
questionable whether the Rev. Elmendorf knew in advance of this over-
ture, but he did know of the Rev. w. Veenschoten's open call for union
with the Northern Presbyterians. wristian Intelli encer, May 2,

1888, pp. 2-3.

116

It would accord well with the existing spirit of the Church

I represent, to enter into a union with a sister church:

a union which should.be large and free enough to tolerate

differences on more than one nonessential point, which

should.be based upon that common agreement in doctrine

which we believe already exists in sufficient measure:

whose bond of union, above all else, should be belief in

Christ and.reverent attachment and devotion to Hine25
Later in his report to the 1890 General Synod of the Reformed Church
in the United States, Dr. Kieffer noted skeptically that the Rev. Dr.
M. H. Hutton, President of the Dutch Synod, had responded to his call
for organic union in a kind and cordial manner but did not seem "to
express or indicate the existence of any similar desire for union
with us on the part of the Reformed Church in America. "26

0n the surface, the question of this proposed union seemed to

lie almost dormant from the General Synod meeting of 1888 until just
before the next General Synod meeting on June 5, 1889. In February of
1889, a Christian Intelligencer editorial strongly proposed and endorsed
the federative principle for church union in general and for this
proposed Reformed union in particular, but even such articles were
infrequent.27 The editor was more likely to be writing on the new

immigrant threat to Protestant America's way of life, or the evil of

 

25The editors thought this speech important enough to print
in its entirety. Christian Intelligencer, June 13, 1888, p. 12.

26mmtes R.C.U,S,, 1899, p. 31.

27The year 1889 was the centennial year for the adoption of
the present Uhited States' Constitution and.represented also the
success of the first large-scale application of the federative
principle. The editor used this example as a justification for the
wisdom of his proposal, which he espoused editorially again in
February, 1890. This idea also receives support from.the influential
Dr. Talbot w; Chambers of the Hew'Iork City Collegiate Church system.

01'. maum Intelligence, m 22, 1889’ pp. 2-3e

117

purchasing Sunday papers, while the local congregations were ab—
sorbed in updating their membership roles.‘?'8

The Joint Committee on the Union of the Reformed erches had
not not since the popular convention of April, 1888, but the Special
Codssion on the Union of the Reformed Church in America had continued
to function. Their report to the General Synod on June 7, 1889, dis-
closed that several open informative meetings had been held and that
continued correspondence with the German Reformed Comndttee led them to
expect the completion of their work during the coming year. They felt
there was no present prospect for an organic union of the two churches
but that a federal union or an alliance for common work was possible.
Asking that the question be kept open until the Triennial General mod
of the Reformed Church in the United States not in 1890, it noted that
union ”is not a question of life or death to either body . . . ."29

No delegate from the German Reformed Church was present at this
General Synod, but the account of this report in the Christian Intelli-
m and elsewhere must have had a dampening effect on their enthu-
siasm for this union. This was particularly so of their leaders who were
strong advocates of organic union. J. I. Swander felt he expressed the
certainty of the German (lunch about the consumation of this long
desired union when, in a history of his church published in 1889, he
stated: ”God has ordained that they should be joined together and man

 

zaMembership roles had not been reviewed in may churches for
a period of between fifty and one hundred years. The Christian Intell-
i encer June 19, 1889, p. l, quoting statistics from a report to the
1&9 General Synod, noted that 8,289 names were added to the Reformed
Church in America role of 87,000 but that this only resulted in a net
gain of 1,796, due to this updating of church roles.

29Minutes R.C.A.J 1889, p. 81m.

118
can neither put nor keep them asunder. We believe that the mil-
lennium of organic m is close at hand."30 sun the report itself
occasioned no discussion among the Dutch Reformed delegates and
probably reflected accurately the attitude of the Reformed Church
in America on the subject of organic union.

The subject of the proposed union appeared to sleep once
again until the spring of the next year. Very few articles appeared
in the official organs of the two churches. Bring the normal spring
sessions of the Classes of the Reformed Church in America no apparent
action of am kind was taken. Later, in prefacing the report of the
Committee on Union to the General Synod, Dr. w. J. A. Taylor remarked
in substance that the subject mst not be thought to have lost its
importance by the silence or neglect of the past year.31

The Joint Committee on Union met for the third time on April
22, 1890. in New York City. The difference of opinion over what con-
stituted organic union continued to plague the discussions. For this
meeting, Dr. J. A. De Baun of the Mtch Church had drawn up a draft
of a proposed constitution. In its preface, the Dutch view was
stated as follows:

Organic union of distinct denominations can only come by
federation, or by fusion. If the union of the States has
made ours an organic Nation, then the federal union of
heretofore separate Denominations can make one organic Church.
And union by federation, rather than by fusion, has this
advantage: it can make a strong and absolute oneness, in
fact, spirit, work and fealty, without interfering with the
creed, cultus, customs and usages of cognate churches or

 

3"The Reformed Church: A Sketch of Its History, Together
with a Statement of ts Doctrines Government Cultus and Customs
(Dayton, Ohio: Reformed Publishing Compaxw, 5389), p. 66. The

underlining has been added.

31mm R.c.A., 1892, p. 1.

 

 

119
subjecting the smaller and weaker to the dominance of the
larger and stronger. To touch the creed of a Church (from
outside), is to wound its heart; to touch the cultus of a
Church is to maim.its life; to unite two or more kindred
Churches without doing either, is to make one household,
in which and for whic there shall be but one interest
and one organic life.

Obviously, for the Dutch Church there was real logic in this
line of reasoning. The greater power of the Reformed Church in
America's General Synod and the unwillingness of the Dutch to give
up any of their Calvinistic standards made the more loose unity of a
federative union appear a necessity even to the German Church.33 Such
an arrangement disregarded Dr. T. G. Apple's expressed opinion to the
Philadelphia Conference of 1888, that sacrifice would.be necessary to
restore the unity of these two churches. He is reported to have re-
marked to J. S. Kieffer that

a union would be valuable just in proportion as it involved

sacrifice, and that not much was likely to come of a union

devisedago as to leave the denominations just as they were
before e

Nevertheless, Dr. Apple, four of his fellow ministers and four

ministers and three laymen of the Reformed Church in America signed

 

32"Articles of constitution and Federal Union of Denomina—
tions Holding the Reformed Faith and the Presbyterial Form of
Church Government” (Fonda, New York: by the author, [189:] ), p. 1.

33This was particularly the case as regards property rights
and various funds and bequests which were vested in the Dutch
General Synod. In the German Church a dualism resulted when the
Synods, while merging to form.a General Synod.in 1863, retained much
of their respective property rights. This was the acknowledged
reason offered by the German Committee on Union in a separate report
accompanying the Report of the Joint Cbmmittee to its General Synod

on May 30th. Minutes R.C.U.S., 1829, p. 38.

3“Honri L. G. Kieffer (ed.), ”Extracts from the Diary of
J. Spangler Kieffer Relating to the Reformed Church in the United
States," Bulletin”L Theological Seminary of the Reformed Church in
the United States, I, No. 3 (19fl0), 69.

120

the Joint Committee Report which recommended the formation of a
federal union to the General Synods in 1890.

The General Synod of the Reformed Church in the United
States met at Lebanon, Pennsylvania, May 28 to June 5, 1890. The
second afternoon the fraternal delegates spoke and the Committee on
Union made its report. Dr. T. W, Chambers, the Dutch delegate, must
have felt inadequately instructed. He reported that he spoke frater-
nally and in generalities, ”having no commission to speak on the
subject of denominational union, which was the great theme occupying
all minds at that tine."35 Dr. Apple gave the Joint Committee's
report which proposed a federal union in the following terms:

After considering the subject in all its bearings the comp
mittee finally concluded to recommend what may be designated
a Federal Union of our two Reformed Churches in a new judi-
catory, composed of delegates from each of the churches, and
clothed with such powers as might be designated in the act
of union. This supreme judicatory would be so constituted
as to give due representation, but not undue prominence, to
either of the heretofore separate denominations, should have
ultimate authority in matters pertaining to the establish-
ment of new Missions, Domestic and Foreign, the establish-
ment of new educational institutions of the superior grades
and of the several interests of religious publications, but
not to interfere authoritatively with existing Missions, ed-
ucational institutions or publications, until or unless freely
committed to it by those under whose control they now exist.

After explaining the advisory nature of the judicatory in these and

all other areas, the conclusion then bears the mark of the predominant
German sentiment that

Such a federal union would leave room for, and perhaps in-
vite to membership in it, other Presbyterian Reformed
Churches now one with us in faith and order, thus looking

 

35"General synod, RCUS," Christian Intelligencer, June a,
1890, p. 8. Dr. James I. Good, reporting on the same General

Synod in the issue of June 11, 1890, p. 3, noted that Dr. Chambers
suggested Protestantism may provide obstacles to organic union but

neverto cooperation and quotes him as saying, ”I can and will
work with anyone who will work for Christ."

121

forward to one national, and perhaps internatiogal Reformed
Church, including all of like faith and order.3

Dr.'W. J. R. Taylor and Dr. De Baum of the committee each spoke favor-
ably on this recommendation and its significance. The floor was thrown
open for debate but there were no volunteers. By a rising vote, the
report of the committee and its accompanying resolutions were unani-
mously accepted. These resolutions provided for an appointive commis-
sion of sixteen empowered to produce, together with a similar commis-
sion from the Reformed Church in America, a constitution for the pro-
posed union. This commission was further empowered to call a special
session of the General Synod for a decision when its work was-completed.
The General Synod of the Reformed Church in America met at
Asbury Park, New Jersey, June h-ll. The Synod began with an unusual
third ballot election of a President, the Rev. Dr. J. Romeyn Berry,
who had recently completed a seventeen year interim.with the Presby-
terian Church. The evening sermon of the Vice President, the Rev. C.
th Der Veen, D.D., on ”Direct Vision”, apparently caused less comment
at that time than it would in some areas of the Church today, particu-
larly the statement:
To me there are no greater errorists than those who say

that the well of truth was long ago pumped dry into the

buckets of creeds and theological systems and that we hence-

forth can only drink by passing around stale and lukewarm

water which certain men have in their charge. Brethren,
there is a great deal more water in the spring than was ever

 

36Mnutes 12.0.0.3. 18 , pp. 37-38. The accompanying report
by the German Committee was a justification of their inability to

secure a closer union. Similarly, the Synod's resolution accepting
this report begins, ”resolved, that whilst this synod.would prefer a
closer organic union, yet . . . .” Ibid., p. 39.

122
yet drawn out . . . . It issues from the throne of God.37

This call for greater tolerance and understanding of the positions
developed by the sister church probably had little influence on the
union actions of the 1890 Synod. The Christian Intelligencer felt
the General Synod of 1890 was characterized by the independence of
its delegates in not hesitating to differ from the opinions and state-
ments of others.38 This willingness to debate was not evident during
that period on the third day devoted to this union. Dr. De Baun con-
fidently proclaimed: ”The main question before this Synod is a fore-
gone conclusion."39

Chairman W. J. R. Taylor presented the report of the Committee
on Onion of the Reformed Churches which also contained the previously
recorded recommendations of the Joint Committee. In introducing this
report he noted the circumstances which were co-operating to make this
seem a ”providential movement.” The committee's report traced the
idea of federal union back to John Calvin and.stressed that in these
”propitious times" it is not only popular but Scriptural. Intimating
a need for outside support, it noted that ”our growth for the last
thirty years has been mostly in the west”, because the total number
of churches in the East had declined, especially in some of “the great
cities and the suburbs where the population is continually changing .-
. .' The report warned that should these efforts fail "we fear it

may be for a long time hence, if not until the millenial sun shall

 

6 37-oeners1 Synod,” Christian Intelli encer, June 11, 1890,
De e

awe, Jun. 25, 1890, Pa 10
”Ibid., June 11, 1890, p. 18.

123
streak the Eastern asky."L"O In a final statement Dr. Taylor noted
that the report ”preserves everything that distinctly characterizes
us."l"1
The Commissioners of the Reformed Church in the United
States, Drs. J. Good and H. Rustenik, spoke of living in ”days of
union” and sought to assuage the various fears felt to be held con-
cerning their church. Dr. De Baun spoke and the Synod soon justified
his confidence, for by a rising vote, with but five delegates dis-
senting, it accepted the Committee's report. Appended to the report
and likewise adopted were resolutions which created a Special Cbmmis-
sion of sixteen members. These members, apportioned between the four
Particular Synods as far as practical, were to
A cooperate with the commission already appointed by the

General Synod of the Reformed Church in the United States,

with instructions to prepare and to present to the next Gen-

eral Synod a plan of Federal Union, in which the autonomy,

creed, cultus and property of both churches shall be kept

intact and this branch of the church shall have its just and h

proper representation in the government of the Uhited Church. 2

The two Special Committees wasted little time getting at their

assigned task. Together with their respective church boards and benev-
olent societies, they met at the Catskill Mountain House September 2
to h, 1890. Drs. W} J. R. Taylor, J. Elmendorf, J. A. De Baun and

Elder P. S. Danforth of the original Reformed Church of America Union

“Minutes R.C.A., 1890, pp. 126.132. The Rev. E. 'r. Corwin
stated in his Digest of Synodical Legislation (New York: Reformed
Church in America, 1906}, p. 592, ”These facts have led some of our

ministers to doubt the long continuance of our separate denomina-
tionll life.”

“l-Ceneral Synod,” Christian Intelligencer. June 11. 1890.
p. 7.

“Zmnutes R.C.A., 1890, p. 131.

124

Committee were present on the new commission to lend continuity to

the planning."3 Also giving continuity to the endeavor was the
election of Dr. T. G. Apple of the German Church as the President.

The meeting revealed sharp differences but it never descended into the
realm of unpleasantness and ”in the end every action was by a unani-
mous vote.'“4 The commission agreed upon an outline of principles
and general powers of a new Federal Synod of the Reformed Churches.
This body, composed of twenty ministers and twenty elders from each
church, would have only a few powers until it had secured the confi-
dence of the two churches.“5 This would be a more permanent type organ-
ization than that of the earlier 1844 Triennial Convention Convention
which could be and was dissolved by a vote of the Convention itself.
The new Federal Synod would be voted upon by the Classes and thus

become part of the organic law of these two churches.46 At Hertzog

 

43Ibid., p. 134, lists the other members of this Special
Commission. They were appointed so as to permit proportional re-
presentation of the Particular Synods (New Yerk 6 members, Albany 5,
Chicago and New Brunswick, 3 each).

““"The Meeting of the Joint Committee on Federal Union,”
Christian Intelli encer, September 10, 1890, p. 8.

“5This equality of representation was an unsolicited, generous
concession by the German Church. It was not called for by the previ-
ous Joint Committee's recommendation nor envisioned by the current
Dutch Commission, which had prepared an elaborate proportional voting
scheme in seeking “just and proper" representation for their smaller
church. Cf. Dr. De Baun's "The Proposed Federal Union”, Christian
Intelli encer, Mhrch 9, 1892, p. 14. Before the meeting ended the
size of the proposed Federal Synod was reduced to sixteen ministers
“d 8130” $16.61.. from O‘Ch ChurChe Cf. ‘180 De He Id”, 02. Cite,
ppe 92"93e

“6T. G. Apple, “The Union of the Two Reformed Churches,"
Reformed Church Mbssen er, April 2, 1891, p. 8. The overall tone
of this reflective article is one of skepticism. ”Let no one argue
. e . that we are committed to some sort of union, and for that reason
alone should consummate whatever union that is submitted or possible.”

125

Hall, New Brunswick Theological Seanary, June 2, 1891, a committee
reviewed these actions and finalized the report for presentation to
the two General Synods.

This report, entitled ”Proposed Constitution of the Federal
Synod of the Reformed Church in America and the Reformed Church in
the United States,” offered ”the first practical, organised effort
to form and maintain an actual Federal Union between any of the
affiliated evangelical denominations in this country.'u7 The convened
General Synods of the two churches received the completed Plan, com-
posed of a preamble, thirteen articles and five recommendations,
simultaneously on June 5. The Reformed Church in America had gathered
in annual session at Asbury Park, New Jersey, from June 3 to 11, under
the Presidency of Dr. E. T. Corwin. The Reformed Church in the United
States, for the first time in its history, had convened as a Special
General Synod in Philadelphia from.June 4 to 6.

The proposed Constitution, as approved first at Asbury Park
and shortly thereafter at Philadelphia, left no doubt of its federa-
48

tive nature. Article I provided that ”each denomination entering

into this union shall retain its distinct individuality, as well as
every power, jurisdiction and right, which is not by this Constitution
expressly delegated to the body hereby constituted." Artidle VIII

47lttiuutes R.C A 18 1 p. 350. The recommendations on this
proposed Constitution are reproduced on pp. 352-56.

uaThe German Church struggled at first, trying to adjust the
recommended annual meetings of the Federal Synod with the actions of
their triennually meeting General Synod. This caused them to propose
a minor change to Article IV, which was approved by the Dutch Church
on the following day. J. I. Good, ”General Synod of the Reformed
Church in the United States," Christian Intelli encer, June 10, 1891,
p. 3.

126

even more explicitly stated that ”the Federal Synod shall not inter-
fere with the creed, culture, or government of either denomination . . .'
and reserved discipline exclusively as a function of the denomination
in which it arises. Article III created the annually convening Federal
Synod of the Reformed Churches while the next article described the
composition and manner of election or selection of its members whose
ordinary term of office would be for four years. Article V, whose
punctuation and ambiguity were to cause so much debate later, gave to
the Federal Synod all powers relating to home and foreign missions,
new educational enterprises common to both denominations, Sunday
School work and literature, and other ecclesiastical matters which
the united churches might jointly delegate to it. Article VI stressed
the Federal Synod's advisory role, but nevertheless worried the pro-
ponents of decentralized power, for it also stated, ”Whenever anything
recommended by the Federal Synod shall have received the assent of
each of the-General Synods, it shall have the force of law in both
denominations.” The remaining articles indicated the idea of further
union was not abandoned and dealt with such aspects as amendments,
disputes, expenses, meetings and officers.

The adoption of the Cbmmissioners' report by the General
Synods meant that the proposed Constitution would be sent down to the
Classes of the two churches for their approval or rejection. The
German Church's Special Synod was somewhat disappointed in the ad~
visory or hypothetical powers of the Federal Synod. Nevertheless,
confidently expecting classical approval and not wanting to delay

its beginning until the next General Synod in 1893, they appointed

their delegates to the first Federal Synod. An overture from the

127

Northern Presbyterian Church occupied the attention of each church
on the last day of their respective General Synod meetings. Of the
Dutch Church it asked for participation in a meeting to form a Feder-
ation of Christian Churches. The overture to the German Church spoke
of the formation of a Consensus Creed. Both churches appointed the
requested committees, though the German Church did so with a reserve-
tion.

The Synods had gone home but the Classes had.yet to decide
on what the German delegate to the Dutch General Synod had asserted
was ”the most important question that had confronted us during the
present century.”9 Up to this time there had been articles on this
proposed church union but no real debate had ensued on its possible
rejection. This changed when some of the western Classes failed to
act at their fall meetings, thus refusing to be carried along*in the
wake of the General Synod's sweeping endorsement.50 Encouraged by
this hesitancy, an intense debate broke out in the columns of the
garistian Intelligencer on December 2, 1891. The Rev. Henry E.
Dosker, minister of the Third Reformed Church of Holland, Michigan,
launched a series of three articles entitled "Anentt hat Federal

Union." His main support in these columns came from Dr. N} FL

 

ugIbid., p. 10.

5°For example, the first time that the "mmtee'v of either
the Classis of Holland or the Classis of Michigan mention the nego-
tiations with. the German Reformed Church was in September of 1891.
Though these two Classes were to vote differently on this proposed
union later, they both felt a vote at this time was too hasty an
action and postponed its consideration until their Spring sessions.
The editorial, “The Real Issue,” Christian Intelligencgr,
April 6, 1892, p. 1, provides the information that only one third of

the Classes, mainly those favoring the proposed union, voted during
their fall meetings.

128
Steffens, one member of the two-men faculty of western Theological
Seminary and columnist for De Hope. An Eastern pastor, Dr. Henry
Berg, son of the ex-German.Reformed champion of orthodoxy, also
provided opposition articles.

While professing to believe in healing the divided body of
Christ's church on earth, all found sufficient reason for spurning
union with these closest of kinsmen among the American Protestant
Churches. These men generally refused to make a distinction between
the various forms of union such as the union committees and the
ChrigtianLIQtelligencer editors had consistently done. Dosker rea-
soned that ”union is to be federal, but this innocent-looking patriotic
word stands for an exceedingly close relationship. . . . federal in
such a way that union in many respects is organic. '51 These opponents
claimed the common acceptance of the Heidelberg Catechism.was an in-
adequate basis for union and questioned the doctrinal soundness of
the German Church. They claimed this church lacked a confessional
and was developing a specific character by turning awty from.Calvinism
in stressing Christology. Dr. Dosker claimed that "PRINCIPLES ARE AT
STAKE” and Dr. Steffens maintained that the two churches represented
”different types of reformed Christianity. And I, for one, am.not
prepared to surrender my position to that of the brethren of the
German Reformed Church".52 Instead of union, the possibility of
schism.was directly and indirectly suggested. Another area attacked

was the weaknesses of the current proposed Constitution which made

 

511bid., December 2, 1892, p. 5.

52Ibid,, January 13, 1892. p. u. Despite the strength of
their assertions, both of these Netherlands-born, Holland, mchigan,

129
ambiguous interpretations of some articles possible and did not
specifically keep the Constitution of the Reformed Church in America
supreme nor provide a procedure for later withdrawal. 0n the periph-
ery there were attacks on its constitutionality and the expense in~
volved in an additional body.

The editors of the Christian Intelligencer allowed both sides
access to its columns but did not pretend to be neutral on this pro-«
posed union question. Periodically it spoke out editorially favoring
union and.used its position to add explanatory comments at the end
of opposing articles; it also selected suiteble proponents of union-
to refute such articles. Dr. John A. De Baun proved the most pro-
lific of the defenders of the proposed union while Dr. J. Eflmmmdorf
and the Wbstern pastor, Dr. E. Winters, also lent support. Their
defense consisted mainly of refuting the points made by their oppo-
nents or questioning the accuracy of their statements and forecasts.
They conceded the Plan they were defending was not perfect but'they
claimed it was practical. They felt their own church, after ini-
tiating the movement, could not honorably reject union on the grounds
so far suggested. Besides, rejection now'would not only end all hope
for future union with the German Reformed Church but would hurt the
entire union movement of the churches in America. Christ's preyer
for unity and the potentialities of the united church were again
stressed.

.A third type of article appeared in the Christian Intelligencer

 

men left the western Theological Seminary for positions in Presby-

terian theological seminaries. Dr. Steffens left temporarily from
1895 to 1903s while Dr. Dosker left in.1903. never to return.

130
from.a group seeking various clarifying amendments to the proposed
Constitution. Such men as the Revs. W. B. Hill, A. P. Vin Gieson and
George Davis, while conditionally for this proposed union, were upset
by the necessity of voting simply ”yes" or ”no" on this particular
Constitution. After April 2, 1892, the Christian Intelliggncer closed
its columns to further discussions for the duration of the period
during which the Classes convened to vote on this matter. It took a
dim.view of the one-sided opposition of the organ of Hope College,
De Ho , which observed no truce during the month of April.

The belated vocalness of the opponents of this union was not
persuasive enough to prevent classical approval by an additional one-
third of the total Classes voting. This sudden alarm and doubt ex-
pressed about the proposed union may have been responsible for an
apparent element of uncertainty which appeared during the General
Synod meeting of June 1 to 9, 1892. Not all of the Classes had.been
willing to cast a categorical vote as per instructions and seven had
failed to notify the Stated Clerk of the results of their vote prior
to June the first. On the other hand, the Holland Classis enclosed a
printed memorial outlining their opposition to the proposed Constitu-

tion and the proposed union.53 The possibility of secession was real

 

53The memorial of the Holland Classis was the work of a
special committee appointed during the Classis meeting on April 6-7,
1892. This special committee advised Classis to vote 'Ney' and to
send a memorial to the General Synod stating its reasons. Classis
adopted this recommendation 25-0. While unnumbered, there are eleven
or twelve inter-related reasons given which, if not penned by Drs.
Dosker and Steffens, closely follow their objections as revealed in
the Christian Intelligencer and De Hopg. It begins by claiming the
purpose is not to stop at Federal Union'but to seek organic union; it
expresses the belief of doctrinal differences which threaten Dutch
Calvinism; it questions the constitutionality, the powers to be granted
and the length of the terms of the representatives to the Federal

131
enough, for about this same time the Rev. Enno R. Haan, recently
called from the Netherlands
falsely pretending that the Reformed Church in America
was no longer true to its standards and using the then
agitated Federal Union with the Reformed Church in the
United States as a pretext . . . seceded with the gflnsis-
tory and the larger part of the congregation . . e
of the Holland Reformed Church of Wbrtendyke, New Jersey.

As a result of the Stated Clerk's inability to readily
classify all the votes on the question of the proposed constitution,
the General Synod of 1892 appointed a special committee to make this
report. This important sixeman body headed by Dr. J. A. De Baun
was to canvass the votes, examine the suggestions of the Classes and
then recommend to the General Synod the appropriate line of action it
should follow.55

The Committee was able to tally the votes but there was a
difference of opinion among the members concerning the recommendation
to be made to the General Synod. Finally, on the sixth day of the
Synod, there was presented both a majority report, signed by
Chairman De Baun and four members of the Committee, and a minority

report which was solely the work of the Rev. J. F. Zwemer, of the

 

Synod; it implies schism.will result and though it believes in union,
it asks General Synod to "at least postpone . . . till the risk in-
curred shall be smaller than it appears today.” This printed memorial
appears in the "Minutes of the Classis of Holland" (MS), pp. 497-98,
located in the Beardslee Library, western Theological Seminary,
Holland, Michigan.

54J. H. Whitehead et a1., History of the Classis of Paramus
of the Reformed Church in America: 1800-1990 (New York: Board of
Publication of the Reformed Church in America, 1902), p. 500.

55These responsibilities are detailed in the Minutes R.C.A.,
18_9_2, p. 577. Additional members were the Rev. A. P. Van Gieson, the
Rev. J. F. Zwemer and Elders J. H. Harrington, V. Lansing and W.

Harrington.

132
Classis of Illinois.

The majority report acknowledged the abstention of the Classis
of Arcot, India, and the receipt of eighteen affirmative votes, two
conditionally affirmative votes, and six negative votes. By addition
of the seven classical votes reported to the Christian Intelligencer,
it was able to report twenty-four confirmative votes and nine negative
votes. After proposing the adoption of certain modifications and
understandings to the Federal Constitution Committee, the Ckmnittee
felt justified in adding the three conditional votes to the affirmative
total. In a rather tactless statement, considering the earnestness of
the past debate and the sensitivity about classical prerogatives, the
majority report went on to state:

Although this proposed Constitution of Federal Union

e . . is not in any sense an alteration of the Constitu-
tion of our Reformed Church.in America, the General Sziod,

of the Church might be fully known. Having already been
approved by the General Synod, and having now received the
affirmative votes of a clear majority of the Classes, it
only remains for this Synod to utter a final declarative
resolution agnouncing its adoption by our Reformed Church
in America.5

 

Besides proposing the adoption of such a declarative resolution,

this report proposed amendments and.understandings for Articles V,

VI, VII and XIII. This was done to remove any ambiguity and to remove
the possibility of the Federal Constitution ever being construed as
supreme over the Constitution of the Reformed Church in America. As a

 

55Ibid., p. 581. The underlining has been added. Large
numbers of Hollanders in the west, already alarmed enough to have
voted.“ to 3 in their Classes against the proposed union, now were
told this union could have been consummated without a local expression
of their desires.

133
further safeguard, Article XIV was added to permit the General Synods
to rescind powers previously granted to the Federal Synod. It con-
cluded by providing for the election by the General Synod of four
ministers and four elders from each of the four Particular Synods; and
it also proposed that the first Federal Synod be held at the First
Reformed (Dutch) Church of Philadelphia on the last Tuesday of October,
1892.

The minority report of the Rev. James Zwemer noted the
qualified and conditional nature of many of the Classes' votes. To
him, this meant that the Church had not evidenced the ”necessary'una-
nimity of feeling and consensus of views so needful as the basis of a
permanent Federation, and successful co-operation.” IMistakenly'be-
lieving the General Synod of the German Church did not meet until
189#, he proposed the appointment of a committee to revise the pro-
posed Constitution "for the purpose of obtaining an.instrument of
Federation, if possible, in which a larger majority of our Church can
more unanimously and unqualifiedly concur."57

Dr. T. Chambers, reporting on the General Synod meeting for
lhe Presbyterian.and Reformed Review, described the debate that
followed as being long, earnest and goodpnatured. The 1929 figpggt_
of Fact Finding Commission on Christian Union on the other hand noted
that “parliamentary war tactics then broke out on the floor of the

synod and a thwarting resolution was passed. "58 Dr. A. P. Van meson,

—— f

57Christian Intelligencer, June 15, 1892, p. 5. This is not
the report that one finds in the General Synod.hinutes over his name,
but if this report had been adopted, the final action by the Church
would have been postponed until 189“.

58Report of FagtyFinding Commission on Christian Union of
General Synod of 3.9.3.; as printed in Minutes R.C.A. 1922. p. 167.

13“
another committee member, proposed this ”thwarting resolution” as a
substitute for the minority report. In view of the incomplete and
qualified character of the classical vote, this substitute report
proposed the acceptance but not the adoption of the majority report
with its amendments and understandings. It also proposed postponement
of action on the proposed Articles of Constitution and Federal Union
”to the next General Synod in order that they may be considered in
connection with the report of the Committee on the broader plan of
Federal Union then to be presented."59 In the meantime, the Classes
were to conduct a new vote on the proposed Constitution as revised in
the majority report. After additional debate, this substitute report
was adopted on the gighth day by a vote of seventy-eight to forty-
eight. The Special Committee, now under the chairmanship of Dr. Van
Gieson, was continued in order to count the new classical returns and
report to the next General Synod. The high water mark of the Reformed
Church in America's union attempts was now past.

This postponement of action was correctly evaluated by most
as a victory, though possibly only temporary, for the opponents of
this union. A.recent evaluation of the seventy-eight votes cast for
postponement concluded that they came from three sources: those

westerners who opposed this union, those who favored a possible

 

”Nantes R C A. 18 2, p. 578. Dr. J. Elmendorf's warning
of 1888 had gone unneeded and.gg additional union proposal was allowed

to cloud the picture. In the main, this appeal to wait for a larger
federation of the Reformed and Presbyterian bodies was a fraudulent
ruse by one group and an expression of over-optimism on the part of a
second group. So few of the churches sent representatives to the first
meeting in December, 1891, that nothing was actually accomplished. Two
meetings were held in March and April of 1893 which produced an income
plete ”Plan of Feda‘ation" for the consideration of the General Synod
and a request that the committee be continued. Minutes R.C.A., 18%,
p. 813e

135

pan-Presbyterian union, and those who favored union with the German
Church but were frightened by the West's threat of schism.60 The
editor in the Christian;;ntelligencer of June 15, 1892 (p. I), noted
that the opposition had come mainly from the ”more self-contained”
churches of the Hollanders. He excused them, partly because of their
lack of experience in prior Christian union efforts and partly be-
cause of their lack of intimate association “with Christians of other
denominations . . . in philanthropic and educational enterprises.”
Initially he felt the postponement was wise and right but in general
"the year's delay was regarded by those favoring union as simply a
necessary annoyance, during which they hoped.the Wbst would come
around to the union viewpoint. "61 The Rev. Peter Moerdyke, now pastor
of Trinity Reformed Church, Chicago, Illinois, and one of the three
Wbstern delegates voting against postponement, felt this minority
triumph was subversive to the Reformed Church in America's polity and
to the principle of majority rule.62

By September, the official Minutes of the General Synod were
available for study. An editorial on the lhth.in the Christian
Intelligencer (p. 2) supported the Rev. Mberdyke's view. It claimed
that the tardiness of the discussion, the dismissal of about one

 

603. Harmelink, op. cit., p. 81. The Western delegate vote
of 22 to 3 favoring postponement supports Harmelink's contention,
while the compromise nature of Dr. Vin Gieson's substitute report

and.its supporting reason dealing with ”a broader Plan of Federal
union” upholds the latter two.

61Ibid.

62W Hemmer. July 28, 1892, pp. 4-5.

136
fourth of the delegates, coupled with many "confusing statements,
led a majority of the synod.in pure weariness at the long debate to
adopt, as the easiest solution the deference of action until another
year.” This editorial also attacked De Hope for having created much
of the opposition by presenting "only one side of the question and a
persistent, and we think, unfair appeal to well known prejudices.”
Because the action of the General Synod was not a rejection, the
editor felt confident of the favorable nature of the next vote on this
union.
The German periodical, the Reformed Church Mbsse er, took a

different view of the meaning of the postponed vote.

The large vote in favor of postponing the whole question

until next year, it would seem, practically commits that

Church against the Onion proposed, and our Church, having

entered into the movement in good faith, and supposing

fiffiififffikfiifi‘ fifi’tfifihfiifitt‘i‘gfi“

s

It predicted that the opposition would probably not be any better
satisfied with the new plan. The Stated Clerk of the German Church
delqyed publishing the results of the 1892 German classical vote
because "meanwhile some adverse views and feeling in the R.C.A. tended
to divert the mind from.the real merits of the question involved,
. . . causing some doubt and fear respecting the ultimate success of

the proposed union.'6“

 

63am" June 16, 1892, p. 1. Certain leaders of the German
Church (e.g. Dr. George B. Russell) felt they had their suspicions of
Dutch Church's lack of sincerity confirmed. Cf. George D. Russell,
Four Score and More (Philadelphia: author, 1908), pp. 250-251. Dr.
{Russell also had a phobia about the Dutch Church desiring to swallow
up the German Church and that, when this failed, it always broke off
th. mkse

6“Mutton R.c.U.sn 1823, p. 1&3.

137

The fall classical meetings of the Reformed Church in America
again witnessed an unwillingness to come to grips with this proposed
union question. With the creation of the basically German speaking
western Classis of Pleasant Prairie, the total number of Classes in
the united States increased to thirty-four. At the fall meetings
thirty-one of these thirty-four deferred action on the majority report
until their spring sessions. The Classis of Schenectady not only voted
but it also sent an overture to the General Synod questioning the con-
stitutionality of the 1892 General Synod's action in failing to ratify
a decision for union registered by a majority of the Classes.

The lack of a commitment of any kind by the Classis of Arcot,
India, is a bit more puzzling. Frequently the need of presenting a
unified Christian front to a predominantly non-Christian world had
forced earlier and more complete co-operation on the mission fields
than at home. Yet the Classis of Arcot, pleading an isolation from
the necessary knowledge and contacts with the proposed partner in
this union, abstained from.voting both in 1892 and 1893. The only
visible indication of her feelings on this matter was the vote cast by
her delegate, the Fbv. J. W. Conklin, against postponing General Synod
action on the 1892 majority report favoring union.

The two recognized organs which expressed the opinion of the Re-
formed Church in America again swung into action. De Hope, especially
Dr. N. H; Steffens' column "wekelijksch Budget," again took up the cause
of opposition in September, 1892. The Christian Intelligencer, after
some preliminary skirmishing in February, printed an article entitled
"Why Should we Vote for Federal Unlonr~55 This article instigated a

 

55mm 1, 1893, p. 5.

138

wholesale exchange of views. Written by Pastor ”B”, it claimed
Federal union should be accepted because: (a) it was the loading of
the Holy Spirit, (b) it was a special opportunity, (c) the honor of
the Church was pledged, and (d) the real obstacle (threat of schism)
had disappeared. The fact that one side claimed a monopoly of the
Holy Spirit's leading was questioned, the second contention was
largely ignored and the remaining two came under heavy attack. On
what side does honor lie when one contends an ecclesiastical wrong is
being attempted? The Rev. J. H. Joldersma, Superintendent of Western
Missions and a friend of this union, reported that both the Dutch
and German element in the Western branch of the Church were almost
solid in their opposition to this union. This opposition, which he
evaluated as stronger now than a year ago, professed to be content
with the Church as it then existed. Federal union could hurt the
Church's mission work in the West for there was a real danger of
secession by individuals and groups. This type of secession, largely
unorganized by pastors and church leaders, could so weaken mamr
churches that they would no longer be self supporting.66

This continued insistence that the proponents yield on this
union proposal or face sundering the murch finally ever-taxed their
patience. 'me alristian Intelligencer editor's "Notes” of March 29,
1893 (p. 3): questioned, "Can the church much longer afford to yield
to such tactics? Had not the General Synod better retire into

 

66R. H. Joldersma, ”Federal Union and our Western Work,”
Christian Intelli encer, March 29, 1893, p. 14.
Cf. Ibid., March 15, 1893, p. 11+ and Ibid., March 29, 1893,
p. 14. These resolutions from the Reformed Church of Harrison, South
Dakota, and the Reformed Church of Grandville, mchigan, seem to sub-
stantiate the view expressed by the Rev. Joldersma.

139

'innocuous desuetude', and let the policy of the church be directed
by a Committee in Holland, Mich.[si§]?' A.followbup article the next
'week by Dr. Talbot Chambers of Marble Cellegiate Church, who claimed
to be a dispassionate observer, also evidenced a willingness to call
the west's bluff. He felt federation was so important, it was worth
the risk “when the only serious objection is that a portion of our
church is so bitterly opposed to the plan it would secede. They must
submit to the voice of the majority or go their way.” He noted Calvin
was ”willing to cross 10 oceans if he could heal the division of
Protestants. Surely we should be willing to cross a narrow brook if
we can heal a single division among the Reformed."67

The Rev. A. P. Van Gieson, who had proposed the substitute
report at the last General Synod to avoid such a confrontation, felt
the possible loss would ”outweigh one hundred fold any possible gain
in other quarters."68 The hesitant Classes of the Church were more
prone toward the reasoning of Dr. Van Gieson. As the reports of their
spring meetings trickled out in the issues of the Christian lgtelli-
[53535; the trend was so obvious that official action by the General
Synod was unnecessary to reveal that this union movement had failed.
The editor on.Ehy 3, 1893 (p. 3), recognized that the closeness of
the vote meant the number of opponents, whether a majority or not,
were too numerous to conclude successfully this union with the German
Reformed.

 

6712-. T. Chambers, ”The Proposed Union,‘ Ibid., April 5,
1893, p. 2.

68mm, p. 4. While favoring union and not sharing the
What's aversion to this union, the Rev. Van Gieson accepted their
opposition as a fact and therefore could.not favor the Federal
Constitution "because it ultimately means disunion."

140

This was a surprise and a disappointment to many in'both
churches. The German Church periodicals, while expressing the opinion
that a great opportunity had been lost, were remarkably free from.any
vindictiveness. 0f the Dutch Church periodicals, the Christian
‘ggtelligencer, while predicting the disappointment of those seeking
a wider federation, expressed a happiness at having participated in
promoting a plan of Christian union which it felt would eventually
triumph. De Hope rejoicing inwardly, quietly continued Dr. Steffens'
series of articles on ”The Heidelberg Catechism in the German and
Dutch Reformed Churches." The "Committee in Holland" had little
need to say more. It had through the medium.of the Classis of Holland
sent a letter to the General Synod stating its continuing, unflinching
opposition to this union and expressing itself on the subject of the
majority report. 69

To the Rev. Joachim Elmendorf, delegate to the 1893 General
Synod of the Reformed Church in the united States, fell the embar-
rassing task of reporting the failure of his church to approve the
proposed union. His task was made even more difficult when the report

of the vote of the German Classes revealed such an overwhelming approval

69"}flnutes of the Classis of Holland," April 5 & 6, 1893 (MS),
pp. SSH-55. This letter defended the right of the Classes to vote on
federal union, questioned the German Church's orthodoxy (this time
because of Dr. C. S. Gerhard's unchallenged and unrebuked statements
in the Hemeletics Review, January, 1893, p. 9), complained of sharing
equal representation with such a decentralized church, expressed its
fear of schism if the ”tender conscientious scruples” of the opposi-
tion were over-ridden, and concluded with a very revealing but un-
identified quote, ‘In our isolation lies our strength.” Though un—
identified, this apparently was a well~lmown remark of Green Van
Prinsterer, Historian of the House of Orange. This lay leader in the
Seceder church movement of the 1830's in the Netherlands had made this
statement in a political context in 1871.

1&1

of this union (#9 approved, 2 conditionally approved, 2 rejected and
2 abstained).7o That he accomplished his task adroitly is evident
from Dr. J. I. Good's report of this General Synod, which noted that
while there was a general regret over this one-sided failure, there
was no revulsion.71 Dr. T. G. Apple, in his response to delegate
Elmendorf's speech, though pained at the rejection of the plan, ex-
pressed the hope for continued good feelings between the two churches
by stating:

Let us be united in heart and give each other the right

hand of fellowship and love[§t the same time shaking

Elmendorf's hand], and evermore strive for the welfare

of the Redeemer's kingdom on earth; and may the blessing

of God rest abundantly upon our two churches.72

The General Synod of the German Church had.met the last week

in May and so it remained for the June 7-15 meeting of the General
Synod of the Reformed Church in America to deliver the official coup
de grace. This it did on June 8, 1893, though not as decisively as
the situation demanded. Chairman A. P. Van Gieson of the General
Synod's Special Committee to tabulate the new vote reported sixteen
Classes voted approval of the Majority Report of 1892, eighteen
Classes voted against its acceptance and the Classis of Arcot abstained.

The Committee in answer to the Classis of Schenectady's overture

 

70Rdnutes R.C.U.S 18 , PP- 42—h3. This greatly surpassed
their constitutional two-thirds voting rule. The greatest opposition

occurred in the western areas of missionary competition, with the R.C.A.;
the Claseis of Sheboygen rejected this union and the Classis of South
Dakota took no action on the matter.

71"General Synod of R.C.U.S.," The Presbmrian and Reformed
Review, June, 1893, p. 67ue Cf. “General Synod, ReCeUeSe,n Christian
Intelligncer, June 7, 1893, p. 5. Neither General Synod prints in
full the speeches of the fraternal delegates.

72Christian Intelligencer, June 7, 1893, p. 5.

th
declared:

The action of the last Synod was of the nature of ordinary

legislation, and was constitutional by virtue of the clauses

of the constitution which commit to the General Synod power

to exercise a general superintendence over the spiritual

interests and concerns of the whole church, "and to regulate"

correspondence with the highest judicatories or essemblies

[§i§]of other religious denominations.73
Faced with an adverse majority vote on the proposed Articles of Con-
stitution and Federal Union, the Committee recommended ”that further
consideration of the said Articles be indefinitely postponed.”7u The
Committee refused to make a recommendation on the question of whether
it was currently advisable to attempt to draw up some new, more
acceptable plan of union. The General Synod accepted this report,
thus ending the most nearly successful effort for union ever under-
taken by the Reformed Church in America.

The proponents of a wider union fared a little better. Chair-
man Elmendorf reported on two committee meetings and produced.an.in-
complete Plan of Federation for a Federal Union between the Reformed
Churches in the united States holding to the Presbyterian System.
This Plan proposed a Federal Council composed of four ministers and
four elders from each denomination and contained many points of
similarity to the defeated Plan. The Committee continued.until the
following year when it presented the now completed Plan of Federation
which eight denominations, including the German Reformed, had helped
formulate. The General Synod submitted the twelve point Plan to the

Classes for a vote. Despite some expressed doubts about this proposed

”Minutes megs... 1823, p. 818.
7““.rb1d.

lh3
federation on the part of the Western Section of the Alliance of
Reformed Churches throughout the world holding the Presbyterian
System, the Classes approved the proposed Plan twenty-three to ten.
This was a hollow'victory, for the General Synod failed to elect
delegates for a first Council meeting. No further reference is made
in the Minutes of General Synod until 1903-06 when a new attempt
occurred to reorganize and activate the Council.

Why did this union movement fail after seven years of un-
hurried negotiations? The reason.must be sought solely within the
Reformed Church in America. This is true unless the unwillingness
of the Reformed Church in the United States to remold.itself in the
image of the Dutch Church can be construed to be a reason.

The immediate cause for failure obviously was the adverse
vote in 1893 of the Classes of the Reformed Church in.America. A
scholar of the union effort of the German Reformed Church generalized
that ”again.it had been misgivings within the Dutch Church which
caused the collapse of the movement.”75 Beyond this general summari-
zation loom the following five reasons for failure, namely:

1. The over-reliance upon the federal union idea.

2. The unappeasdble opposition of the western branch of the
Church.

3. The vigorous threat of schism.
4. The tactical mistakes of the leadership favoring union.

5. The diversion and complication created by the proposal for
a PansPresbyterian federation.

75Donald H. Yoder, op. cit., pp. 99-100. Dr. Yoder was
formerly a Professor of Religion at Franklin and Mhrshall College,
Iancaster, Pennsylvania, and.is currently a professor at the Uhiversity
of Pennsylvania.

144

Early discussions revealed the rigid quality of the Dutch
Church's Calvinism.and its unwillingness to sacrifice anything to
achieve this union. The concern of a large part of the Church for
its doctrinal purity and denominational autonomy led almost immediately
to the rejection of the idea of an organic union with the larger German
Church. The solution to achieve this union, while maintaining areas
of denominational control, seemed to reside in the idea of a federal
union. The larger part of the Church felt quite secure in this re-
stricted union idea, especially when the German Church offered equal-
ity of representation in the new Federal Synod. Yet, perhaps in.
fluenced by the Church's original example of intractability, the Dutch
and German Classes of the west and even some of the Hollanders of the
East remained unsatisfied.76

The west feared federal union would eventually result in or-
ganic union with a church whose orthodoxy they already suspected and
would.be but the first step to merger with additional questionable
denominations. The west also feared the Eastern.branch of its own
Church. This was partly due to the fact that it constituted about
three-fourths of the membership of the Church and threatened to drag
the west into this union. It was also suspect because it had not under-
gone the religious troubles of the 1830's and.1840's in the Netherlands
and had.not been as concerned about the Freemasonry controversy of the
1870's and early 1880's, the aftermath of which still confronted the

 

75Six of the eight Classes in the West voted against this
union in 1893. Illinois and Michigan, which had voted favorably, both
had their beginnings prior to the influx of Dutch immigration in 1847
and were predominately English speaking.

145
West. Their adamant opposition remained unchanged despite the pre—
cautions and concessions evident in the amendments and understandings
added to the proposed Plan of Union in 1892.

This union failed because hand-in-hand with the opposition of
the West went the threat of schism. While it is impossible to point
out its effect in terms of classical votes, it is difficult to over-
etress the importance of the threat of secession. The West had not
participated in the long period of friendship and co-operation with
the German Reformed, which had its beginnings in the first half of
the eighteenth eentury.77 The splits of 1822, 1857 and 1882 within
the Reformed Church in America were readily recalled as were the move-
ments of 1834 and 1886 in the Netherlands. Marv of the immigrants had
participated in one of these movements or had been members of Seceder
churches in the Netherlands. Thus they lacked the stability of long
established church loyalties. The Rev. Christian Van Der Veen,
writing in the Christian Intelligencer, noted that the American
Hollanders not only had some of the admirable virtues of the Nether-
landers but some of their failings, too, namely, ”a conservatism which
often sacrifices the future to the worship of the past, and an ob.
stinacy which demands either rule or ruin."78 Dr. Van Gieson, the
Rev. Joldersma and may others felt it was unwise to risk a split
from the Church of its most rapidly growing Classes.

The union movement also suffered from a lack of thorough
leadership. The form and wording of the proposed Omstitution

 

77st. Eugene Heideman, "Reformed Ecumenicity, 1888-1893,-
Reformed Review, xvm, No. 1 (September, 1961»), 17-2u.

78m 3. 1893. p. 6.

146
submitted in 1891 was not as thoroughly worked out as it might have
been. The Majority Report's amendments and understandings came a
year too late. It was unwise, if technically accurate for the
thority Report to mention that the classical vote was a concession
and not necessary, because the Federal Union left the Reformed Church
in America's constitution untouched. If the leadership favoring the
movement had been persuasive enough in 1892 to have avoided a Minority
Report or unified enough to have avoided the Substitute Report, they
might have prevented many new channels of debate. The agenda's late
presentation of such an important matter to the General Synod should
have been challenged. The fact that thirty-three ministers and elders
were excused the same day that postponement was voted seventy-eight
to forty-eight, shows both apathy and poor management.79 The union
courtship lasted seven years but it slumbered for much of that period
of time. Despite the publication and supposedly wide distribution of
the 1888 anerence on Union and the various Minutes of the General
Synod, the movement failed to elicit a widespread reaction or aware-
ness. Ewen the opposition was unresponsive until the latter part of
1891.

Finally, the Rev. Elmendorf's warning of 1888 not to complicate
negotiations with additional proposals from.other churches was ignored
when the Committee on Wider union was set up in 1891 and the Substitute
Report adopted in 1892. A.determined stand in 1891 might have defeated
the creation of this committee of which, ironically, the Rev. Elmendorf

 

79At the time of this crucial vote only 3 of 28 western
delegates failed to vote while 45 of 142 Ehstern delegates did not do
so. western opposition leadership was not only vocal but persuasive
for of the 25 votes the west cast, 22 were for postponement.

1b?

was appointed chairman. This created a diversion, for many of the
more Americanized Classes felt a closer kinship to the Presbyterian
Church, which sponsored this proposal, than to a reputedly German
church. The inability to vote simply on the merits of union with the
Reformed Church.in the United States without this diversion or the

threat of secession insured its defeat.

CHAPTER V
THE INCREASING ECUMEN'ICAL IMPETUS: 1893-19%

The failure of the attempt at federal union with the German
Reformd Church and the lack of positive results from the 1895 Pan-
Prasbyterian Federal Council did not disrupt the Reformed Glurch in
America's faith in inter-church co-opggation. The historical events
of the next fifty years had a tendency to further the sense of need
for even larger ecclesiastical as well as secular organisations. Big
business, big government and big unions all evidenced the belief that
size was the prerequisite for success in influencing and controlling
men.

Even the wars of this period exerted an influence toward inter-
ohurch organization and co-operation. One result of what Secretary of
State John Ray called our ”splendid little war" of 1898 had been to
create anew within the American churches a sense of mission in the
Orient.1 A new surge of European imperialism in the 1880s and 1890s
had had a similar effect in Africa and Asia. In 1900 at Carnegie Hall

in New York City, a great Ecumenical Conference on Foreign Missions

 

1his new sense of responsibility also caused the R.C.A. to
seek a more adequate system for involving congregations in the denom-
ination's work throughout the world. See Charles E. Corwin, A Manual
of the Qformed Qurch in Mon 1628-1222 (5th ed.; New York:
Board of Publication and Bible School Work of the Reformed Church in
America, 1922). p. 230.

148

149
took place. Ten years later a World mssionary Conference at Min-
burgh, Scotland continued the discussion of the cosmon problems of the
mission field and collective methods to cope with them. World Wars I
and II fostered interdenominational co-operation both within the armed
services and on the home front. The common hope for preserving the
peace after each of these were brought may of the churches, not only
in America but throughout the world, closer together. The increasing
urbanization and literacy of the people of the United States, in-
cluding the membership of the Reformed Gaurch, also evidenced a need
for co-operation and greater tolerance.2
The Reformed murch at the start of the century clearly ex-

pressed its position on the subject and form of such co-operation.

Federation of the churches for practical Christian work has

begun in our foreign fields, and to some extent in our

cities at home. 'lhis movement is more promising, and it

ought to be encouraged, both for an exhibition of aaristian

unity, and f r greater practical results than can otherwise
be obtained.

Both as a denomination and through the activities of its ministers
and laymen, the Church, as previously noted, was represented in large
numbers of projects and associations of an interdenominational char-
acter. Yet the Alliance of Reformed Churches throughout the World
holding the Presbyterian System which sought to accomplish its

A ‘

20.3. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Reli ous
Bodies: 1&6 (Washington: 0.3. Government Printing Office, 1351;,
II, Part 2, 1#%, records that M of the R. C.A. churches were con-
sidered rural, yet over 60% of its membershi was considered urban.
By 1920 the census figure already showed 51 of the United States'
population was living in urban areas.

3n» Acts and Prose s of the General nod of the fiformsd
Church in America for 1&0 ENew York: Board of Publication of the
Reformed Church in America, 1900), p. 821*. Hereinafter referred to

as mnutes 3,9,5" figgfl.

 

150

purposes by “co-operation without incorporation,“ received the most
loyal and consistent support from the Reformed Church's General Synod.
This world body, officially organised in 1877, and its Western Section
(North America) organized in 1881}, was the chief source of ecumenical
motivation for the Church around the turn of the century.

mough a tendency for mssionary co-operation and even union
existed earlier on the foreign mission field, it received greater
direction after 1893. At the suggestion of this Presbyterian Alliance,
a conference of officers and members of Foreign fission Boards of the
Presbyterian bodies in the United States and Canada met in New York on
January 11, 1893. he resultant Foreign Missions Conference of North
America grew to include eighty missionary bodies before becoflng a
department of the Rational Council of Churches in 1950. It set a
pattern for similar interdenominational conferences of Home unions
Boards, mucation. Boards and their various Women's auxiliary organi-
zations. Because of such associations, in 1896 the Reformed murch,
and four other members of the Western Section, adopted a five point
Plan of Co-operation for Home mssions.5

To secure even closer unity among the churches of the Presby-
terian family, the General Synod of the Reformed Presbyterian Church
initiated a movement which culminated five years later in the creation
of the Council of the Reformed Churches in the United States of

 

“mm 1'. Corwin, A Manual of the gem-med gun-eh in America,

1628—lflz (4th ed.; New York: Board of Publication of the Reformed
M in Ann“, 1902), Fe 2830

5mmtee 3,9,5“ 182g, pp. arr-19. Me was basically a
comity agreement with the Northern and Southern Presbyterians, the
mmberland Presbyterians, the Presbyterian Church in Canada and the
German Reformed Church.

151

America holding the Presbyterian System. This turned out to be almost
an exact reincarnation of the 1895 Plan for a federal council of Pres-
byterian and Reformed Churches. In 1902, the Reformed Presbyterians
created a five men coth to confer with m of the churches repre-
sented in the Alliance of Reformed wurches holding the Presbyterian
system. Apparently this invitation fdled to reach most of these
bodies at their annual meetings of 1902. me Reformed murch in

America alone appointed the requested comittee for closer co-operation

or unity.6

On April 24, 1903, at the Marble Collegiate Church, the Rev.
Dr. J. Preston Searle presided over this first meeting of these two
churches. He also presided at the next three meetings during which
time the number of participating churches grew to seven. By 1905,
it had already been decided ”that some form of union closer and more
tangible than any at present existing between the Reformed dmrches
holding the Presbyterian order, is desirable for the work intrusted
to them by the head of the Church. '7 The Reformed murch Connittee
on Unity, true to the mood of the church, had suggested that this
form should be a ”federal union as will maintain unimpaired the iden-
tity of the various bodies entering into it while providing for effi-
cient administrative oo-operation. '8

These features had been incorporated in a Plan of Federation
drawn up at a three day meeting at Pittsburgh in December, 1904.

 

6Minutes 3,0,5“ 1&2, pp. 127428.

7mum B:C.&I 1%, Fe Me
8mm" p. 750.

152
This took little effort or originality, for itvincluded many of the
ideas and even reproduced‘verbatim.articles from the Plan of 1895 in
which.many of these same churches had participated. There were a few
changes. Representation would be based'upon a proportional scheme,
although voting could be demanded upon a unit system of one vote per
church. The new Plan also contained a withdrawal procedure. Article
five explained the reason for this additional organization's existence.

The Federal Council shall promote the co-operation of
the Federated Churches in their Foreign Missionary work,
and also in their general work in the Uhited States of America,
in connection with home missions, work among the colored
people, church erection, Sabbath-schools, publication and
education, and may initiate movements having this co-opera-
tion.in.view'subject to the approval of the Churches con-
cerned. The Council may also advise and recommend in other
matters pertaining to the general welfare of the Kingdom of
mate

Articles one and four illustrate the limited nature of this federation.

EVery Church entering into this Federation retains its
distinct individuality, its own creeds, government and worb
ship, as well as every power, jurisdiction and right, which
is not by these articles expressly and exclusively delegated
to the body whereby constituted . . . . It shall not inter-
fere with the creed, worship or government of the churches
and, in particular, all matters of discipline shall be left
to the exclusive and final Judgement o ecclesiastical
authorities of the Churches concerned.

The attending churches - the Northern and Southern Presbyterians, the
united Presbyterians, the Cumberland.Presbyterians, the German Re-
formed.(informally) and.the two initiators - were asked to present the
Plan.to their Judicatories for adoption.in.princip1e and further study.
In November, 1905, a broader spectrum of Protestant churches

 

9mnu2s nag, 129:, pp. 152-sh. Dr. J. Preston Searle, who
presided at this meeting, continued to be at the center of all the
R.C.A.'s Pan-Presbyterian affiliations for the next decade and a
half.

153
had gathered at Carnegie Hall in New York City and also produced a
Plan of Federation creating a Federal Council of Churches. Perhaps to
avoid confusion, the Pan-Presbyterian group retitled its Plan and its
Council. At a meeting at Charlotte, North Carolina, March lib-16,
1906, the six comndttees present approved the renamed Articles of
Agreement and dropped the name ”Federal” as a des cription of its
Council.10 The Plan actuated by the approval of am two of the spon-
soring churches created a body which operated from 1907-1926.

A confusing proliferation of federal union plans and councils
dot the period from 1905-1925. Fraternal Christian contacts with
other kindred bodies, especially in doctrine, never remain static re-
lationships. whether through Articles of Correspondence or Articles
of Federation, sooner or later the impulse manifests itself to seek an
even closer relationship. In 1903, the Southern Presbyterians had pro-
posed closer relations and possible organic union.11 Though both
churches agreed to appoint connittees the movement got lost in the
founding of the Council of Reformed diurches holding the Prubyterian
System. The General Synod considered a 1911 suggestion of union with

Northern Presbyterians premature but proved more receptive two years

 

loMinn s C 1 6 p. 500. The Associate Reformed murch

joined the discussion at this time while the Cumberland Presbyterians
merged with the Northern Presbyterians.

The German Reformed Church did not join until its triennially
convening General Synod met in 1908. It had used the last two meet-
ings of this group to develop a union approach with the Northern
Presbyterians. Despite difficulties, a Plan of Union was reached in
1911 but the German Church decisively rejected this union in 191‘! when
“2 of its 59 Classes voted against the Plan. See Donald H. Yoder,
”axurch Union Efforts of the Reformed Church in the United States to
1934"8 (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Chicago, 19W),
p. 12 .

nunutes R.C.A., 1222. p. 39“-

154

later to an overture for closer relations with the German Reformed
Church}2 The Church's delegates to the Council of Reformed Churches
holding the Presbyterian System began the negotiations and met with a
favorable response. It was difficult to understand why the German
erch would encourage a new two church negotiation even if they ”would
see in it a promise of possible organic union. '13 The German Reformed
had just voted down a union plan with the Northern Presbyterians and
had appealed to that church to help promote a large Pan-Presbyterian
union. The Rev. George W. Richards of the Reformed Church in the
United States, chairman of their Permanent Committee of Closer Relations
and Church Union, had reached the conclusion that six churches could
more readily unite than could just two.“ By 1917 they were completely
committed to this idea and despite a few feeble gestures the separate
union approach between the two churches was pertutted to die.

me next few years did not lack for mlti-union plans or
ideas . In 1918, the Council of Reformed Churches holding the Presby-
terian System submitted a plan to reorganize itself as a federal
union instead of a federation to achieve a greater effectiveness.
This would be accomplished by organizing a General Council of the
Presbyterian and Reformed Churches in America which could appoint

 

12Minutes 3.04,, 1g}, p. 775. ‘mis overture had been
presented by the Classis of New Brunswick.

13mnutss R.C,A., 121;, p. 138.

lithid" p. 142. Dr. Richards was a strong ecumenist and a
very influential person in the German Reformed. He remained the head
of their permanent connsittee until union had been realized with the
Fingelicll synOd Of North MO‘ in 193ae Yd”, OEe Cite, P. 132’
noted he desired a federal or if possible an organic union of all the
members of the Council of Reformed Churches holding the Presbyterian
systue

155

administrative agencies to maintain and conduct efforts in Foreign
Missions, Home Missions, Education and Publication.” The following
year the Reformed murch in America accepted fifteen of the eighteen
articles of reorganization but the missing three would have greatly
hindered the actions of the proposed General Council.16

During this period the Prubyterian Church in the United States
of America had been particularly active in seeking unions. In 1918
she had requested the appointment of delegates to meet and form an
organic union of all evangelical churches. 111s Overture Committee ad-
vised the rejection of such an inclusive union and the General Synod
concurred.17 Nevertheless, the Committee on Closer Relations and erch
Unity, which had received a similar invitation, had sent an unofficial
observer to the meeting held December 4-6, 1918 at Philadelphia. When
it appeared likely that organic union could not be secured and that
federal union would be the main topic of the next meeting, the Com-
mittee recomended to the 1919 General Synod that the Reformed Church

 

15Minutes R.C.A., 1218, pp. 484.88. This Plan contained the
Reason for promulgating the plan; a Preamble professing the essential
agreements of church standards; a Basis of Union incorporating member
churches, but not changing the Form of Government, Constitutions and
Directories of Worship; and eighteen Articles of Agreement.

16Minutes R,C,_A.,, 122, p. 813. Article 5, the crucial
article which dealt with the General Council's creation of these ad-
ministrative agencies, was referred back to the originating Council.

17mnutes 35¢, 1218, p. 488. An interesting ecumenical
experiment on the local level had taken place among several of the
churches in New Brunswick, New Jersey but an overture to enlarge
upon the relationship was denied. Cf., Charles Mssink, "Unitive
and Divisive Movements mthin the Reformed Church in America” (un-
published M.S.T. dissertation, Union Theological Seminary, 1965).
PP. 7 750

156

enter the discussion but such permission was not given.18 At a second
general meeting held in Philadelphia, February 3-6, 1920, the delegates
of seventeen church bodies representing a wide spectrum of church doc-
trine and polity adopted a plan of federative union. This plan to
create ”The United Churches of Christ in America” failed. Despite its
acceptance by the Reformed Church in the United States, the plan did
not receive the approval of the additional five bodies required to put
it into oporation.19

Meanwhile, the Joint Committee of the Northern all! Southern
Presbyterian Churches had adopted an Outline of Federal Union which it
felt might well be incorporated by the Council of the Reformed Churches.
The Northern Presbyterian's General Assembly accepted this plan on
May 27, 1920 and encouraged the Reformed Church to do likewise. It
provided for more administrative and judicial powers than had the Plan
of 1918. me Council, to be renamed the ”United Assembly of the Pres-
byterian and Reformed Churches in the United States of America,” was
to have the power to settle all county questions and seek the consoli-
dation of common work in overlapping Classes, Presbyteries and Synods.20
111s General Synod approved a ccmndttee to help draft a constitution.
After meetings at Atlantic City (September 29—30, 1920), Washington,
.D.C. (November 16-17, 1920) and Philadelphia (February 8-9, 1921), a

1 id., p. 815.

19hr» the Presbyterian church in the U.S.A. which initiated
these conferences rejected this plan. Actually only three members
of the Pan-Presbyterian Council of Reformed Churches had participated
in this movement. Yoder, op. cit., pp. 135 8: 13?.

20mm”, R 00A- 1 0s PP. 144-49, reproduce the Preamble,
Basis of Union and the Articles of Agreement.

157

Constitution of the Presbyterian Reformed Churches in America emerged.
Once again the enthusiasm for additional federal union plans was more
apparent than real. Before the Reformed Connittee could even recomend
that the constitution be submitted to the Classes for a vote, several
of the sister judicatories had rejected the plan. The 1921 General
Synod approved a supplementary report which proposed the tabling of
the matter indefinitely and the discharge of the committee.21

Perhaps influential in this rejection had been a new plan for
fuller and peater co-operation proposed by the Federal Council of the
Churches of Christ.22 Yet separate organisations to meet each new
world situation or to merely improve upon the degree of co-operation
found in existing bodies encountered some reaction. Host of the war-
time organizations had ceased to exist and the debate over United
States participation in the league of Nations had largely ended. In
1921 the Reformed Church committee to co-operate in the work of the
American Council of the World Alliance for Promoting International

Friendship acknowledged it had never perfonaed any useful duties since

 

amnutes R,Q,A,, 1221, p. 511+. Despite the failure of this
plan, the Rev. G. H. Hospers and the Classis of Rochester asked
General Synod to pass on the constitutionality of its past action in
even agreeing in principle to the transfer of power to the new courts
proposed for the Council of Reformed Churches in 1918 and 1920. They
were fighting for what they felt was the prerogative of the Classes
to accept or reject all proposed constitutional changes. See reasons
for rejection of this overture; mnutes BALM p. 173.

221mm, p. #08. This child of the Carnegie Hall meeting
in 1905 had not been stillborn and gained much prestige during the
1‘“ me

Yoder, 22. cit., pp. 139-150, suggested that a large contri-
buting factor was the fact that the Northern Presbyterian Qiurch was
being shaken by a controversy over Fundamentalism.

158
its creation in 1917 and asked to be discharged.23 Perhaps the 1922
State of Religion message delivered by the Rev. '1‘. H. Mackenzie (New
York) devoted mainly to the growth of a denominational consciousness
evidences some type of a reaction as well.

We are getting we believe a deepened conviction that the Re-
formed Church in America is a distinct entity. Our thoughts
are not being distracted by the prospects of speedy amalga-
mation with some larger religious organization, from giving
our attention to the problem of how as a religious denomination
which so far as we can see and read the will of God is destined
for the present and for a considerable period of time in the
future to have a work of its own to do and a place of its own
to fill in the great family of Christian Churches. The dif-
ferent parts of which our Church is composed has been getting
a fuller knowledge of, and taking a deeper interest in. one
another. There has been a broadening of sylnpatl'gr and the
strengthening of a common purpose.2

Even the Council of Reformed erches in America holding the Presby-
terian System failed to maintain its sepu-ate existence. (n March 2-3,
1926 at Atlantic City, it merged into the Western Section of the
Alliance of Reformed Churches throughout the World holding the Presby-
terian System. The 1926 General Synod ratified this merger to which
the Council of Reformed Churches brought additional strengthening
agreements of co-operation in missions, education and publication.25

__ —

23Ihid., p. 507.

2"Itinntes 3.0.11“ 12;, p. xx. The General Synod met at
Pella, Iowa for its first session beyond the Mississippi River. his
was a further recognition of the Western branch of the Church whose
growth had necessitated the formation of the Particular Synod of Iowa
in 1919.

25m1: of tact-m Commission on Christian Union of the
general mod of the Reformed Church in America n.p., n.n., 1929
D. 50s

the Prosbyterian Alliance, despite this incorporation, had
been primarily a fraternal gathering of churches seeking to promote
co-operation rather than union. ”Indeed, between 1881! and 1925 the
subject of organic union entered little into its discussion.” Ruth

Reuse and Stephen C. Neill, A History of the Ecumenical Movement:
1517-1948 (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1 , p. .

 

159

The Reformed Church had also participated in the formation of
the greatest ecumenical organization in the United States during this
half century, the Federal Council of Churches of Christ in America.
Perhaps such participation was a logical outgrowth of the Church's
membership in organizations like the Presbyterian Alliance and the
Evangelical Alliance, but it was also in keeping with the mood of many
American Protestant churches around the beginning of the twentieth
century. The problems created by an increasingly industrialized nation
with its urbanized and.nobile population seemed to call for new solu-
tions applied through a better organized interdenominational effort.
Previous co-operation of this nature tended to make the activists imp
patient with any hindrance from denominationalism and to stress prac-
tical co-operation while mitigating differences in doctrine, polity or
heritage.26 Together with the use of common Christian educational
materials, "there was, in consequence a trend toward a common type
of Christianity."27

The Federal Cbuncil of Churches of Christ proved to be the
product of this period and according to Professor John A. Hutchison,

"born of this marriage between the idea of social service and the idea

A _ ._* k

26John A. Hutchison, we Are Not Divided8g_a Critical and
Historical Study of the Federal Council of Churches of Christ in
America (New York: Round Table Press, Inc., l9hl , p. 28, speaks of
the "anti-theological trend of the times.”

27Kenneth S. Iatourette, A History: of the Music; of
Christianity, Vel. IV: The Great Century in Eur0pe and the United
States of America: A.D. 1800-A.D. 1915“(New'Yorkx Harper and
Brothers Publishers, 19in), p. F39. 'LEtourette lays great stress on
the importance of environment as the major factor in this line of
development; of. S. Mathews, ”Protestantism, Democracy and Unity,“
Journal of Religion IX (April, 1929), 183.

160

of interdenominational co--operation."28 Such an organization had been
predicted by Dr. Philip Schaff, former expounder of the Mercersburg
Theology, in an 1893 speech before a gathering of the Evangelical
Alliance entitled ”The Reunion of Christendom."29 Though there were
additional intermediary and auxiliary organizations, it was a letter
by the National Federation of Churches and Christian workers which
brought about the formation of the Federal Council of Churches. At its
1902 meeting at'Washington, D.C., this organization composed of indivi-
duals and a few congregations decided to try to achieve an official
federation of American Protestant churches. It sent out letters asking
the various church bodies to send delegates to a meeting in November,
1905 to seek a federation solely of co-operative effort in dealing with
various problems mainly of a social nature.30

The Reformed Church of America received such a letter and made
a favorable response along with twenty-seven other denominations. The
General Synod of 190“ appointed Dr. Joachim.E1mendorf, a veteran of
previous federal union negotiations, to head its delegation.31 The
inter-church Conference on Federation met at Carnegie Hall in New York
City from November 15-21, 1905. The five hundred delegates representing
the thirty denominations that attended this well organized meeting soon

agreed upon a Plan of Federation. After some discussion, a few

28Hutchison, op. cit., p. 25. In the area of social service,
Professor Hutchison includes the attempt of the churches to win back
the working classes through means of the Social Gospel (p. 39).

29mm, p. 19.

3°Ibid., pp. 32-33.

3111111111308 ReCeAeL19OL‘, p0 7“,].

161
changes had been made such as the unanimously accepted suggestion that
the word "divine” be added to the Preamble, so that it read:
Whereas, in the providence of God, the time has come when

it seems fitting more fully to manifest the essential oneness

of the (bristian churches of America in Jesus Christ as their

Divine Lord and Saviour, and to promote the spirit of fellow-

ship, servioe and co-operation among them . . . do hereby

recommend the following plan of federation to the Christng

bodies represented in this conference for their approval:
‘nlis slight change not only comntted the proposed Federal Council to
a more evangelical attitude but later proved to be a decisive factor
in keeping the Unitarians and similar groups out of the Council. It
was also one of the factors which enabled the Reformed Church to con-
tinue its membership when opposition arose within its own ranks. The
objects of the organization had been expressed in rather vague termi-
nology which later permitted a large degree of latitude in the activi-
ties of its Commissions. One objective was

to secure a larger combined influence for the Churches of

Christ in all matters affecting the moral and social condi-

tion of the people, so as to promote the application of the

law of Christ in every relation of human life.
Yet the former Dutch Reformed Church and others, ' still careful of their
denominational distinction, had not felt threatened by a Council re-
stricted to counseling and recommending courses of action. It had ”no
authority to draw up a. comon creed, or form of government or worship,

or in am' way to limit the full autonomy of the Christian bodies ad-
hering to it."33

 

32Hutchison, op. cit., p. 37: Edward '1'. Corwin, Luggst of
Qgstitutional and medical Legslation of the Reformed Church in
America New York: Board of Publication of the Reformed arurch in

America, 1906), pp. lilo-12, reproduces the Preamble and the Plan.

 

 

33E. 1'. Corwin, A ingest of constitutional 351d szgodical
legislation of the Reformed Church in America, p. Ml.

162

The General Synod of 1906 without serious debate approved this
Plan of Federation and appointed ten members to attend the first meet-
ing of the Federal Council.3h The Plan, activated when approved by
twenty of the thirty churches which had participated in 1905, secured
the approval of all but the Protestant Episcopal Church before cone
vening December 2-8, 1908 at Philadelphia. This meeting gave birth to
the Federal Council of Churches of Christ and an indication of the
direction of its future actions. At the suggestion of Dr. Frank Mhson
North, a fourteen point ”Social Creed of the Churches” devoted to the
protection and betterment of the working class was unanimously passed.35

This acceptance may provide an additional insight into the
reasons why the Reformed Church in America played such a minor and
uninfluential role in this neworganization.36 Generally in the past
the Church had provided leadership and exerted an influence all out of
proportion to its size. At this time it had not yet accepted the idea
of church bodies participating widely in social action. The 1910
General Synod had encouraged the local churches to help form.interb
church federations in thetr communities. The goals it proposed for
these federations reveal the extent of the denomination's interest in

 

3”Minutes 11,911,, 126, p. #89.
35Hutchison, op. cit., pp. u6~47.

361m Rev. J. A. Ingham, 'A Digest of constitutional and
Synodical Legislatio of the Reformed Church in America: 1906-1936'
(n.p., typewritten, 93 ) and.the Rev. James Hoffman, 'A.Digest of
Synodical Legislation of he Reformed Church in America: 1938-1957"
(n.p., typewritten, El95g1). A.perusal of the Digests gathered by
these two former Stated erks reveals not only the Church's lack of
influence within the Federal Council of Churches but indicates also
the apparently limited effect that the Council had on the life of
the macho

163

social action. These expressions of Christian fellowship should carry
on evangelical work ”advancing the cause of charity, protecting the
interests of the Sabbath, temperance, law and order, and social purity,
of building up public opinion in support of civic-righteousness.”7
The ecumenically inclined Charles Corwin, in updating theuygpppl,of the
Reformed Church in America in 1922, could only note that the Federal
Council of Churches ”has been very useful in preventing overlooking and
overlapping in denominational activity."38

While the federal union impulse seemed to have suppressed much
of the desire for organic union within the Church in the first quarter
of the twentieth century, this proved to be a temporary phenomenon.
The first expressed.desire for union was directed toward the sister
Reformed Church in the United States. Despite the failures of the
union movements of lth-h7, 1866-75, 1886-93 and the recent 1913-17
approach between these two churches, continued evidence of co-operation
remined.39 In 1899 a contract made by the Board of Education of the

 

37mnutes 11.0.23.“I 19y, p. n. A comittee appointed in 1917
to consider the social task of the Church is never mentioned again. A
1931 created Committee on Social Service and Industrial Relations was
replaced the next'year by a Permanent committee on Social Wblfare. A
Social Action Committee suggested in 1939 was rejected because "we do
not believe that our ministers and churches are prepared to take such

action at this time.” Minutes R.Q.A,, 1211, p. 19“.

38A luring, of the Reformed Church in America; 1628.le, 5th
Ode, Pa 1030

39Yoder, op. cit., p. 103, likewise cites four German-Dutch
union movements but lists the last one as l90¢~05 when the German
Synod of the Interior petitioned for organic union only to find its
General Synod had.not.yet gotten over the 1886-93 failure and refused
to act. The movement of 1913-17 was more advanced for both churches
appointed committees to confer, though there was no fruition. In
191? the German Reformed felt it no longer imperative to continue the
exchange of delegates with churches she met with.regularly in the

161»

Dutch Reformed Church became effective for Sunday School lesson helps
and teachers' guides prepared by the German Reformed Church. The Rev.
I. W. Gowan acted as the Reformed Church in America‘s editor and con-
tributor to The Teacher and other materials which were imprinted as
Dutch Reformed publications. After beginning the work on a new hymnal
in 1911 the German Church invited the Dutch to join in. Dr. James 1.
Good acted as chairman and Dr. E. P. Johnson of New Brunswick Theo-
logical Seminary acted as the secretary of the joint committee which
prepared The Hymnal of the Reformed ghuggh, published in 1920. This
hymnal was available in two editions depending upon whether one desired
the inclusion of the Dutch Reformed or the German Reformed liturgy. A
third co-operative effort which also culminated in 1920 was the volun-
tary transfer of the Iwate-Aomori Mission Field in northern Japan by
the Reformed Church in America to the German Reformed. The latter
church insisted on making at least a partial reimbursement for the
buildings.“0 This transfer occurred mainly for administrative reasons
for the Dutch conducted their major mission efforts farther south.

The initial overtures from the Classes of New'York and North
Long Island in 1925 asked that the Committee on Closer Relations be

instructed to seek a conference with the Reformed Church in the United

 

Pan—Presbyterian organizations. See Minutes R.C.A1,_l9lh, pp. 138-
39, and Minutes ReCeAej 1:911, pa 11‘s.

“Yoder, op. cit., pp. 101-102. The northern mission efforts
of these two churches were both within the Classis of Mlyagi affil-
iated with the Church of Christ in Japan. Dr. Yoder indicated the
amount of remuneration was between $10-12,000 in his discussion of
these co-operative ventures. The initiation of this transfer began
in 1912. The R.C.A. also turned over the Shinshu Field in the North
to the Church of Christ in Japan. ”Eighty-Sixth Annual Report of the
Board of Foreign Missions of the Reformed Church in America,”
pp. 102-05, as cited in Minutes R.C.A., 1918.

165

States to ascertain the ”advisability of Federal or Organic union
between these two denominations.“1 The General Synod made a vague
motion to the effect that present day conditions demand closer co-
operation of all organized bodies of Protestantism. A misunderstanding
arose among the Committee as to just what instructions had been issued,
and it failed to oct.’+2 The following year the Reformed Church's Ex-
ecutive Committee of the Presbyterian Alliance replaced the old Commit-
tee on Closer Relations as the chief negotiator with other denomina-
tions. The new committee received the Classis of Saratoga's overture
for closer relations with the German Reformed Church and those from the
Classes of Palisades, Philadelphia and westchester for talks with all
the churches holding the Presbyterian system.“3

The desired contacts were made at the next meeting of the
Western Section of the Presbyterian Alliance in March of 1927.
Chairman T. H. Mackenzie, who had gloried in the Church's separate
organization in his State of Religion message in 1922, reported the
German Church would only consider an organic union. On this matter
his report concluded:

It would be neither courteous to other Churches nor dignified
for our own body to negotiate on the question of an organic

ulMinutes R.C.A., 125, p. 880.

“21». George N. Richards reported to the 1926 German Reformed
General Synod that no approaches had been received the past three years.
Carolina and Philadelphia desiring union with the Reformed Church in
America and the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. Minutes of the
General Synod of the Reformed Church in the Uniteg_States (Philadel-
phia: The Reformed Church and Sunday-School Board, 1925), p. 81.

43Minutes R.C.A 1 6, p. 131. The Particular Synod of
New Brunswick supported this wider approach and repeated this support

the following year when the Classis of Palisades again presented a
similar overture.

166

union so long as we have no reasonable kfisurance that such
Organic Uhion is desired by our Church.

Renewed agitation broke out in the tercentenary year of 1928 when six
Eastern Classes and the Particular Synod of New Brunswick overtured for
union primarily with the German Reformed. Once again a conservative
chairman was ready to disapprove action toward union.

This is an old question . . . discussed and debated, and.we

are no nearer than we were thirty years ago. Wb have gained

considerable in the way of co-operation and but little in the

way of organic union . . . . Constant agitation along the

lines of organfig union is not helpful to either of these

denominations.
The General Synod, however, felt this persistent union agitation de-
served a close study and authorized its President to appoint a Special
FactnFinding Commission.46

The Rev. Malcolm.J. thLeod appointed a committee composed of

fourteen clergyman and one lay member which compiled an admirable

 

unhinutes R.C.A., 1222, p. “#8. While one may suspect a bias
in the Rev. Mackenzie's approach to union his appraisal of the situa-
tion was probably accurate. Dr. G. W. Richards, an ardent ecumenist,
had little feeling for any additional negotiations with the Dutch
unless organic union could be practically assured. A.poem found in
the German Church's periodical Christian world, may 26, 1928, p. 5,
quoted in Yoder, op. cit., p. 100, gives evidence that such a union
was still attractive to other elements in the church. It begins

”Let Dutch and German Join their hands

For one united Brotherhood,

Bound by indissolable bands,

Co-workers for a common good

In fundamentals we are one,

In non-essentials we are free:

And in the way our work is done

The difference is hard to see.”

u5Minutes g,c.A., 128, p. 78!»; cf. Herman Harmelink,
“Christian Uhity and Church union: a Study of the Ecumenical Approach
of the Reformed Church in America" (unpublished MtS.T. dissertation,
Union Theological Seminary, New'York, 1964), p. 100.

“Minutes R.C.A,, 128, p. 785.

167

report on the possibilities of Christian union.47 The subcommittees
did their homework well. They outlined their church's relation with
the Reformed Church in the Uhited States and the Presbyterian Church
in the United States of America from the eighteenth century to may of
1929. They presented brief histories of these churches and of the
German Reformed Church's prospective partners, the Church of the
United Brethren in Christ and the Evangelical Synod of North America.
Reproduced were statements made about union from the time of John
Calvin up through those made by the late Dr. David Burrell of the
Collegiate Church of New York. Also included was a survey of the
five unions consummated since 1900 and the eight others that had.been
proposed. In the process they all came to favor organic union, if it
could be achieved with substantial unanimity in all sections of the
Church, for ”nothing short of Organic Union will meet the schisms of
our time.“+8 They supported by personal testimony and research the
following professed positive reasons for such union.

1. Foreign Missions would gain from a more unified presenta-
tion of the claim of Christ.

2. Mhny problems of over-churched communities would be

solved.

3. Economy in overhead expenses would result.

 

#7The members who composed this report were the Revs. H.'W.
Noble (chairman), F. R. Clee (secretary), C.E. Bloodgood, H. E. Cobb,
J. A. Dykstra, ML E. Flipse, J. E. Hoffman, A. I. Minn, J. M. ertin,
D. A. Poling, G. Schnucker, R. W. Searle, F. B. Seeley, J. Wesselink
and Mr. H. Vanderwart. Report of Fact-Finding_Commission on Christian
Union of the General Synod.of the Reformed Church in America, p. 59.

”8mm, p. 11».

168

4. ”A New Name would challenge the Comrm.1ni1'.;y."49

5. It is the Will of God.

The Commission had attempted an approach to the German Reformed
Church via Dr. Paul S. Leinbach, a former Dutch Reformed pastor. At a
meeting in New'York City on October 22, 1928 he gave the first official
knowledge of his church's union negotiations with the United Brethren
in Christ and the Evangelical Synod of North America. He was not very
encouraging and advised that if the Reformed Church in America wished
to pursue the matter further, it go through the proper channel, namely,
Chairman George w. Richards of the Committee on Closer Reictions.5°
Dr. Edgar F. Romig favored pursuing the matter and contact was made
with Dr. Richards. Because of the professed advanced stage of the
negotiations already entered into by his church, he suggested an in-
formal conference of two commissioners from each church. At a.meeting
in Philadelphia on January 10, 1929, Dr. Richards produced a Basis of
Union as evidence of the advanced stage of negotiations, but he did
invite this sister church to join the proposed union.51 The Dutch
Reformed were not ready in 1929 to consider a proposal which brought
together Calvinists, Lutherans and Arminians. The commissioners de-
clined the invitation and the talks ceased.52 This prior involvement

“91bid., p. 18. These reasons and their supporting points are
found on pages 1h-23. Reason number four was explained.by showing the
low percentage of members in Eastern churches of the R.C.A. who were
raised within the denomination. The conclusion was that lacking a
”common religious denominational background . . . the laity is con-
cerned first of all with loyalty to a Person rather than an Institu-
tion." Ibide, pa 21o

5°Ibid., p. 39. 51M" pp. 39-40.

52Both sides had long memories. Dr. Leinbach ”spoke of the
inability of the rank and file in the Reformed Church in the U.S. to

169
of the German Reformed Church was the official reason offered by the
Camussion for taking no further action at that time.53
Even before their final evaluation of union possibilities with
the Reformed Church in the United States had been made, the Commission
had contacted the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America.
At their invitation, Dr. J. Ross Stevenson, President of Princeton
Seminary and Chairman of their Department on Church Co-operation and
Union, appeared before the Commission and interested Reformed ministers
of the New York City area on November 5, 1928. In an encouraging
speech he not only welcomed the idea of closer co-operation but con-
cluded:
I feel that we need to get it on our minds and hearts that

we are not catching up with the work the Lord has instituted,
and while to some union may seem incidental, to those who

 

understand our feeling toward them.” The Report noted, ”all points of
difference that so narrowly prevented union with us in 1892 still
exist and are in no way ameliorated by this new development." Ibid.

11‘. Richard's report gives a hesitant tardy quality to the
R.C.A.'s negotiations since 1926. It fails to acknowledge the Lein-
bach approach, erroneously reports the month of this meeting and
claims that it was the Fact-Finding Commission that asked for an in-
formal session. mnutes of the General mod of the Reformed Church
in the United States for 1222, pp. 32-33.

530thers felt this approach failed because of a precon-

ceived attitude on the part of Dr. George W. Richards towards the
Dutch Reformed Church. Two emeritus professors of New Brunswick
Theological Seminary, Dr. Milton Hoffman and Dr. M. Stephen James,
expressed the belief that Dr. Richards had deliberately 'torpedoed'
this approach. lIhey disagree on whether it was contempt for the
Dutch Reformed more than theological differences that caused the
premature ending of union talks. Interview with Dr. Dalton Hoffman,
April 2, 196+; interview with Dr. M. Stephen James, June 18, 196“.
Yoder, op. cit., p. lhl, indirectly lent some support to this belief
when he noted that in 1931 the German Reformed held off union with
the Evangelical Synod for one more Pan-Presbyterian union attempt.

170

have it on their minds and hearts to get the work of
the Lord done, union is necessary.

In the exchange of letters to set up a meeting of the committees of
both churches, Dr. Stevenson proved tactful and encouraging. He

wrote:

I understand the scope of your mission. You are at liberty

to report all the facts you were able to find and the possi-

bility of union is certainly a fact so far as we are con-

cerned. Our chief interest is in the union of our Reformed

Churches rather than with a broader union which has to do

with outside bodies.55
The joint meeting of February 7, 1929 at the Presbyterian Building,
156 Fifth Avenue, New York City, gave further evidence of the Presby-
terian's desire for union. Knowing the Reformed Church Commission had
not been authorized to propose union, the Presbyterians revealed that
they would seek to have their General Assembly overture the 1929
General Synod of the Reformed Church "looking toward Organic Union.”56

On the basis of this information and their research, the

Commission at a final meeting on February 20, 1929 unanimously approved
the report and the conclusions to be presented to the General Synod
session at Holland, Michigan on June 6th. Their conclusions claimed
that 23 per cent of American Protestants were members of churches which

had already united since 1900 or were definitely thinking about merger.

5nReport of Fact-Finding_Commission on Christian_Dhion of the
General gynod of the Reformed Church in America, p. 51.

55Ibid., p. 52, contains this quote but the date of the letter,
though probably December of 1928, is not given. This latter statement
had been one of the initial instructions to the Department of Church
Co-operation and Union in 190“. It had been complied with in the 1906
union with the Cumberland Presbyterian Church and the 1920 union with
the very small Wblsh Calvinistic Mbthodist Church.

55Ibid., p. 53.

171

The Commission itself favored joining this trend through union with
the Northern Hesbyterians, provided substantial unanimity was found
in all sections of the Church. ‘fliey ended their conclusions with a
quote from Dr. Daniel Poling, one of their members. "We believe in
Church Union because God wills it, Christ prayed for it, and world
redemption waits on its consummation."57

One of the highlights of the denomination's 1929 annual meet-
ing was the address of Dr. Robert E. Spear, Secretary of Foreign
Fissions and delegate from the General Assembly of the Presbyterian
Church in the United States of America. The gristian Intelligencer
and Mission Field described this speech "as one of the wonderful
efforts of eloquence that comes very rarely to the experience of most
men, and will always be remembered by those who listened to 11:.“58
Though he bore an overture unanimously adopted by his church's General
Assembly calling for closer co-operation or even organic union, touchy
subjects in the Reformed Church, yet the General Synod rose to its
feet in appreciation of his manner of presentation. He stressed the
past close relations of the two churches. "People have always acted
as if the two churches were one freely passing back and forth in the

 

”Elisa p. 59. This report was later included in the
Mantes ReCeA:. 122.2, ppe 1u2-196e

53June 19, 1929, p. 387; cf.. Studens, "me Point of View,-
Ibid., July 10, 1929. p. 1440. This article too is laudatory of this
speech but cautiOns it cannot insure a fruitful result. The address
had such a powerful effect that a pamphlet of anti-union articles was
published as late as February 1, 1930 with the avowed intention of
offsetting Dr. Speer's address. See W. L. 3., Some Thoughts on
Organic Union (New York: n.n., 1930).

172

pulpits and sednaries and missions."59 He recognized a conservative
inclination on the part of both denominations and agreed union required
a basis of unity in faith which he felt eodsted.6° In the past, pro-
posed union movements had been blocked by the hope of even larger
mergers. Dr. Speer warned "let us not make the same mistake now.”61

In the wake of this speech, the General Synod adopted the
Report of the Fact-Finding Commission. A new thirty-two member Per-
manent Connfittee on Closer Relations with Other Denominations, headed
by Dr. Malcolm J. MacLeod, was created to conduct these negotiations.62
To sample the attitude of all sections of the Church, the Committee
was instructed to conduct at least one conference in each of the five
Particular Synods. The vote had not been unanimous; not everyone had
been caught up in the wave of eloquence. Senior Elder William L.
Brower of the New York Collegiate Church Consistory had published a

 

”Address of Mr. Robert E. Speer, delegate from the General
Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. to the General
Synod of the Reformed Church in America, Holland, Inch" June 7,
1929. pp. 17-18 (in the Church Union file, N.B.T.S.).

6olhough a spectrum of views existed in the Presbyterian
alurch, he could also claim a noticeable conservative inclination. A
strong fundamentalist element had caused the withdrawal of Dr. Harry
Eherson Fosdick, “the most influential modernist in the country,"
as Stated Supply of the First Presbyterian Church of New York City
in 192”. 'me Moody Bible Institute in Chicago and the Bible Institute
of Los Angeles, centers of fundamentalism, both were ”largely under
Presbyterian influence and central." William W. Sweet, The Story of
Religion in America (New York: Harper 8: Brothers Publishers, 1930),
pp. 513-1 . Moodyism also had a visible effect on many )1th mem-
bers of the Reformed Church in America.

61W88 Of we ROert Ea Spoor, OEe dte, Pa 20a Though
the Northern Presbyterians had been approached by the Methodist
Episcopal Church the year before, he assured the General Synod that
union with the Reformed Church was more important.

62mnutes R.C.A., 1222, p. 198.

173

pro-Synod pamphlet, we Union Not Favored, in May of 1929.63 Its
avowed purpose had been to prevent the General Synod from considering
a proposal for union with the Northern Presbyterians, or, if presented,
to defeat the motion by a large majority. Mr. Brower had even been
granted the privilege of reading a paper from the floor opposing the
adoption of the Fact-Finding Comxission's Report, but to no avail.

No sooner had the Synod members returned home than N. L.
Brewer renewed his pamphleteering. He contended ' the Fact-Finding
Commission had deviated from their instructions and he felt he spoke
for the membership in contesting their conclusions. ”Paid secretaries
and officials are necessary in some branches of the work of the Church
but often times they do not reflect the feelings and opinions of the
people and mischievous results ensue."6# His emotionalism on- the
entire subject of church union, especially as it might affect his
beloved Collegiate Church Corporation, at times interfered with his
logic.

From November, 1929 through May, 1930 a rather sustained
discussion, and at times a denunciation of union, took place. in the

 

63Elder Brewer had written this pamphlet under the pen name,
”A Veteran Observen" Long an Office-bearer in the Reformed Church in
America. Now 83 years old, he had served on the Board of Direction
since 1908. His great fear was the obliteration of the Dutch Reformed
Church as a denomination. Harmelink, op. cit., p. 103, fills in moh
additional. detail on Elder Brewer who was "president of the denomina-
tion's Board of Direction, leader in the Holland Society of New York,

an executive of a New York liquor-importing firm, and an eccentric
bachelor. "

6a”. Veteran Observer,” Long an Office-Bearer in the Reformed
Church of America, Some Thoughts on the Heart of the Fact-Finding

Coalittee at the lbs of the General, Synod of R,C.A,, June 1929
(n.p., none, node ), Do a (This m two other pamphlets by We Le
Brewer can be found in the Church Union file N.B.T.S. )

 

 

17h

papers devoted to the Church.65 The Rev. Walter A. Scholten used the
”Letter to Editor” column of the Christian Intelligencer and.uission
Eiglgbto request that a conference on union be held.in the Wbstchester
Classis. He wanted the Committee on Closer Relations with Other De-
nominations to understand the importance the churches of that area
attached to this union approach because of the increasing disintegra-
tion of denominational relationships. I

Indeed, the time is not far distant when these churches will

want to know why they should not affiliate with more power-

ful denominations with more challenging programs than the

Reformed Church can ever present. The alternative to Church

union may well be the secesg%on of some of the most important

congregations of our faith.

The chief literary support for consummation of this union
came from the pens of the Easterners, the Revs. Mhlcolm.J. MacLeod
and Theodore Brinckerhoff. The main reasons for supporting this union
movement seemed to lie in its relevance for the churches of the East,
faced with a mobile and cosmopolitan membership. In a.denomination-
alism which had.become almost meaningless to their average laymen.and
an ”outrage to God," they found weakness, economic waste, and an ab-
stacle to missionary endeavors. This made even less sense to them

when all the denominations faced the same worldpwide enemy in the

 

65mm the Christian Intelligencer and Mission Field was the
only strictly denominational paper, De Hope and its English-language

counterpart, The Leader, were the recognized.voices of the Western
branch of the Church.

66November 6, 1929, p. 711. The editor after double-checking
felt the Rev. Scholten was correct that churches actually existed
that were Reformed in name only. Theodore Brinckerhoff, ”Six Reasons
for Church Uhion,‘ Ibid., Rhy'7, 1930, p. 302, claimed in the New
York City area the name ”Reformed” had to be suppressed to gain a
foothold in a community.

175

"secular spirit of materialism."67 When Dr. MucLeod's two part
article entitled ”Church Union, a Burning Question” appeared in
April, 1930, the union question had already been reduced to a smolder-
ing ember. He observed that mankind had.noved from the historical
stages of individualism to federation and now to organic union. To
this pastor of the St. Nicholas Collegiate Church, the old order must
give way to the new.

The inevitability of this transition made no impression upon
many of his religious cohorts. They feared that union meant not a
genuine merger but a ”swallowing up” of the much smaller Reformed
Church in America. Though he professed to be neither eager to join
nor prone to prevent, Dr. Albertus Pieters of western Theological
Seminary, probably did.nore to encourage this belief than any other
individual. His six articles on ”The Question of Church Union“ had
the widest coverage of any material on the proposed union. Fbr six
consecutive weeks, beginning in November, 1929, both the Christian
lptelligencer and Mission Field and The leader carried his articles.
Later in February, 1930, because they served his anti-union purposes,
William L. Brewer reproduced them in a pamphlet and sent them.to the

ministers and elders of the Church.68

Actually, Dr. Pieter's opposition is hard to categorize.

67M. J. MacLeod, ”Church Union, a Burning Question,” Chri_____s____tian

Intelligencer and Mission Field, April 16, pp. 250-51, and April 23,
19309 P02

68W. L. B., 02. ci . By this time the opposition to union as
apparent from the newspaper medium and reports of area meetings enabled
Mr. Brewer to state (p. l) ”the 'Veteran Observer' happily entertains
the view that such substantial unanimity [the prerequisite for union]
will not'be secured.”

176

Unlike Elder Brower, he claimed to be unmoved by sentimental considera-
tions.

I am unwilling to be in bondage to the past. If am one can

convince me that substantial spiritual gains will result

from a merger of the Reformed Church in.America and the Pres-

byterian Church, I should not be a worthy son of the noble

men who ngg'rest from their labors if I allow myself to

hesitate.
Unlike the Revs. G. H. Hespers and Winfield Burggraaff, he did not fear
for the Church's orthodoxy for ”those who yell Modernism.generally have
not made a real study of its strength in the Presbyterian Church."70
On the other hand, he agreed with two of the editorial columnists of
The Leader, Drs. W; Burggraaff and J. E. Kuizenga, that regardless of
the correctness of the basis for their opposition, western opposition
to this union was a fact. The westerners were against pushing the
discussion of merger further ”lest in striving for added unity in the

church, we precipitate added division and secession."71

 

6?;2lép: Article I, ”The Proposed Uhion With the Presbyter-

ians," p. 5. Part of Pieters' dilemma was whether the Church should
do as a body what so many, including three from his own family, had
done as individuals - enter the Presbyterian Church. Yet he was con-
vinced denominationalism.was no sin and organic union would pose a
threat to either doctrinal purity or religious freedom.

70935;” Article v, "Why Not Join the Presbyterians", p. 16.

71J. E. Kuizenga, "Editorial Comments," The leader, May 28,
1930, p. 8. This professor at western Theological Seminary had
already indicated in his column of January 22, 1930, p. 8, that this
union did not have the slightest chance to be consummated in the
next 25 years. He relegated it to the status of a "remote academic
question.”

It did not take twenty-five years to accomplish a personal
merger. In May, 1930, Dr. Khizenga accepted an invitation to Join
Dr. Samuel M. Zwemer and Dr. John H. Raven, both former R.C.A. men,
on the faculty of Princeton Theological Seminary. His transfer to
the Presbyterian Church followed shortly.

177
Despite their differing reasons for opposing this union, both
columnists editorially expressed displeasure at the closed minds they
found in the west regarding this subject. Dr. Kuizenga noted their
intolerance was such that for even seeming to favor any form of union
”one can find himself in disfavor."72 Perhaps Dr. Speer had not
understood this characteristic of self-devotion when a year earlier,
stressing the advantages of a three-way union that included the united
Presbyterian Church, he claimed ”it would make available for our common
effort the devoted life of the western churches of the Reformed ‘
Churches in America.'73 The Rev. Dr. Winfield Burggraaff (Milwaukee,
Hisconsin), defended.denominationalism.and influenced by the Christian
Reformed Church's attitude, opposed the union on the grounds of ortho-
doxy and future unions.
It will be well to remember, when thinking about union,

that.it is an expression of the times in.which we live, and

that if we start to move with the agirit of the age, we

shall have to keep moving with it.
He remained convinced the leaders of the Presbyterian Church planned
additional unions beyond the ReformedpPresbyterian family, and alleged
that after union the former Reformed Church members, outnumbered by
at least thirteen to one, would be unable to prevent further mergers.

This is most certainly a time when Green.van Prinsterer's

watchword El87l } In our isolation lies our strength, needs
to be thought hrough again, and the truth of it admitted

 

72%.! April 16’ 1930, pe 80 809 83.80 his calm in the
April 23, 1930 issues.

73united Presbyterian, April 4, 1929, as quoted in the
Christian Intelligencer and Mission Field, April 24, 1929, p. 259.

71""Fjditorial Notes,” The Leader. May 1’": 1930: P° 9'

178

even for our dgy and age. Isolation often results in
preservation.

Meanwhile, the Committee on Closer Relations With Other Denomp
inations had met in the fall of 1929. The Committee divided into
seven subcommittees, both to continue and to enlarge upon the activi-
ties and research of the 1929 Special Fact-Finding Commission.76 Fer
the sake of economy, the Committee organized itself into Eastern and
western sections to meet separately until the full committee next met
in the St. Nicholas Collegiate Church on January 22—23, 1930. The
reports presented at this meeting caused the thirty-one members present
to unanimously favor continuation to union if the prerequisite of sub-
stantial unanimity of all sections could be achieved.77 None of these
reports discouraged union, while the subcommittee on Foreign Missions
said that experience in missions showed union to be more effective
than co-operation. Statistics revealed the greater self-perpetuation
of the denomination in the west than in the East. In the Eastern
branch, it was estimated that 29 per cent of the Church's ministers
had formerly been Presbyterians; while 30 per cent of their members
received by letter of transfer came from.within the denomination, 22
per cent came from.Presbyterian churches; with regard to dismissals,

75Ibid.

76mmutes R.C.A., 1220, p. 571. These subcommittees were the
following: Other Union Movements, Domestic Missions, Foreign Mis-
sions, Historical Contacts, Church Origin of Ministers and Members,
Community Analysis, and Presbyterian.Confessions. See pages 571-8?
for the text of the entire report by The Committee on Closer Relations
With Other Denominations.

77Editorial, Christian Intelli encer and mssion Field,
January 29, 1930, p. 35.

179

the figures were 31 and 28 per centrespectively.78

This impetus for union soon received a check when the reports
on the area conferences began to be known. To prevent a prejudgement
before the General Synod had a chance to evaluate all the facts, the
Committee had requested the papers not to print the discussions or
decisions of the various area conferences. The only violation of this
reouest appeared to be a reference by Dr. Khizenga in his column in
The Leader of February 12, 1930 where he remarked that of the first
four sections of the Church reporting, two in the west and one in the
East had strongly opposed union. The consensus of substantial unan-
imity had already been lost. The final report to the General Synod of
1930 showed the three Eastern Synods generally favored continuing the
approach, but in the west some areas refused to allow meetings to be
conducted, others went on record as being opposed.79 The meeting at
Holland, Michigan alone declared it was not opposed but it desired

more information and discussion.80

unlike the January meeting, not all the Committee members

783y comparison, in the west 8% of the ministers and 7% of
the membership that came by letter of transfer had been Presbyterians;
In this area only 9% of dismissals went to Presbyterian Churches.
These figures were based on the replies of 38# of 583 ministers con-
tacted. Minutes R.C.A., 1220, p. 577.

The disparity in these statistics provides at least one clue
to the greater affinity of the East for this union.

79mg" pp. 581-85. In the East the meeting at Patterson,
New Jersey and the Classes of Passaic and South Long Island had.re-
gistered disapproval. In the West the Classis of East Souix overtured
General Synod opposing any invitation for organic union with the
Northern Presbyterians.

80"Minutes of the Classis of Holland," April 1, 1930,
p. 739 (in w.r.s.).

180

would sign the final recommendations to the Synod. It requested
authorization, not only to continue its work of study and conference
with the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America and other
members of the Presbyterian families, but to "sit in on any conference
on a wider Presbyterian Unity."81 Once again as in 1874 the Presby-
terians had proven to be considerate negotiators. They had evidenced
a will to unite and believed all obstacles in the way could be over-
‘ come. As an evidence of their earnestness, they suggested the name
for any new resulting church be the Presbyterian-Reformed Church in
the United States of America so as ”to preserve the historical back-
ground of the Dutch Church and the word 'Reformed. "'82 Though the
General Synod voted to continue the Committee, the interest now had
shifted from a predominantly two-church approach to a new Pan-Presby-
terian effort.

This movement was already in progress. The United Presbyterian
General Assembly had instructed its Committee on Unity to invite the
other members of the Presbyterian family to consider uniting to create
a singular Presbyterian Church.83 As a result of this invitation, a
new Pan-Presbyterian movement was launched at the ulliam Penn Hotel,

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, January 28-29, 1930. The Reformed Church in

 

8llfinutes R.C.A., 1220, PPO 586’87' Only twenty-two members
would sign this report.

82Ibid., p. 580.

83rohnutes of the Sevent -Pirst General Assembl of the United
Prestan Church of North America (Pittsburgh: United Prubyterian
Board of Publication and Bible School Work, 1929), p. 361. This move-
ment was an alternative to continuing serious union talks with the
Southern Presbyterian Church, a church three times its size. In 1929
this General Assembly had refused to send a proposed Basis of Union

down to its Presbyteriesfor a vote. See Wayne Christy, "The United

 

181
America's Committee on Closer Relations Path Other Denominations had
decided to send an Ad Interim Committee to this meetingfin Besides the
United Presbyterians, the Northern and Southern Presbyterians were
officially represented while the German Reformed had an moffidal
representative present. The representatives of the Reformed Church
(Dutch) approved the idea of organic union of these churches at the
earliest possible moment on the basis of their existing standards.
It refused, however, the invitation to make a Plan of Organic Union
until it received the permission of its parent body.

This permission had not been received in 1930 but the Committee
participated actively in the inter-committee meetings of June 21},
November 12-13 of 1930 and at the meeting of a Special Committee on
April 8, 1931. Probably because the Presbyterian Church (South) was
not authorized to conmdt its church to union either, these meetings
failed to produce even an outline plan for union. On June 9, 1931,
the Committee recommended to the General Synod that it be permitted
to draft a basis for organic union.85 By a large majority, the delegates
not only refused the request but dismissed the Committee and proceeded
to the election of a new Permanent Committee on Closer Relations nth
Other Denominations. The Southern Presbyterians voted the same year

to stop all. negotiations toward organic union. The remaining two

 

Presbyterian Church and Church Union" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
University of Pittsburgh, 191W), p. 197.

8“Iihnutes g,c,a., 1220, p. 572. The Church was represented by
Drs. MacLeod, Noble and R. Raymond Clee. The latter, along with Robert
E. Speer and James I. Vance of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.), were the
main speakers.

85mnutes R.C.a., 1931, p. 970. Twenty-two of the twenty-
eight remaining members of the Committee had ageed with this report.

182
Presbyterian Churches continued negotiations until June 2h, 193h when
the United Presbyterian General Assembly by a vote of 113-123 once
again defeated a motion to send a plan of union to its Presbyteries
for a vote.86 Two days later at Cleveland, Ohio, the Reformed Church
in the United States and the Evangelical Synod of North America comp
pleted their union ”at the top" and formed the Evangelical and Reformed
Church. This ended the last definite attempt at union within the
Presbyterian family for almost a decade.

Within the Reformed Church in America this relatively brief
and abortive attempt at union failed because of a sentimental attach-
ment for the past which helped magnify the large-scale apathy for
union particularly prevalent in the Western branch of the Church.
Reinforcing this attitude had been the fear of absorption by a much
larger church body and the concern that this would be the first of a
series of mergers. When even the orthodoxy of the first proposed
partner, the Presbyterian Church (North), Caused speculation and
rumor, additional possible mergers outside the Reformed-Presbyterian
family were an abomination to the conservative element.87

Some historians and theologians had felt that the Scopes trial

of 1925 had damaged the fundamentalist religious conceptions beyond

 

86Minutes R.C.AJJ 1936, pp. 414-16, contains a brief résume' of
these actions since 1929.

87The principle of substantial unanimity in all parts of the
Church did not itself defeat this movement, but it did insure the imp
possibility of any consummation of a union. The western branch of the
Church, so adamantly against union, was an increasingly important
factor in the life of the Church. Prior to the 1929-31 approaches, it
already numbered over 260 congregations in 14 Classes containing 31%
of the total membership and contributing 4h% of the total denomina-
tional benevolences. Willard D. Brown, History of the Reformed Church

183
repair. Actually a by-product of this trial was a reawakened interest
in church orthodoxy among members of the Baptist and Presbyterian
groups. One result was that the actions and publications of the Federal
Council of Churches of Christ in America came under closer scrutiny.
One of the first targets of dissatisfaction was the Federal Council's
copyrighted Lenten devotional, "Fellowship of Prayer.” The pamphlets
of 1930 and 1931 led to the first major attacks by elements within the
Reformed Church on the Federal Council of Churches.88 A professed
variance from the standards of the Church and a lack of evangelical
content made this publication a source of complaint even as late as
l9’+7.89 The attack broadened in 1931 to include the charge that non-
evangelical leaders exercised a disproportionate amount of influence
over Council actions. As a result, at various times the Reformed
Church's representatives were instructed to try to secure more evangel-
ical actions and expressions on the part of Federal Council.90 The
Council itself has been appraised of this desire both directly and

indirectly through the various debates and votes which ensued in the
Church over continued rnembership.91

in America (New York: Board of Publication and Bible School Work,

1928), p. 102. The Rev. Brown was the Secretary of the Board of Edu-
cation of the R.C.A.

88Minutes R. .A l o, p. 556, showed the initial protests

came from.the Particular Synod of Iowa, the Wbstern Classes of Chi-
cago, Pella, Pleasant Prairie, East Souix, west Souix, and Wisconsin,
and the Eastern Classes of Greene and Rochester.

89Janitorial, Church Herald, March 11+, 1947.

90Minutes R,C.a,, 121, pp. 952-53; Minutes R,C.A., 125,
pp. 112-13.

91mnutes R.C.A., 1931. pp. 9+6, 952-53. Such overtures and
votes also occurred in 1934, 1936, 19W, l9h8 and 1950. The Southern

18b

Not all aspects of this ecumenical body's activities came
under attack nor did it lack for defenders within the Reformed Church.
In an interesting comment on the times, the Classis of Holland in 1930
commended both the National Broadcasting Company and the Federal Council
of Churches for sponsoring a series of hour long broadcasts called
”Sabbath Reveries' by the Rev. Charles L. Goodell. Their resolution
claimed this series was more acceptable to the vast number of Christian
people than the liberal ministry of Dr. H. E. Fosdick or the extreme
fundamentalism of Dr. D. G. Barnhouse over the Columbia Broadcasting
Company.92 Elaborate reports by the Overture Committee in 1931 and
the Permanent Committee on the Federal Council of Churches of Christ
in America in 19#O endorsed continued membership in an organization
that carried out activities co-operatively which no single denomination
could do as well alone.93 The General Synod of 19m reaffirmed its
faith in the ideals for which the Federal Council stood and pledged
its loyalty, prayers and help. A.19#4 proposal to merge this body and
seven other interdenominational agencies into a National Council of
Churches of Christ gained approval, though its actual organization did

not take place until 1950.9” Wbrld Whr II had brought a lull in these

 

Presbyterian Church actually withdrew for the second time from the
Federal Council of Churches in 1931. See Hutchison, op. cit., p. 55.

6 92”Minutes of the Classis of Holland,” September 9, 1930,
P0 750

93Minutes R.C.A., 1231, pp. 9+7-53; Minutes Riot, 129,
pp. 553-54. Its chief defense in 1931 was that most of the protests
were against the activities of only one of several commissions and
not against the Council as a whole. In 1940 the report stressed its
function as a denominational clearing house for the appointment and

supervision of chaplains in Federal prisons, C.C.C. camps and the
Armed Forces.

9“Minutes R.C.A., 19M», p. 149. These proposed partners

185

attacks but serious challenges to continued membership on the grounds
of alleged modernistic penetration remained to be faced. While the
Reformed Church did not encounter the disruptions found in the Presby-
terian Church.in the United States in America, its institutions and
individuals, too, were caught up in the controversy.95

As early as 1923, the nomination of Dr. E. S. Wbrcester to the
faculty at New Brunswick Theological Seminary as Professor of Systema-
tic Theology provoked a debate in the General Synod. Certain Wbstern
educated ministers on the Board of Superintendents for the seminary
condemned his reservations about Adam's federal responsibility for
human sin. The nomination was sustained though only after eight
ballots and much to the disappointment of the Rev. G. H. Reapers, one
of the Board members. The Rev. Hospers felt this was the planting of
the seeds of modernism at the Eastern seminary and ”indicated he would
never urge another person to attend New Brunswick Seminary."96 To

many in the West it became an object of suspicion and its graduates
theological question marks.

included the Council of Church Boards of Education, Foreign Missions
Conference of North America, Home Missions Council of North America,
International Council of Religious Education, mssionary Education
Movement of the United States and Canada, United Council of Church
Women, and United Stewardship Council.

95About 1936, two small splinters, the Orthodox Presbyterian
Church and the Bible Presbyterian Church, broke away from the Presby-
terian Church in the U.S.A. The R.C.A. experienced a minor schism
when the Rev. Martin R. De Run and all. but 1&5 families left Calvary
Reformed Church of Grand Rapids in 1929. The group formed an unde-
nominational congregation and its pastor became a fairly well-lmown
radio minister. Christian Intelligencer and Fission Field, April 17,
1929, p. 21+9, reveals the Classis of Grand Rapids deposed the Rev.
De Haan at its spring meeting.

96Harmelink, op. cit., p. 113. The mnutes 34.11., 122,
pp. 92-93, substantiate the balloting.

186

The Trustees of Hope College also came under pressure because
of persistent rumors about some unsoundness in the teaching at the
college and the poor example set by some of the instructors. More
specifically, the complaints were that evolution and a biological
interpretation of life were being taught without a sufficient ”anti-
dotal explanation," and that some instructors, besides being irregular
in church attendance, tolerated and even took part in card playing,
dancing and movie going. A special committee of the Classis of Holland
had met with the Trustees and asked that all teaching applicants be
screened for religious orthodoxy.97 A.1ess restrictive social policy
slowly evolved at the college for faculty and student alike. Eleven
years later Dr. Norman Vincent Peale of the Marble Collegiate Church
was criticized for acting as a technical advisor for the Hollywood
movie "One Foot in Heaven."98

The same year Dr. Edgar F. Romig in his State of Religion
message to the General Synod helped rekindle sectional feeling. He
expressed the belief that parents should not confess their children
sinful and guilty before God at the time of baptism.99 A letter from
the Classis of West Souix asked that sufficient protest be registered
by the other Classes against this "heretical statement” that the Classis
of New York would be forced to discipline this minister who was under
their ecclesiastical jurisdiction. The Eastern Classes resented this

 

97"Minutes of the Classis of Holland,” April 1, 1930 and
May 169 19309 PP. 739-144-

98Harmelink, op. cit., p. 127.
99mm» 11.04., 12m, p. 260.

187

interference and no trial ever took place.100 The Church ended by
merely reaffirming its belief in its doctrinal standards.

With the coming of the United States involvement in world
War II, controversy remained latent. Also postponed but not inactive
was the organization and creation of the largest ecumenical body yet
attempted, the world Council of Churches. The 1939 General Synod,
during a lull in the attacks on the Federal Council.of Churches,
accepted an invitation to join this newly proposed world organization.101
A somewhat logical outgrowth of past support of the Evangelical Alliance
and membership in organizations, i.e., the Presbyterian Alliance and
the Federal Council of Churches, this action had its origin as early
as 1910.

The motivating forces behind the development of the world
Council of Churches came from the foreign missionary movement and its
attempts at co-operation. In 1910 a world Missionary Conference took
place at Edinburgh out of which developed three movements whose activi-
ties and leadership resulted in the creation of the world Council;

these were the International Missionary Council, Faith and Order, and

100"Minutes of the Classis of New York," October 21, 1941,
pp. lO-14 (in Church Archives, N.B.T.S.), revealed the Classis was
offended by the West Souix letter which is reproduced along with an
answering letter by Dr. Romig. The action of the Classis of west
Souix was condemned as a hasty judgement without benefit of trial
and unconstitutional. Dr. Romig professed he would have omitted the
statement if he had known it was going to offend for it was only in-
cidental in pressing for liturgical revision. A special committee of
four was appointed to further study the matter but at the spring

Classis meeting of April 21, 1942 (p. 14), it reported no action
need be taken.

101Minutes R.C.A.. 1939. pp. 148-151-

188
Life and Work.102 While there had been some talk of church unity,
this conference felt it should start with unity on the mission field.
In each non—Christian nation they wanted to create one undivided
Church of Christ.103 One decisive step occurred which differed from
the happenings of previous major missionary conferences and that was
the creation of a Continuation Committee to function between confer-
ences. In 1921 this committee assumed the name of the International
Missionary Council as the representative of a world-wide federation of
seventeen National Councils of Missionary Societies and National
Christian Councils. ”The success of the Council was assured by the
choice as its first officers of John R. Mott as Chairman and J. H.
Oldham and A. L. Warnshuis as Secretariesmlo“ The Reformed Church,
early an energetic participator in foreign mission, took pride in this
selection of Warnshuis, one of her sons, to a post whose importance
grew as war descended upon Europe. From his New‘York office he helped
direct the support of missions cut off from.their parent boards and
continued the fostering of indigenous churches. While this organizap
tion, through its contributions to extended co-operation, helped pre-

pare the way for the coming of the World Council of Churches, it did

 

102D93p1t. the urging as early as 1908 of the R.C.A.'s Board
of Foreign Missions, the Church apparently failed to appoint delegates
for the 1910 Conference. Minutes R.C.A., l9_08, pp. 106-07.

1°3Noraan Goodall, The Ecumenical Movement: what It Is and
What It Does (2d ed.; London: Oxford University Press, 1 ,
PP- E5213,

1°“Rouse and Neill, op. cit., p. 367. The main headquarters
was located in London but Whrnshuis, former R.C.A. missionary to
China, served as the American Secretary until his retirement in 1942.
Part of this time Whrnshuis also served as treasurer of the denomina-
tion.

189

not participate directly in the first merger which produced the World
Council.

Not everyone left Edinburgh in 1910 satisfied with the emphasis
and direction its succeeding conferences could be expected to take.
The Swedish Lutheran Archbishop, Nathan Sgderblom, left feeling a world
conference should be called to make the churches face up to their
social responsibility and international relations. The Reformed Church
in America did not evidence a great deal of enthusiasm for this move-
ment which culminated in 1925 at Stockholm in the universal Christian
Conference on Life and work.105 Similarly, Bishop Charles H. Brent of
the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States also felt a
necessity for calling a world conference of Catholics, Orthodox and
Protestants on faith and order.106 Through the intermediary of his
denomination, invitations were sent out for a conference which would
study and discuss differences in the hopes of a better understanding
and possible desire for reunion. Both geography and actual interest
played a part in the more active participation of the Reformed Church
in America in this movement. In 1911 the requested committee on a
world Conference of Faith and Order was appointed which participated
in a preliminary joint conference in New York City on Mdy 8, 1913.107

 

105Rnnutes R,C,A., 1221, p. 505. Delegates had been appointed
to this proposed conference but there is no report or other evidence
that they attended the Stockholm meeting.

1°6Rouse and Neill, op. cit., p. #07; Goodall, op. cit., p. £13,
mentioned that faith and order, "the questions on which the unity of
the churches turn,” had been omitted from the agenda as a condition
for securing participation by the Anglican Church.

107151117111“, 1:1,,c,A,I 122, p. 778, contains the Committee's
report of progress.

190

Like the other preceding movements, world Whr I disrupted the early
organisational plans. When the long awaited conference finally took
place at Leusanne, Switzerland in August, 1927, the Church partici-
pated. Both the Rev. Harold Schenck and Dr. Samuel Zwemer took part
in the floor discussions during this eighteen day conference of some
385 delegates from.108 Churches.108 One of the outstanding impressions
of the conference had been the tremendous pressure exerted.hy the native
churches of the mission fields in support of church unity. Ten years
later the continued interest in the movement by the churches culminated
in a Second Wbrld Conference on Faith and Order at Edinburgh. The
Reformed Church found itself basically in agreement with the Edinburgh
Affirmation of unity which acknowledged ”our unity is of the heart and
the spirit," though it hoped the outward divisions could.be overcome.109

Before long the Life and work and the Faith and Order move-
ments began to feel they were overlapping in their functions and headed
in the same direction. Dr. A. L. Whrnshuis reported on a meeting of
these two groups at Utrecht in.Nhy, 1938 and explained the resultant

constitution proposed for their merger.110 Once again from the Eastern

108R. N. Bate (ed.), Faith and Order: moms of the
world Conference: Lausanne Au st -12 l 2 London: Student
Christian.ubvement, 19275, pp. 500:502, and 10# & 229 contain the
utterances of these two R.C.A. men respectively.

Minutes R.C.A., 1228, p. 783. An overture from.the Classis of
Newark unsuccessfully sought an appointment of a committee to confer
and co-operate with the Faith and Order Continuation Committee but the
Overture Committee preferred tO‘fllit until the results of the Lausanne
conference could be more clearly understood.

1°9lhnutes R.c,A., 1238, p. #56, while p. 479 records that
Dr. John W. Beardslee, Jr., reported on this conference though the

report is not.reproduced. This concluding Affirmation of unity is
reproduced in Reuse and Neill, op. cit., pp. 434-35.

11°Mlnutes R.C.A., 1918, p. #80.

191
branch of the Church came overtures supporting this larger ecumenical
undertaking. The Classes of North Long Island and Rochester urged
participation in the movement toward a designated world organization.
The following year three additional Eastern Classes and the Particular
Synod of New Brunswick strongly urged acceptance of an invitation ex-
tended by Dr. Willem Visser 't Hooft, Secretary General of the Pro-
visional Committee of the Wbrld Council of Churches.111 Reassured by
the prOposed constitution that this would never be a ”Super Church,”
for it lacked any legislative power over its members, the Reformed
Church in America committed itself to membership.

In 1940 the General Synod changed the name of the two year old
Permanent Committee on Ecumenical Movement to the Permanent Comxittee
on the world Council of Churches. The outbreak of world War II caused
the postponement of the formal organisation of this ecumenical body.
Rbanwhile the new committee represented the Church at all intervening
meetings though it was powerless to make any commitments to policy or
course of action.112 What leadership and contribution the Reformed
Church made to this evolving world Council (in process of formation)
came mainly through the efforts of Dr. A. L. Whrnshuis. His visit to
Europe in 19¢” helped prepare the wey for the creation of a Department
of Reconstruction and Interchurch Aid within the world Council of
Churches. By 19“? he was helping to administer much of the aid from

the United States as executive vice-president of Church world

 

mmnutes 3,9.A., 1232, pp. 148-50. the Classes of Mont-
gomery, New York and Schenectady were the additional Classes ins
fluencing the Church's decision to participate.

mmnntes R.C.A., 19%, p. 540.

192
Service.113 The following year the Rev. Betram Atwood and Mr. Clarence
Luiden acted as delegates to the First Assembly of the world Council of
Churches at Amsterdam, the Netherlands which met from August 22 to
September h. Thus the Reformed Church in America associated itself
with lh6 other churches from 44 countries as charter members of the
most important ecumenical organization of the present day.

The tempo of ecumenical activity increased noticeably during
the half century from 1893-l9#3. Unlike the preceding half century,
its thrust was not mainly a co-operation of laymen and clergy as in-
terested individuals in organizations interdenominational or even un-
denominational in character. This period witnessed the official co-
operation of denominational bodies in numerous councils and conferences
normally of a federative nature. The Reformed Church, true to a policy
enunciated in 1900 which approved the principle of federation of
churches for practical Christian work, had been a ready participant
in many of these councils and conferences. The culmination was the
commitment in 1939 to join the world Council of Churches. This
developed out of a special interest in foreign missions and it was in
the various mission societies and organizations that the greatest
energy was expended and the greatest amount of leadership offered.

While normally a ready participant in movements for closer co-
operation and even union on the mission fields, the Church had not
seen its way clear to fully participate in the trend toward church

union in the United States.nu However, the various and persistent

 

113unnntes R C.A. 1 9 Pa 139. Church world Service is
currently a unit of the National Council of Churches.

11“Wayne R. Christy, The United Presbyterian Church med

193
overtures from the Classes and Particular Synods made manifest the
idea that Christ's earthly church and even the Reformed Church might
benefit from a new union. Dr. Edgar Romig in his l9fil State of
Religion message asked why his Church “for all its notable ecumen-
icity in some directions is the most steadfast in.resisting efforts

at organic union with denominations of like faith and polity?”115

 

Church Union (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pitts-
burgh, l9h73. Appendix A lists 27 denominations which merged.into 9
between 1900-1940.

115mnutes R.g.A., 121, p. 263. He singled out the Reformed
Church in the united States and the Christian Reformed Church as two
churches that should have been approached seriously.

CHAPTER VI
THE UNITED PRESBYTERIAN APPROACH: 19144-19501

In the latter stages of world War II the Reformed Church in

America again became receptive to a union approach. This receptiveness
was partly due to the continuing ecumenical impetus and the broadening
effect of the war on the Church. The Armed Services and war plants
removed thousands of church members from their normal environment and
exposed them to a wider cross section of the population of the United
States and the world at large. The full consequence of this exposure
would not be felt until the service men and women, including chaplains
(of whom there had been over sixty), returned home. Those at home could
not remain unaffected either. The normally conservative and denomina-
tionally-contained Particular Synod of Chicago issued a communication
which read in part:

The Reformed Church in America, through accredited.repre-

sentative bodies, should join in the ecumenical movements

which aim to bring to bear the power and conviction of the

Christian Church on plans for a postwar world, in order to

escape, in the Providence of God, future catastrophies of
the type in which the world of man finds itself today.2

 

1The church involved in this approach is the Uhited Presbyterian
Church of North America (1858-1958). The current United Presbyterian
Church in the United States of America is a result of the merger of this
church with the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. (Northern Presbyter-
ianS) in 1958e

2The Acts and Proceedings of the General Synod of the Reformed
Church in America for 19E3 (New York: Board of Publications of the

194

195
Although the Permanent Committee on Fraternal Relations with
Other Denominations also reported a rising tide of ecumenical interest,
this new readiness for ecumenicity did not include church union and was
not apparent to everyone. The Rev. Joseph R. Sizoo, retiring General
Synod President, had found "no great ecumenical consciousness among us"
but rather a desire to "keep our own identity and live our own life.'3
This attitude he did not condone and blamed in part those older minis-
ters who had lost their perspective through failure to read, study and
reflect. The next President, the Rev. Jacob Prins, similarly said,
”The many of our brethren . . . are congregational and local in
practice and outlook."4
The D-Dey invasion of Normandy was launched on June 6, 19““;

almost simultaneously, the most serious union effort involving the
Reformed Church in America during the first half of the twentieth
century was launched. On June 5, the retiring United Presbyterian
Moderator, W; Bruce Wilson, suggested to the Eighty-Sixth General
Assembly that they again consider church union.

Church Union! Yes we believe in it, when it comes as the

evident moving of the Spirit of God upon the church; but we

retain our sovereign right of determining how and when the

Spirit must move . . . . Is the time not ripe for a full

consideration of a definite basis of union of our church with

the Southern Presbyterian Church, and the Associated Reformed

Presbyterian Church of the South, . . . and possibly the

Dutch Reformed Church? . . . It is for us as United Presby-
terians to take the initiative in this matter.5

 

Reformed Church in America, p. 120. (Hereinafter referred to as
Minutes Re Ce Ae ’[year] >e

31hid., p. 219.

“Minutes R.C.A., l9h4, p. 224.

5"General Assembly,” United Presbyterian, June 5, 1944, p. 9.
This is in agreement with the recommendation made to this General

196
With the exception of the last sentence, this might have been a state-
ment issued by a large majority of the Reformed Church ministers.

The United Presbyterian Assembly created a committee to act on
this matter. Notification of this action was sent by telegram to Buck
Hill Falls, Pennsylvania, where the General Synod of the Reformed
Church in America was concluding action on the recommendations of the
Committee on Fraternal Relations with Other Denoudnstions.5 The South
Classis of Long Island had overtured for a study of the possibilities
of achieving organic union with other Reformed Church bodies. With the
additional impetus of the United Presbyterian proposal, the Reformed
Church requested a study be made by its Fraternal Relations Committee.

The Rev. 0. H. Milligan, Principal Clerk of the United Presbya
terian Church, forwarded the official invitation in a letter of July 28,
1944. In negotiating with the United Presbyterians, the Reformed
Church was meeting with a church which came into being as a result of

a union merger and was a veteran of numerous negotiations.7 sThough

 

Assembly by the Committee of Seven on Church Relationship which,
created in 1943, had reviewed the whole subject of relationship to
other churches. Cf. Minutes of the Eighty-Sixth General Assembly of
the United Presbyterian Church of North America (Pittsburgh: United
Presbyterian Board of Publications and Bible School Wbrk, 1945),

pp. 55-57. (Hereinafter referred to as Minutes U.P.C.-N.A.,|year]).

6Minutes 3.0.1., 19144, p. 119.

7Wayne H. Christy, The United Presbyterian Church and Church
Union (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pittsburgh,
1947;, Chapters II-V. It took twenty years and six plans of union
before the Associate Church and the Associate Reformed Church united
in 1858 to form the United Presbyterian Church of North America.
From 1858-1907 there were ten serious possibilities for further union.
The United Presbyterians favored union each of the nine times the de-
nomination courted was smaller than itself, but voted unfavorably on
union with the much larger Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. (Northern
Presbyterians). From.1907-l934 they voted down five more approaches,
mainly with this same Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A.

197

initially a multipronged proposal of exploration of union possibilities,
the United Presbyterians very shortly concentrated solely on an approach
to the Reformed Church. The Southern Presbyterians were already holding
talks with the Northern Presbyterians and the Associate Reformed Presby-
terian Church was too diverted by an internal discussion to contemplate
an external union in 1944.

Less than four months later, on November 6, 1944, the first ex—
ploratory meeting was held in Philadelphia. Besides Dr. Robert W.
Gibson, who chaired the meeting, the United Presbyterians were represent-

ed by their Stated Clerk, two college presidents and a seminary pro-

8

fessor. The Reformed Church's Iii-eternal Relations Conmdttee was repre-

sented by its chairman, the Rev. Anthony Van Westenberg and Dr. Elgar
F. Romig; also present was the Vice President of the General Synod, Dr.
Thomas P. Haig, and its Stated Clerk, the Rev. James Hoffman.9 This
efficient four and one-half hom- meeting revealed much similarity in
size, missionary zeal, giving, and doctrinal beliefs. The geographical
distribution of the activities of the two churches supplemented each

other so well it became a standard point of reference in almost every

 

8The Board of Education of the United Presbyterian Church
sponsored five colleges spreading from Western Pennsylvania to mid-
Kansas, namely Westminster, Muskingum, Monmouth, Tarkio and Sterling;
their sole seminary was the Pittsburgh-Xenia Theological Seminary.

9mnutes of Joint Committee Meeting, November 6, 19M, U.P.C.-
R. C.A., Robert Morris Hotel, Philadelphia (in Dr. Theophilus Hills
Taylor's file, Pittsburgh Theologcal Seminary Library); cf.
Minutes R. C.A., 1945, p. 143. The report of the Fraternal Relations
Committee revealed that the lack of an expense appropriation precluded
the attendance of the Western Comuittee members, the Rev. John A.
Klaaren and the Rev. William Eyerts. These members were informed by
letter of the proceedings.

198

discussion of the proposed union. The recommendations made for be-
coming better acquainted included the examination of common points of
theology by the three seminaries, thorough discussion of union at
Joint area conferences of ministers and laity in Chicago, Pittsburgh
and Philadelphia, articles stressing common beliefs and aims in the
churches' periodicals, and addresses by the respective fraternal dele-
gates to the General Synod and the General Assembly. Dr. Romig closed
the meeting by expressing what was to become another theme of this
negotiation when he stated, “it is no exaggeration to say that there
were evident tokens of thegpresence of the Spirit as we communed and

counseled together."10

Professor Theophilus M. Taylor soon expressed this feeling
publicly and widely in his article, "Significant Facts and Figures:
Discovered at the First EXploratory Meeting of Committee of the Reformed
Church in America and of the United Presbyterian Church.”ll Dr. Taylor

felt two impressions from the November 6 meeting were of primary signi-

ficance, namely:

that in the present case there is a marked poverty of those
negative factors which frequently arise to hinder the con-
summation of proposed denominational mergers; and, second,
that . . . there are several very positive factors pointing

lomnutes of Joint Comdttee Meeting, November 6, 19m, op_. ci .
Underlining addfie

11Church Herald, March 9, 1945, pp. 19-21 a. 29. This first
major article on R.C.A.-U.P.C. union was later reproduced in the Re-
formed Church's 1945 General Synod Minutes and also in the July let
issue of the Christian Onion Herald, a Uhited Presbyterian Church
periodical.

The Church Herald, published in Grand Rapids, mchigan, was
the unified successor to the Christian Intelligencer after it combined
first with The Mission Field (1922) and then with the western periodi-
cal, The Leader (1940).

199

toward definite advantages which may be expected to accrue
from such a merger.

Here he showed a realistic awareness of previous stumbling blocks to
union by his selection and discussion of seven "negative factors.” In
parallel columns he compared the doctrinal standards of the two churches
and their church polity, finding differences but no insuperable diffi-
culties. He discussed what had been an obstacle in 1893, the differing
degrees of "Fundamentalism” or "Orthodoxy," but pointed out

as Churches we have both held to the conservative position

in our Calvinism. we both have a firm belief in the world

mission of the Church and have demonstrated it nobly abroad.

The Christian stewardship of our two Churches, which is al-

ways an index of spiritual vigor, is at a high plane in re-

lation to that of other denominations.1
He further noted there could be no real fear of the smaller body being
swallowed up by the larger body when the communicant membership of one
church was 169,390 and that of the other 193,637. Also, since there
was no extensive overlapping in ”Churched Areas," WMission Projects,
Domestic and.Foreign,” or of ”Church-Related Educational Institutions,”
"our conclusion is that were we to unite organically we would fit to-

gether like the two halves of a peach.”

12Ibid., p. 19.

13Ibid., p. 20. The report for 19h4 showed the Reformed Church
had a per capita gift average of $31.50 while that of the united Pres-
byterian Church was $29.10. This difference in per capita giving
narrowed when the report for l9h5 showed per capita giving of the two
churches stood at $35.36 and $3u.1o respectively,(against the United
Stewardship Council's reported average of $19.3h). The Church Herald's
editor, Dr. Louis Bones, commenting on these latter statistics (July 19,
l9u6, p. 5), noted ”we spend more on ourselves but they give more to
the worldpwide mission of the Gospel." Significantly, he also
pointed out that ”the highest per capita giving is not found in the
larger denominations, or in the recently-merged bodies."

200

Dr. Taylor cited five definite advantages he expected to
accrue. These included

1. A stronger, conservative, evangelical, Calvinistic church
with greater influence in interdenominational councils and before the
public.

2. Wider missionary horizons.

3. Further demonstration to the world of the church's essen-
tial love and unity.

n. An enlarged congenial denominational atmosphere.

5. New physical and spiritual vitality through the infusion
of these Dutch and Scottish heritages.
So the matter rested until it was time for the members of the Committee
to report back to their respective judicatories.

The united Presbyterian General Assembly met at Honmouth
College (Illinois) from May 30 - June h, 19b5, The General Synod of
the Reformed Church convened at Buck Hill Falls (Pennsylvania) from
June 1-12. There were no memorials concerning union reported at this
Eighty-Seventh General Assembly of the United Presbyterian Church.
The Committee on Church Relations reported in terms already familiar
concerning their November meeting with the Reformed Church in America,
but they also reported on an October 26 meeting with the Southern
Presbyterians. This church had invited them.to Join in its continuing
negotiations with the Northern Presbyterians. This exceeded the
current instructions of the United Presbyterian committee and the dis-
cussion ended. Still the attractiveness of union with the Presbyterian
Church in the United States persisted.

The committee's recommendations called for the appointment of

201
fraternal delegates and a series of informative articles in their
Church's papers on the faith, policies, organization and activities of
‘bgth the Reformed Church and the Southern Presbyterian Church. The
most important recommendation requested authorization for continued
discussion by an enlarged committee to develop a definite program.aimed
at union.lu Union seemed a distinct possibility for churches which
thought and spoke so much alike. Dr. Scott Withrow's State of Religion
Report, which attacked humanism and insisted on the continued relevancy
of a God-centered life, illustrated a concern also prevalent in the
Reformed Church.”

The Reformed Church General Synod was greeted by four overtures
from Classes which both favored and opposed the proposed union.16 These
overtures were referred to a Committee on Fraternal Relations eager to
begin a union approach. Stirred by the emotional appeal of the creation
of the United Nations at San Francisco, an organization this Church
supported, they stated, "In the light of the world movement toward
world unity, economically, politically, and ecclesiastically, the
subject deserves a fresh approach and newtreatment."17 The Committee

had met twice - at least its Eastern members had - and arrived at

 

lawns U°P'CO'N0A_OLL$59 PP. ulB-lue
159.12.. pp. 393-9u.

16mmtes R.C.A., 125, p. 108. The Eastern Classis of
Paramus and surprisingly the western Classes of Grand Rapids and‘wis-
consin overtured for union while the Classis of Chicago opposed it.
The Overture Committee in additional action of interest refused to con-
sider a request for the ordination of women as elders and deacons but
did approve in the interest of continued separation of Church and State
a resolution calling for the recall of the President's personal repre-
sentative to the vatican.

17Ibid. , p. n+3.

202

several union possibilities.18 Dr. William B. Pugh, Stated Clerk of
the Northern Presbyterian Church, neglecting to mention current nego-
tiations with the Southern Presbyterians, acknowledged that the Re-
formed Church was free at any time to begin organic union negotiations
with the church he represented. Such a union could give impetus to a
national Calvinistic church movement and eliminate some intermediate
steps of organic church union, but the larger size of this Presbyterian
Church constituted a major obstacle. This was magnified by the oppor-
tunity to court a denomination of similar size, doctrinal standards,
and one which had already invited union talks. Thus the Committee felt
an approach to the United Presbyterian Church currently offered the
most promise and asked the appointment of a Special Commission to con-
tinue negotiations. A Special Committee of twelve official members
was approved, appointed and placed under the leadership of the busy
Dr. Luman J. Shafer of the Board of Foreign'Missions.19

Prior to the joint meeting of the special committees on Septemp
ber 27, l9h5, R. W. Graves, editor of the Christian Union Herald, issued

a challenge. He accused his United Presbyterian Church of a double-

!_ —

18This dominance of committee action and the Church boards by
the Eastern branch of the Church, especially the segment in and around
New York City, was a disturbing factor to some western pastors. Cf. the
pamphlet by Henry Bast, An Appeal to the Ministers and Laymen of the
Chicagg_and Iowa Synods (Grand Rapids: Don Van Osterberg, [l9hf]),
p. 7. The pamphlet also suggested that some of the boards be trans-

ferred to the Midwest, the area which contributed 715 of the Church's
benevolence giving.

19Minutes R.Q.A., 1235, p. 152. Other members of this orig-
inal committee were the Revs. M; Stephen James, John A. Dykstra,
Lester Kuyper, John W. Beardslee, Jr., Joseph R. Sizoo, Richard
VandenBerg, Raymond Beckering, A. L. Whrnshuis, Clarence P. Dame,
Raymond Meengs, A. Vanwesterburg and exrofficio members Dr. T. P.
Haig, President of the General Synod, and James Heffman, the Stated
merke

203
mindedness in recognizing that previous distinctions (i.e., psalmody,
closed communion, etc.) had disappeared and yet of being reluctant ”to
yield up our particularity.“ Instead of "backing and filling” as in
previous union efforts, be challenged his church to "face up to this

mono .20

For half a century now the Reformed Church had not "faced
up” to union either, but the Rev. C. P. Lame of Kalamazoo, Michigan,
posed a question for his Church. "Can a Separatist Be a Calvinist?” was
the questioning title of his article in the Church Herald to which he
gave a negative answer, for a Calvinist "stands for unity and coopera-
tion."21

This first Joint Committee meeting took place at the Fort Pitt
Hotel in Pittsburgh and was largely organizational in nature. The
chairmen of the Special Committees were made co-chairmen of the Joint,
Committee and the two Stated Clerks acted as the secretaries. To carry
out with rapidity the task assigned by their respective judicatories,
five subcommittees also headed by co-chairmen were created, namely,
Doctrinal Standards, Information and Education, Polity and Practice,
Plan of Union and Legal Procedures, and Survey of Relations of
Churches at Home and Abroad. The meeting also explored the nature of
the two churches' educational institutions, doctrinal standards and
their views on race antagonisms and labor relations. Probably the most

lengthy discussion was on the matter of social customs such as dancing,

ZQthistian Union Herald, July 21, 19h5. p. 3. He also listed
"fear of being swallowed up" and "modernism“ as other reasons for
hesitation.but felt God had removed these obstacles and was now
testing the sincerity of the united Presbyterian's desire for union.

21Jnne 29, 19u5, p. 7.

20“

movies and card playing. This discussion finally ended when no one on
the Committee knew of either church having ever made a definite pro-

22

nouncement on these matters. The logic of this position did not pre-

vent the subject from becoming a serious matter of contention later.

The number of professed advantages of union increased after the
consideration of the following:

A.larger place in the nation's life,

A tendency to smaller loss in church families due to a wider
distribution of churches,

Increased national appeal,

Sales large enough to justify denominational literature,

Increased administrative efficiency,

A tendency to break down parochial lines.23
Some disadvantages could be seen also, if time consuming negotiations
caused current church work to suffer or if a schism.developed owing to
lack of sufficient.unanimity within either church.

The students at the United Presbyterian's Pittsburgh-Xenia
Theological Seminary had had an opportunity to meet some Reformed

brethren at the first Joint Committee meeting. At its second meeting

zzmnutes of Joint Meeting, September 27-28, 19% R.C.A.-
U.P.C. Committee to EXplore the Possibilities of Uhion, Pittsburgh,
p. 1. This meeting was attended by 13 representatives of the R.C.A.
and 10 representatives of the U.P.C., including two women. With
the large amount of interest and work evidenced by the womem.in both
churches, this was a logical inclusion and one the Reformed Church
soon emulated.

These Minutes and all succeeding Joint Comttee Minutes
can be found in.Dr. Lester Kuyper's Papers, Beardslee Lihrary,
western Theological Seminary, Holland, Michigan. (Hereinafter
referred to as Kuyper Papers,‘w.T.S.)

23Ibid., p. 2.

205
in Holland, Michigan, the students of the Reformed Church's western
Theological Seminary had a similar opportunity to meet some Uhited
Presbyterian representatives. The Reformed Church Committee, having

co-opted two women and two men, had grown to eighteen members.24

The
sub-committees, through previous correspondence and meetings, had all
completed preliminary reports for this February 26-27, 19h6, gathering
at the Warm Friend Tavern (Hotel).

Early in the meeting, the Rev. J. Hoffman produced a large
United States wall map as part of the Committee on Survey's report.
This map located all the churches of the two denominations, and.repre-
sented them as red or black squares. The State of New York was quite
well blackened, containing 288 of the Reformed Church's 7&2 congrega-
tions. The State of Pennsylvania was covered by numerous splotches of
red, indicating 311 of the United Presbyterian's sun churches. The
two denominations reached from ocean to ocean, though sparsely in some
states, and in twelve states neither had established a single church.
The lack of any serious geographic overlap was vividly evident.

The remaining reports were less colorful but equally well
prepared and quite detailed considering the brevity of the period for
preparation. As an example, the six page mimeographed report of the
sub-committee on Doctrinal Standards contained parallel column compari-
sons of the confessions, additional standards and interpretations.

The sub-committee declared all the variations to be within the bounds

 

Mine of Joint Connittee on Church Union, February 26.27,
19“6, U.P.C.-R.C.A., p. 6. These additional lay members were Mrs.
Harold Brinig of Marble Collegiate Church; Mrs. Eiith Walvoord,
former missionary to Japan; President Irwin J. Dubbers of Hope
College; ander. Allan Redekor from Denver.

206

of historic Calvinism and endorsed the existing standards. This report
concluded with the recommendation that the united church prepare a new
confessional statement in the "language of our times.'25 The Sub-
committee on Polity and Practice pointed to the United Presbyterian's
employment of women in the office of deacon, their separate office of
Trustee and their lack of obligatory written forms for Baptism and
Communion as examples of numerous differences still to be resolved.
Yet, in summary the JOint Committee reported:

all that is lacking to bring about an early union is the

acquaintance of our two churches to each other. The Provi-

dential nature of every phase of the proposed union as it

relates to the two churches is such that nozgonceivable

reason for failure to unite seems possible.

a If lack of acquaintance was the major obstacle, the subcommit-
tee on Education and Information had numerous suggestions for making
the churches better acquainted. One major effort involved the assignp
ment of dual authors for twelve informational articles covering all
phases of the two churches' history, beliefs, organization and activities.
These were to be published simultaneously on facing pages of both
churches' papers at the rate of one per month beginning in April, 19h6.
The year 19u6-h7, designated a year of fraternal fellowship, called for
the exchange of pulpits by ministers of the two denominations, of

lectureships in the colleges and seminaries, and of speakers at,youth

25Ibid., p. 8.

26"Spirit of God Pervades HOLLAND SESSION on UNION,” Church
Herald, March 15, 19h5. p. 4. While not appearing anywhere in the
Minutes of this Joint Committee meeting as mimeographed by the Rev.
Hoffman, on page nine he does have a notice that these Minutes would
be reviewed by the co-Secretary and any errors or admissions noted
would be sent along with the recommendations that had been referred
for editing.

207

fellowships and summer camps. To facilitate and encourage a grassroot
acquaintance the church papers were to carry the location of the sister
denomination's city and resort congregations during the summer months.

Many of the recommendations and conclusions of these four re-
ports found expression in the recommendations of the subcommittee on
the Plan for Union and Procedure. This committee recommended that the
Joint Committee seek the authority to draw up a specific plan of union
to be drafted and submitted to the Classes and Presbyteries by Septemp
ber 1, 19%. After a half year's study, and in the light of resulting
suggestions for change and improvement, a revised plan of union would
be drawn up and presented to the 19%? General Assembly and General
Synod meetings. The Joint Committee was so encouraged by the report
of its subcommittees that it approved this recommendation.

In anticipation of its continued existence and the approval of
its recommendations, the Committee reorganized. Drs. R. Gibson and L.
Shafer continued as co-chairmen of the Joint Committee but newly
created was an Executive Committee under Dr. L. Shafer (R.C.A.), a
Committee on Doctrinal Basis under Dr. J. Beardslee, Jr. (R.C.A.), a
Committee on Structural Plan of Union under Dr. H. S. James (R.C.A.),
and a Committee on Education under Dr. T. M. Taylor (U.P.C.). Before
closing the exceptionally friendly session, the Committee dealt with
a possible derailment of this union movement. It declined an invita-
tion for these two churches to attend informal discussions with the
JPresbyterian Church (U.S.A.) concerning a further union.

Between this February committee meeting and the.May meeting
of the General Synod, the church papers evidenced a new awareness of

this union approach. The editor of the Church Herald in Mhrch laid

 

208
down the ground rules for a new "Letters to the Editor" column which
soon became a popular and expressive outlet of opinion. On April 26
he published a challenging editorial on church union. Posing a question
reminiscent of Editor Graves "sincerity” editorial of the previous
September, he asked "Are we of the Reformed Church in earnest about
union with the United Presbyterians, or only toying with the idea?”27
He felt the Reformed Church needed to develop a policy to ”know where
it is going.” Three possibilities offered themselves: (1) for the
sake of a united witness, it could quickly join with any available
denomination; (2) it could remain a relatively isolated and uninfluen-
tial church with a singular nationality background; or (3) it could
understand its obligation to promote the Evangelical Protestant faith
in America by seeking out and uniting with spiritual kin, regardless
of nationality background. The editor rejected the first two possi-
bilities and as for the third, he reflected "it appears to us that
there is no denomination in America with whom we have so much in
common and with whom.we could find such intimate fellowship, as the
United Presbyterian Church of North America.”28

The Church Union Committee's informative series of articles

 

27"Church Union,” p. 5.

28Ibid. What sounds like a ringing endorsement of this pro-
posed union by Dr. Louis Benes actually is not the same type of bold,
ardent union support that Editor Drury of the Christian Intelligencer
gave during the 1886-1893 negotiations. Dr. Benes' environment,
position, and the location of the bulk of his periodical's sub-
scribers differed from those of Dr. Drury's. Familiarization via
committee reports and Church Herald articles was not enough; he
‘wanted wide-spread meetings with ”flesh and blood” united Presbyter-
ians to discover if a real spiritual kinship existed. If proven
spiritual kin, then there was no right to remain apart. Cf. Editorial,
"A Strategy for the Reformed Church," Church Herald, May 2#, l9h6,
p. 5.

209

also had.begun on April 26 in the Church Herald with a summarised
history of the two churches. The history of the Reformed Church in
America was presented by Professor*Ri1ton Bbffman while Professor
C. J. Williamson covered the Scottish antecedents as well as the rather
brief eighty-eight year history of the Uhited Presbyterian Church of
North America.29 Dr. Hoffman's article concentrated mainly on the
early history of the Reformed Church whose basis for its current
structure and attitudes were all laid before the creation of the Uhited
Presbyterian Church in 1858. He placed great stress on the effect of
the 1850 union with the recent Dutch immigrants for ”this union . . .
largely made the Reformed Church in America what she is today, a small
but very significant religious influence in the nation's and the
world's life."30

In contrast, a noteworthy feature of the younger, more popu-
lous Uhited Presbyterian Church had been its rapid growth, especially
in the larger cities west of the Allegheny Rbuntains. Despite its
greater urban inclinations, Dr. Williamson concluded the summary of
his Church with an observation aptly descriptive of both of these

churches.

 

29Ihic1., April 26, 1946, pp. 8 a. 9. Michigan-born Dr. M.
Heffman was Professor of Church History at New Brunswick Theological
Seminary and the brother of the Stated Clerk of the R.C.A. Dr. C. J.
Williamson was the Professor of Church History at the Pittsburgh-
Xenia Theological Seminary. These articles appeared also in the
United Presbyterian on April 15, l9h6, and in the Christian Uhion
Herald, a young people's paper of the U.P.C.

3°Church Herald, April 26, 19%, p. 9. The Rev. J. H. Muller
in the Mhy 2h, 19h6:fiissue (p. 9), revealed just how small the R.C.A.
'was when he stated, "After 318 years we do not have .2% of the country's
population in our fold.”

210

Conservative in attitude, happy in the fellowships possible

in a smaller body, somewhat proud of the church's accomplish-

ments as a separate body, a trifle clannish . . . it feels

somewhat shy about being 'swallowed up' by another denomina-

tion. However, it maintains a spirit of goodwill toward sister

denominations and attempts tgllive up to its motto, The Truth

of God, forbearance in love.
Despite the "looking-glass” aspects of this observation, cautious
elements in the Reformed Church soon were speculating on the possible
latitude to which "forbearance in love” might be evoked doctrinally.

With the exception of the Classis of Chicago's adverse l9h5
overture, the first anti-union sentiment was publicly expressed in a
"Letter to the Editor” by the Rev. Gerrit H. Hespers of East Williams
son, New York.32 This was to be the first of an intermittent series
of ”leave well enough alone” suggestions which were normally coupled
with a fear, voiced or implied, that union would mean splitting up the
Church. There was so little debate over this proposed union, even
after this opening attack, that the Editor felt compelled early in
September, 1946, to urge the readers to make the Churchgggrald a forum
on church union. Opposition within the United Presbyterian Church also
was slow to express itself during much of 19b6.
Meanwhile, the process of familiarization had continued. On

March 29, 19h6, in Los Angeles, ten Uhited Presbyterian and nine Re-
formed Church ministers held the first of several inter-church dinners.
The Education Committee had compiled and published for distribution to
all the congregations, ministers and.interested individuals, 15,000

copies of a data booklet entitled Prelimin s of the Joint

 

311bid., April 26, l9u6, p. it.
321bid., May 10, l9u6, p. 11.

211

Qgggittee on Uhion. The second of the matching informative articles
appeared in the churches' papers under the heading ”Emeritus Seminary
Professors Review the Doctrinal Standards of Two Denominations Centemp
plating Union."33

Dr. Pieters, in his article of May 2“, l9fl6, gave no indication
of his later opposition to this proposed union. He called attention to
the Reformed Church's major doctrinal differences with the Lutherans,
Methodists, Baptists, and Congregationalists'but noted it differed
“from.the Presbyterians not at all.'3“ In fact, he claimed the Reformed
Church preached and taught more in line with the Wbstminster Confession
than its own creeds in several areas. Much of Dr. MbNaugher's atten-
tion was devoted to the eighteen article Testimogy of 18§§ and to its
successor, the forty-four article Cenfessional Statement adopted in
1926. These two statements were meant to justify the separate exis-
tence of the united Presbyterians as a denomination and to soften and
modernize the creedal statements of Calvinism. Dr. MbNaugher stressed
the oneness of the churches because of their belief in a fully-inspired
Bible and in the main truths of the Reformation.35 A.younger colleague,
the Rev. John H. Gerstner, was even more emphatic when he wrotg.'lhe
homogeneity of these creeds is so great and convincing that, from.that

standpoint, the union of these churches is a fait accompli, requiring

 

33The Rev. Dr. Albertus Pieters was emeritus professor of
Bible and Mission at the western Theological Seminary; the Rev. Dr.

John MbNaugher was President-Emeritus of Pittsburgh-Xenia Theological
80mm e

3“Church Herald, p. 16.

35united Presgztgrian, may 20, 19h6, p. 18.

212

only formal ratification and acknowledgement. "36

To their respective Judicatories, as they convened in May, the
two union committees also expressed this belief that "on the spiritual
side we are confident that we are already essentially one . . . ."37
The General Synod gathered at Buck Hill Falls from May 23-28, 19%.
Awaiting were various overtures expressing disapproval of peacetime
conscription, continued opposition to Wren Taylor's position at the
Vatican, continued approval of the United Nations and a request to
change the name of the Particular Synod of New BI'unsIdck to that of
New Jersey. A singular overture on union from the Classis of Rochester
asked to be placed on record as favoring the proposed union with the
United Presbyterians. The Church Union Committee chairman, Dr. Lumm
Shafer, reviewed the history of the proposed union movement and the two
Joint Comttee meetings. These meetings had convinced the Committee
that the two churches were so nearly alike as to insure their "quick
cementing . . . into one strong united church” which they believed
”would be of God. '38 In addition the recommendations made at the
February meeting for an authorized union time schedule, for a $5000
appropriation, and the right to hire competent legal counsel all won
approval. Dr. Thomas Haig, a member of the Committee, made but brief
mention of the union ”conversations“ in his State of Religion address.
His two main concerns seemed to be the position of religion among the
forces of the post-war world and the recruitment of theological

 

36___Ib1dn my 279 1%: P0 5-
37Ivfi.nutes R.C.A,, 126, p. 160.
33mm.

 

f1. 11!
. .4

213

students.39

The General Assembly of the United Presbyterian Church met the
following week on the campus of Tarkio College in Missouri. No memo-
rials directly regarding this union awaited action, but there was one
from the Beaver Valley Presbytery regarding a union of seminaries. The
Pittsburgh-Xenia Seminary faced the necessity of modernizing and ex-
panding and this memorial sought the exploration of a merger with the
Northern Presbyterian's western Theological Seminary, also located in
Pittsburgh, before buying any additional land. The memorial was re-
jected, partly because of the union talks underway with the Reformed
Church. The Committee on Church Relationships presented a report and
recommendations concerning these union talks almost identical to that
already presented to the Reformed Church. Communications had also con-
tinued with the two Presbyterian Churches (in the U.S.A. and the U.S.),
each of which wanted the door kept open for a possible future union.’40

The early exploratory meetings had already borne results,
having led to an agreement by the two Boards of Foreign Missions for
the Reformed-Church to co-operate in the evangelization of the South

Sudan.“1 Only three days after the conclusion of the General Assembly

 

39Ibid., p. 23a. As regards the latter, the number of
ministers had declined by 130 during the past year while ”the number
of students for the ministry is ominously low. we have reached a
serigus crisis in Christian leadership.” The Committee on Educa-
tion's report showed the two seminaries expected a total of 58
students while the three colleges listed only 102 pre—theological
Studentae Ibide’ Ppe 93"?45

“Omnutes U.P,C.-N.A., 126. p. 753.

“11bid., p. 881. This may also have been the beginnings of
' the opposition of some R.C.A. missionaries to this proposed union.
Interview with Dr. John H. Piet, Dosker-Hulswit Professor of English
Bible and Missions at western Theological Seminary, Holland,

214
session, the third Joint Committee meeting took place in Pittsburgh.
This meeting of June 6th and 7th at the William Penn Hotel offered the
opportunity for a full discussion of the reports of the Committees on
Education and Plan of Union.

In its report, the Committee on Education recounted its
accomplishments since the last meeting in February, and singled out for
praise the unsolicited editorials on church.union by Dr. Benes and.nr.
Graves. Encouraged by the attitude evidenced in the recent General
Synod and General Assembly meetings, it recommended plans for increased
contact at various local levels of the two denominations. Its most
developed recommendation presented a tentative schedule of Joint
Classis-Presbytery meetings and even suggested whether the Classis or
the Presbytery should tender the invitation.

In the course of deliberations on this report, the subject of
social customs arose again. A special committee was appointed which
made the following brief report.

Our denominations are alike in that congregations and indi-
viduals differ in certain social practices and customs. In
the past we have respected one another's Christian conscience
in these matters and have defended one another's right to
follow the dictates of his conscience as he believes the
Spirit of Christ directs him, in the true Calvinistic tradi-

tion. we hesitate to set up for the United Church stan
which are unauthorized in either of our present churches. 2

 

Michigan, July 7. 1965. Dr. Piet, a.R.C.A. missionary in India during
this period, remarked that the fields in India and China showed so

much promise that the missionaries working there did not want to see
badly needed funds siphoned off to start additional fields. Cf.- Dr.
John Van Ess, "Reflections on Church Uhion,‘ Church Herald, December 13,
l9h6, pp. 10-11, a missionary at Basrah, Iraq, who evidenced the same
fO‘re

“zmnutes of Joint Committee on Church Union, June 6-7, 19%,
UePeCe'ReCeAe’ PittSburgh’ pa 60

215

Dr. Harry Hagar, 1946-47 President of the General Synod and ex-officio
member of the JOint Committee, protested vigorously against this none
committal statement.43 His rough draft of a substitute resolution was
voted down but an inability to harmonise these two statements caused
the Committee to defer pronouncements at this time. The main difference
centered on dancing, movies and smoking. Most United Presbyterians had
no scruples against dancing and movies but in certain areas many
Reformed Church members considered this wrong. On the other hand,
many Reformed Church ministers smoke while ”United Presbyterian custom
is opposed to that.”ha

The Committee on Plan of Union presented a draft of the ”Plan
for Establishing The Union of The Reformed Church in America and The
United Presbyterian Church of Nerth America.” This brief three-article
plan was considered point by point. The differences of opinion that
rose seldom followed denominational lines ”but invariably crossed and
recrossed those lines.“ Yet in a spirit of brotherhood the decision
of the majority was reputedly accepted as "always the wisest course.'h5
The Committee began what proved to be a lengthy search for an acceptable
name for the merging churches; it proposed ”The Uhited Presbyterian
Reformed Church." The Propgsed Plan of Uhion intended to unite the two

uBDr. Hagar, Reformed minister and radio pastor from Chicago,
at first doubted some aspects of this union but later found the entire
union plan of l9b9 unacceptable.

Mari-Sty, 22a dte’ pe 245. Cfe An Iowa Re‘der, "Readers'
Rendezvous,” United Presbyterian, November 11, 1946, p. 2. This writer
claimed a Uhited Presbyterian congregation would.not call a pipe
smoking minister.

 

 

45Committee on Education release, ”Joint Committee on Union
{Drafts for Church Merger,” United Preshxierian, June 17, 19fl6, p. 11.

216

churches by replacing the General Assembly and General Synod with a
single high court known as The Assembly. The major part of the two
churches' organizational and worship life was to remain untouched until
superseded by action of the United Church.“6 The Joint Committee re-
cognized ”it would make for confusion to leave such matters to the
hazards of improvisation . . . from the 'floor' at the constituting
session of The Assembly of the United Church.”1"'7 Thus, besides pre-
paring the Rules of Order and the Program of Procedure for the projected
constituting session of mid-1948, this Committee expected to recommend
"plans and proposals for the further implementing and consolidating of
the union of the Reformed and United Presbyterian Churches."48

The time-table set for arriving at a union vote caused opposi-
tion, especially within the Reformed Church. The mailing of the
Proposed Plan of Union on the September lst deadline left inadequate
time for study prior to the fall meetings of the Classes and Presbyter-
ies. Mhny of these lower courts met on the second Tuesday of September
and would not convene again until their spring session in.hhrch or
April. Yet any proposals for change or other suggestions were to be
sent to the Rev. M. Stephen James at New Brunswick by March 1, l9“?.
Professor Thomas E. Welmers of Hope College publicly protested a

time-table which necessitated the calling of special sessions by the

 

“The Committee considered the revised Plan of Union of 19h?
a provisional Constitution; a more comprehensive and permanent Consti-
tution would replace it shortly. This had been the method by which
th. UePeCe had he'll cre‘tgd in 18580

“7Joint Committee on Union, Proposed Plan of Union (n.p.,
Reformed Church in America-United Presbyterian Church of North America,
[19h§]), p. 7. This quote is not actually part of the Proposed Plan
but is contained in a ”Note" following Article II.

“Ibid., Article II, Section 2g, p. 6.

21?

Classes.“9 Pressure continued to build up well into 1947 for a change
in the union time-schedule and not only.from the professed opponents of
this union. Dr. Bones editorially claimed he favored‘thig union but
criticized the insufficient time to consider the proposed plan thor-
oughly and for the churches' membership to become not only informed
but acquainted.5O

The "Letter to the Editor" of the Rev. G. H. Hespers touched
off a debate on union which lasted until the General synod of l9b7.
The Rev. Hospers, strongly opposed to union, protested that ”the whole
thing has begun and continues so smoothly that well nigh all opposi-
tion has been carried off its feet."51 He felt the church leaders
had made no effort to develop both sides of the union question; he
protested that the Committee's series of informative articles on the
two churches and the reports on its Joint meetings gave an advantage
to those who favored.union. This charge may be valid, because a
denomination with but a single church paper is in danger of trans-

mitting such impressions. The editor denied the charge of Committee

 

“9"Letter to the Editor,” Churchjrerald, November 22, 19%,
p. 8. Prof. Welmers also claimed that the Preamble of the United
Presbyterian Confessional Statement made their Westminster Confession
null and.void. This is a bit extreme, but the Preamble does claim that
where the two differ the Confessional Statement should be considered
authoritative.

50Ihid., November 29, l9fi6, p. 5. Editor Benes also advocated
a more complete plan before the deciding vote for union, especially in
areas of liturgical forms and consolidation of church standards.

51Ibid., November 8, 1946, p. 6. His presentation and purpose
is very reminiscent of Dr. H. E. Dosker's article of December 2, 1891,
in the ChristiaQZEntelligencer which sought to avert union with the
R.C.U.S. The Rev. Hbspers felt union with the U.P.C. would be ad-
vantageous to the spread of modernism.

218

partiality and shortly thereafter announced that the Church Herald
would accept 1200 word, one page articles as well as 600 word ”Letters
to the Editor.” Despite this greater opportunity to make known their
opposition, the opponents of union turned also to the use of privately
printed pamphlets.

Opposition wes not confined to the Reformed Church. In September,
1946, Alexander Frazer in The Church News-Letter, a publication he sent
to all United Presbyterian ministers and elders, wrote an opposition
article entitled ”The Fever to Unite.” He claimed every merger had a
deadening effect on the parties involved and that this one would be but
a preliminary step to other unions with churches of prdbably more
liberal theological views. He stated, "Union fever rises from the mis-
taken belief that the kingdom of God can be ushered in by the efforts
of men."52 The first lengthy anti-union article to appear in an
authorized church paper was by the Rev. pdul L. Reynolds.53 Like the
Rev. Hospers, he is appalled at the lack of opposition articles and an
inferred unanimity for this union, particularly when he felt so many
questions had not been answered.

”R.C.A.-U.P. Fellowship Widens and Deepens,” a progress report
by the Committee on Education, claimed the only negative argument

 

523eptember 22, 19h6, p. 12, quoted in Christy, op. cit.,
p. 247. Dr. R. W} Gibson described this publication as one which catered
to all the discontents in his United Presbyterian Church who wished to
point out its alleged shortcomings. As a group, they had little in-
fluence in the General Assembly or lower courts. Letter from.Rebert
W. Gibson, Pittsburgh, January 10, 19W. to Lester J. Kuyper, Holland,
hiebigan (Kuyper Papers, W.T.S.).

53”Joint Committee Proposed Plan of Uhion Not Satisfactory,”
United ”Cam“, November 25, 1%, Pa 9e

219

heard so far on either side had been "the fear expressed that each
church would be in danger of losing its peculiar heritage.”5u This
they apparently considered an invalid reason, for in the language of
the marriage ceremomr, they asked if legitimate reasons for not Joining
together existed, they should be voiced now or forever held in silence.
Long Island pastor, Dr. Winfield Burggraaff, predicted that "actually
the reasons which will be given for voting against union will be small
personal reasons,“ and the main one of these will be that "we feel at
home in our little Reformed Church.”55

In the first half of 1947, the Church Herald actually became
the forum on church union the editor envisioned. The informative
articles continued until the May 2nd issue but there were also numerous
one page articles and ”Letters to the Editor” submitted for publication.
In a rather eclectic article, the Rev. Bert Van Halsen, Illinois, voiced
what the more conservative Reformed Church member feared from the pro-
posed union. 56 They feared union would mean not only less of denomina-
tional distinctiveness but that the Reformed Church would cease to exist
through further mergers, a needless sacrifice when co-operation could
achieve the same spiritual impetus sought through organic union. The
United Presbyterian Church was not accused of being wholly unorthodox
or modernistic, but because a signer of the Auburn Affirmation had been

given a responsible position, it was suspect. While possibly one

 

5“Church Herald, December 6, 19u6, p. 7.

55”Thoughts on Uhion,” Church Herald, December 20, 19u6, p. 8.
Dr. Burggraaff also played down the sacrifice of R.C.A. tradition. He
questioned its uniqueness and claimed it was a word, not a fact,
”something to play with, not to live by.”

56"Speak New," Church Herald, January 3, 1947. Po 1?.

220

confessionally, they felt the churches differed in practice. The
Uhited Presbyterians allowed the individual conscience to decide
membership in secret societies while in the Reformed Church the local
Consistories ruled on the matter; dancing was not permitted on the
campuses of Reformed Church colleges while at four of the five United
Presbyterian colleges it was a standard form of recreation; a semi-
liturgical church, they were uneasy over the fact that the United
Presbyterians were non-liturgical. Again, the standard retort or
suggestion was heard that if these fears are not overcome, many,
"because they have a warm heart for the truth as they see it, will
fail to go along with union."57

A.fellow'westerner, the Rev. Dame, indirectly cast some light
on this attitude the following week in an article entitled ”Undoing
the Blunders of the Fathers."58 He noted that their forefathers had
made mistakes because some were suspicious of anything American and
some possessed a schismatic spirit which should not be perpetuated.
He commented, "Why justify the blunders of the fathers and defend their
lovelessness and short-sightedness?” The Rev. Nillard M. Gifford's
letter, a direct reply to the conservative western attitude, indicated

9

the temper of many in the Eastern churches.5 Two areas of agreement

were readily admitted, namely, the need for a written liturgy and the
fact that the Reformed Church would lose its denominational distinc-

*—

57Ibid.

580. P. Dame, Church Herald, January 10, l9u7, p. 7. The Rev.
Dame was a member of the Joint Committee on Union at that time.
During the current union negotiations between the R.C.A.-Presbyterian,
U.S., he is opposed to the proposed union.

59"Letters to the Editor," Church Herald, February 21, 19479
p. 14.

221
tiveness. The latter point, with its implications of tradition and
pride, did not bother him. In the East the Reformed Church that did
not receive members from other denominations ”would soon shrivel and
die.” He classified the attack of an entire denomination for the sign-
ing of the Auburn Affirmation by a single man as "unChristian senti-
ment, political manuevering and lack of love."60 The matters of
dancing and secret societies were dismissed as periphery subjects upon
which the Reformed Church also has a spectrum of attitudes.

The debate raged on, sometimes complete with unsupported
generalizations, sometimes stooping to the picayune by questioning the
meaning of such articles as ”an” and "the” in the church standards.
liberalism was portrayed as a well-organized and directed conspiracy
with a single uniform goal.61 During this period, Dr. Iester Kuyper
became very concerned about the dangerous tendency to reach conclusions
by implication. A member of the Joint Committee on Union, he had heard
many of the controversial areas discussed in committee. In an article
“The Bible and the Confessional Standard of the United Presbyterian
Church” he tried to go beyond mere implication to set the record
straight.62 He was particularly concerned about the attitude of the
Rev. Henry Fikse, also from Michigan, whom he felt was asking people to
believe not the best but the worst interpretations possible.

6°Ibid. The Eastern part of the Church is not as uniform .
section as the West, as evidenced by his questioning of the behavior
of the Collegiate Churches of New York City.

61cr. Herman Harmelink, Christian Unity and Church Union (un-
published M.S.T. dissertation, Union Theological Seminary, 1936,
p. 136. The Rev. Harmelink received a somewhat similar impression but
explains the nature of ”liberalism" as "a point of view contending for
truth along with other points of view.”

62Church Herald, April 18, 191W. pp. 10, 11+, 3. 18.

222

The discussion in the Church Herald and the suggestions for-
warded from both the regular fall sessions and the special meetings of
the Classes and Presbyteries affected the thinking of the Union Commit-
tee members. Dr. Luman Shafer, Chairman of its Emecutive Committee,
agreed that a delay in the time-table to provide a longer study period
was a legitimate request and in line with his original thinking. In a
conciliatory manner he wrote:

we are not for union per se, and for my part, while I am

2322323133“LE‘Enmftinsizg2.§§$‘§i°.§’323&.;§.53“” t°
Dr. M. Stephen James, the addressee for suggested changes to the 1946
Proposed Plan of Union, arranged the‘ggg;replies into a digest and
mailed it to all committee members.6u The digest forewarned the union
committees that not only the schedule of action but the suggested name
for the united church was unpopular. It revealed a consistent demand
for a more comprehensive plan which would include complete sections on
doctrine, liturgy and a constitution.

The Joint Committee meeting of March 6-7, l9h7, in Chicago,
acted upon these suggestions. By noon of the second day special study
groups had formulated and won approval of outline statements on doc-
trine, forms of worship, and polity. Since the fulfillment of these
statements required additional time, the Committee recommended a two

 

631bid., February 11;, 19% p. 10.

6“or a total of 101 Classes and Presbyteries, only 16 replied,
8 from each church. Despite this apparent apathy, it also showed that
some churches and Classes had now discussed the question for the first
time. Cf. ”Minutes of the Classis of Holland,” Special Session,
January 20, 1947. p. 1099. This is the first time their ”Minutes"
mentioned this union; the suggestions they contained were representa-
tive of the responses received. Neither this one or any of the other
replies attacked the general principle upon which the Committee had

worked or opposed union per se.

223
year postponement in any decisive action on.union. The meeting con-
cluded, having failed to recommend a different name for the proposed
new church but having recommended the inclusion of a constitution as
part of the basis of union. It also released to the denominational
papers a list of seventeen impelling reasons for the consummation of
the proposed union. This was an attempt to explain why two churches of
differing cultural and national heritages, possessing vitality and
having seemingly gotten along very well by themselves, should unite.
The reasons were merely detailed elaborations and subdivisions of
those previously offered, except for the last one. It voiced the com-
mittee's right to exert leadership and a conviction of the power of

fraternal brotherhood.

Bearing in mind the fact that we, the members of the Joint
Committee, were chosen by our Churches as representative of
their total constituencies, and that many of us came to the
union proposition with considerable misgivings as to the
benefits to be gained through organic union with another de-
nomination, we now find ourselves, after three years of nego-
tiations, all favorably disposed toward this proposed union.
Furthermore it is our opinion that any committee of 36 so
chosen, and given the same opportunities and experiences with
one another, would arrive at the same unanimity of opinion.
This we feel, is unmistakeable evidence of he basic spiritual
unity already existing in our two churches. 5

The Joint Committee was so imbued with their experiences in
fellowship they abandoned their role of impartiality. While the editor
captioned in large type the news ”Joint Committee Asks for Time Exten-
sion to Study Union Plan,” the article noted the members felt they

 

65mnutos of the Joint Counttee on Church Union, March 6.7,
19.7, U.PeCe-ReCeAe’ Hotel Show, Wedge, mODCeUe 6’ Pe 3e DIP.
Thomas P. Haig, Stated Supply, Lebanon Reformed Church, Lebanon, New
Jersey, personal interview'with the author at his church, April 3,
lSKWu One of the outstanding remembrances this 76 year old minister
:retained of these negotiations was "the wonderful fellowship of the
Joint Committee.”

22“

could no longer be neutral. Claiming a "Divine compulsion and urgency
in the matter which we dare not ignore” they felt they should express
their conviction that ”this union should be consummated."66 The next
week their 'Impelling Reasons for Consummation of Proposed Union"
appeared in the church paper. To keep the information gathered in the
twelve dual page articles available for reference, they were reprinted
in a little booklet titled'giggst of Facts.67 Their new policy was
obvious in the subtitle ”Demonstrating Overwhelming Similarities in
Life, Faith, and Work . . . [or the two churcheEl : An Evidence of
Their Essential Spiritual unity.” With good reason the opponents of
union called this a propaganda publication for even the back cover
contained the seventeen impelling reasons for union in a capsulized
form.

This was an unusual period of agitation within the Reformed
Church. The union contention was caught up in a movement, extending
beyond denominational bounds, to reaffirm a belief in a more evangel-
ical Christianity. This meant an abandonment of neutrality and toler-
ance in combatting modernism and the spreading worldliness and doc-
trinal indifference on the part of church leaders and members. The
Rev. Dr. Henry East of Grand.Rapids, Michigan, acted as one of the
main catalysts within the Chutch. In December of l9h6, he had re-
signed his board and committee positions and attacked the growing
control of the Church by its boards. In a pamphlet published early
in l9h7, he assailed continued membership in the Federal Council of

Churches and.in the International Council of Religious Education.

66Church Herald, March 28, 19W. 1:. 1n.

67Digest of Facts (n.p., The Joint Committee on Union, Mhy, 19“?)-

225
He disapproved of the criteria for selecting faculty members at Hope
College and New Brunswick Theological Seminary. His suggestion to
”overture Synod to move the Boards from New Ybrk to some area in the
Middle West,”68 was a renewed attack on ”boardism" with its Eastern
domination. This appeal found support. The Rev. Bastian Kruithof
wrote in a weekly church paper published in Holland, Michigan,
The timely protest is gathering momentum. It is also

growing in size. Dare to be a contemporary Daniel. You

will not even have to stand alone. There are enough people,

seriously concerned, who are eager to form the spearhead

against the citadel of neutrality.69
Earlier in this editorial he contended ”what the Reformed Church in
America needs is wholesome controversy and a positive Christian
apologetics . . . to preserve and to develop our interpretation and
application of the Christian heritage." The desired controversy
materialized and continued throughout the period of these union nego-
tiations. In the main, the editorials of the Church Herald supported

the positions outlined by the Rev. Bast.7o

68An Appeal to thethfinisters and La en of the Chica o and
Iowa §ynods (Grand Rapids: Don Van Osterberg, Ii§57I$, p. 1E. While
requested on the grounds of securing a more centralized location and
one closer to the source of 71% of the boards' financial support, it

obviously was meant to relocate them also in a more conservative en-
vironment.

 

69Editorial by Klaus, "Timely Protest,” The Sundgz School
Guide, February 23, 1947. P. 5. This paper is privately published
by a Reformed Church family, mainly as a supplement to the Inter-
national Council of Religious Education's International Sunday School
‘Lessons.

7OThis provoked overtures from two Eastern Classes. The
Classis of South Bergen questioned the advisability of the Rev.
.Bast's remaining on the Editorial Council of the Church Herald and
continuing as its writer of the Sunday School lesson. The Classis of
Ulster asked that he be made to prove his assertations or retract
theme mums ReCeAeL 1%7, pe 123e
The editor differed on the removal of the Church boards

226
Some of the overtures presented to the General Synod at its
meeting in Holland, Michigan, June 5-11, 19h7, gave an idea of the
interest in the debate. On the subjects raised by the Rev. Bast's
pamphlet, the box score read as follows: on membership in the Federal
Council of Churches, overtures were received from 19 Classes and Parti-
cular Synods; on relocating the Church headquarters, 11; on the compo-
sition of the membership of the Church boards, 5; and on membership in
the International Council of Religious Education, 3. These exceed the
number of overtures concerned with union with the United Presbyterians.
In that regard, the Classis of Monmouth overtured for union, that of
Cascade, against, and Dakota for abandoning the idea entirely, while
seven additional overtures asked for more study time.71
Dr. Barry Hager's ”State of Religion" message noted the con-

troversy and offered suggestions.

There is . . . among us the increasingly disturbing open

charge of modernism in both the Reformed and United Presby-

terian Churches; also inferences regarding the complete

dependability of our Boards and educational institutions . . .

we need a larger sense of denominational solidarity.72
His recommendation to create a representative committee on Life and
Wbrk to iron out the differences between the East and West went un-

heeded. The stress on ”denominational solidarity” did not automatically

 

to the west. The editorial of May 30, l9fi7, asked that only part of
the boards be moved so as to avoid merely relocating the problem of
centralization and noted the U.P.C. boards were divided between
Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. Figures presented compared the over-
whelming membership on the boards' Executive Committees from the two
Particular Synods of New York and New Jersey with that of the remaining
three (i.e., Board of Foreign Missions 18-2).

71Minutes R.C.A., 19u7, pp. 122-125.

721hid., p. 237.

227
preclude the possibility of union with the United Presbyterians,
though Dr. Hager inferred it precluded continued membership in the
Federal Council of Churches. Yet the message stated, WI; Synod should
continue its committee on church union"73 he would like all_the issues
discussed at open forum type consistorial meetings.

The small increase in both the number of Reformed churches and
church members in the past twenty years perturbed Dr. Hager. He ques-
tioned the Church's faithfulness and direction by inquiring, ”Has the
church supper room crowded out the upper room?" and ”Have the relaxa-
tion of sports and recreational programs in the Church brought us to
the point where we are majoring in minors and dawdling with our Lord's
great commission?”7uHis solution called for the creation of a layman's
organization and a Board of Evangelism, both of which have since become.
integral parts of the Reformed Church. It was largely due to his in-
fluence that a delegate was again sent to the closely related Chris-
tian Reformed Synod and a committee appointed to study the possibility
of creating a college on the west Coast.

The contents of the report of the Cbmmittee on Church Uhion
occasioned little discussion. The Committee reported on its two joint
meetings and the continuing efforts to get acquainted. Its proposal
to present a more comprehensive and.revised plan of union to the l9u9
General Synod met with approval. It assured the delegates that the

‘union of the two churches could.be "consummated without loss of any

-__..

73Ihid., p. 235. The underlining has been added. This com-
inittee did continue and consistorial union meetings were held,
especially during 19u9 and early 1950.

74Ibid., p. 231 and p. 232, respectively.

228
essential element in our respective doctrinal, liturgical or organi-
zational heritages.”75 With the understanding that the new sections
of the plan would be presented to the Classes for study and suggested
changes, the Committee was continued and enlarged to twenty-one
members.76
The report made earlier to the United Presbyterian General

Assembly Meeting at Sterling College had been almost identical. The
United Presbyterian Union Committee in requesting continuance and en-
largement had remarked:

While our churches are not yet prepared to come to any deci-

sion for or against union, there is a body of opinion in

both churches favorable to union sufficient to warrent the

continuation of the process of study. There is ground for

fear that were we to discontinue discussion at7$his point

we might be going contrary to the Will of God.
The General Assembly accepted the new time schedule, but decided to
overture their Presbyteries to vote as originally planned in the spring
of 19u8. This would be merely an informative vote as permitted.by
their Book of Coyernnent and worship (p. 6n). They invited the Reformed
Church to take a similar vote, but.its Constitution did.not contain such
a permissive clause.

The question of continued membership in the Federal Council of

Churches also absorbed the attention of both churches. Memorials or

 

75Ibid., p. 154.

76The Joint Committee asked that each Classis and Presbytery
appoint special committees in the fall to insure proper consideration
of the revised plan. Possibly influenced by the agitation for greater
Western representation on the Church's boards, the Committee on Union
filled its expansion openings exclusively with westerners.

77mn11t08 UePng’NeA:. 1&2, pe 1.1180

' 'n "we"

 

 

229

overtures faced each judicatory calling for withdrawal from what
they labelled a liberal-dominated interdenominational agency. The
matter had intensified, for the creation and growth of the rival
National Association of Evangelicals seemed to offer a possible al-
ternative. The Reformed Church's Committee on the Federal Council,
despite pro-Synod opposition pamphleteering, church paper articles,
and now official overtures, recommended continued membership.78
After a lengthy debate, a substitute recommendation of the Committee
on Overtures won approval instead. This provided for retaining mem»
bership in the Federal Council for another year while trying to get
it ”to take positions doctrinally more consonant with Biblical
Christianity."79

As in the case of union, a showdown was merely postponed.
During the year a special committee would study both the pros and
cons of the Federal Council and the National Association of Evangel-
icals, and make a recommendation to the next General Synod. The
United Presbyterians acted. They continued their membership and
threatened to withhold delegate travel expenses to Synod and General
Assembly meetings from any congregation which did not pay its Federal
Council assessment.

The postponement decision of the Joint Committee on Union
had quieted the clamor in the church paper and made the General

Synod's action almost anti-climactic. Only a few voices disturbed

 

78The Comnittee found encouragement in the minority of

overtures from.six.C1asses and.one Particular Synod for continued
membership.

79mnutes R.C.A.- 122, p. 121+.

230
the union moratorium. A.Roformed Church missionary to China, the Rev.
Joseph Esther, proved to be one such disturbing voice. Tbuched by the
humility of a united Presbyterian minister's published comments on the
shortcomings of his denomination, the Rev. Esther sought to promote a
similar feeling of humility within the Reformed Church when he ques-
tioned:

If our Churches are united, should we not first seek clean—
sing from our Father for being the oldest denomination in
the United States and.yet so small; for being so smug in our
Dutch clannishness; so satisfied to minister to "our covenant
children" only; so concerned about the salvation of foreigners
. . . and so unconcerned about "Americans" . . . who live
within three minutes walking distance of us; so proudly set
in our ways as to maintain two inadequately established
seminaries when one only could do much more thoroughly the
all-important Job of training for leadership; so sectionally-
minded that to a westerner the Easterner is always suspect
and the Easterner likely to disdain all things of the west;
so orthodox in some sections as to glorify our doctrines
more than our Savior; so traditional in other sections as
to value mossy 17th century records above serving the living
age . . . so sluggish in certain sections that we hardly
respond even to such a noble call as the united Advance,
which should be oversubscribed everywhere . . . .

Let our eyes turn inward before we are “86t9d in
marriage to another spiritual family . . . .

These observations occasioned no public response. The editor-
ial direction of the Church Herald remained primarily concerned with
defending the Bible as the infallible Wbrd of God and challenging
other tenets ascribed to "modernism.”

The crusade for a united Church of America, launched in the
fall of 1947 by the noted Methodist missionary and lecturer, Dr. E.
Stanley Jones, accentuated a collateral fear. Dr. Jones desired to

unite the 256 Protestant denominations through the device of a

 

80Joseph R. Esther, "Letters to the Editor," Church Herald,
September 12, 19W, 1). 12.

231

federal union. This could only be done through acceptance of a simple
creedal statement permitting great latitude of doctrinal beliefs. A
new movement for closer union within the Federal Council of Churches
and the proposed National Council of Churches all evidenced a tendency
in this direction. A church which prided itself on its doctrinal pur-
ity and found in it a raison d'etre could not help but be concerned.
An editorial revealed that the Reformed Church's proposed partner had
been one of the few to accept the Federal Council's invitation to
negotiate a closer union of twenty five churches. This was

disturbing to many. Especially since one definite factor

in the consideration of our present church union proposal

. . . is as to whether this union will lead us eventually

into further and quite different mm

Meanwhile, the Joint Committee and its various subgroupings
had continued quietly at their work. Members engaged actively in the
tasks of letter writing and speaking. The letters sought to make sure
that there were people in each Classis and Presbytery who would dis-
seminate their information on union; they also sought additional
assistance in arranging for pulpit exchanges and group meetings.
These practices had been suggested by the Executive Committee

at its June 12th meeting at the Hotel Sherman, Chicago, Illinois.82
To carry out the instructions of the General Synod and General Assembly,

tentative subcommittees were selected to prepare a Summary Statement

81m Protestant Super-Church," Church Herald, January 23,
l9fi8, p. 6. The underlining has been added. This fear increases in
intensity in the course of negotiations.

82mm» of the Executive Committee of the Joint Committee
on Church Union, June 12, l9h7. The Reformed Church was represented
by Drs. Luman Shafer, John Beardslee, Jr. (newly elected president of
the General Synod), M; Stephen James, Thomas Haig and Harry Hager.

 

.L 3.... K1- . wiItflHi

232
of Doctrine, a Constitution, and the Forms of Worship. Once approved
by the Joint Committee, these subcommittees had to have completed
drafts composed and distributed prior to a proposed December 29th
gathering. A proposal to have the two highest judicatories meet at
the same time and the same place in l9fl9 won approval.

The Executive Committee and the co-opted subcommittee chairmen
next met in Pittsburgh on December 1, l9“?. For three days they
laboriously worked through each of the three reports, preparing them
for presentation to the Joint Committee, now'rescheduled to meet
January 20th. The name proposed for the united church again plagued
them. After considerable discussion, they decided to pass the problem
on to their parent body with the notation that they ”had voted 9 to 2
to drop the word 'united' from the present suggested name."83 After
additional editing, all reports were to be mimeographed and.in the
hands of the membership of the Joint Committee one week before its
scheduled meeting.

This gathering took place in Pittsburgh, January 20-22, l9h8.
The First United Presbyterian Church hosted the seven sessions. The
three reports received extensive study and some revision, particularly
the Summary of Doctrines. An additional report on the merging of the
boards was received and again the proposed name for the united church
troubled the members. The Joint Committee, like its Executive Com-
mittee, found itself in disagreement and sought the opinion of the
members of the two churches on the proposed name, The united Presby-

terian Reformed Church. The Stated Clerks of the two denominations

 

83Minutes of the Executive Committee of the Joint Committee
on Church Union, December 1-3, 1947: P- l.

233
had been asked to draft the final form.in which the question of union

would be submitted to the two churches but never found time to present
it at this meeting. Dr. James received the appointment to head a
committee to integrate the four reports into the previous Proposed
Plan of Union. He hoped to have five thousand copies of the revised
plan printed by March lst and distributed within the Classes and

Presbyteries prior to their spring sessions.

The reports on this meeting, which appeared in the Church
papers, stressed that the Committee wanted this plan studied thor-
oughly and would be willing to make additional changes. Dr. L.
Shafer again stressed the necessity for achieving substantial
unanimity to attempt union.8’+ A professed feature of these Joint
meetings had always been the inspiring spirit that prevailed. The
Rev. J. C. Van wyk (Wisconsin), who described himself as cold to this
union before attending his first Joint Committee gathering in Pitts-
burgh, became a supporter because of a consciousness that "God was in
our midst."85 The case for union went almost unchallenged during
1948 in the church papers. A.letter in.Ehrch evidenced distress at

this very lack of discussion.86 The writer reminded the readers that

~.——

8“"Meeting of Joint Committee on Plan of Union," Church
Herald, February 20, l9n7, p. 10.

85"letters to the Editor," Church Herald, April 23, 190,8,
p. 11+. Cf. Dr. Shafer, supra; Dr. T. M. Taylor, "Revised Plan for
Church union to be Ctrculated," United Presbyterian, February 2,
l9fi8, p. 11; letter from Dr. J. E. Heffman, n.d., to the Members of
the Joint Committee on Church Union accompanying copies of the Mine
utes of the Pittsburgh meeting. Each of these sources gives testi-
mony to a similar conviction. The meeting had.closed with a reading
of the 17th chapter of St. John and an open session of prayer which
had deeply moved Dr. Thylor.

86Church Herald, March 5, 1948, p. it. In this letter from

231»
not all of the Church was unanimous on uniting and asked for some
clear statement on the current and future ownership of local church
preportyo

Though Dr. L. Shafer tried to offer assurance that the property
rights of the few congregations that might not enter the united church

would be carefully safeguarded, the newly published Revised Plgn of

 

Union: 1238 made no mention of this matter.87 Instead, it enlarged a
provisional basis of union covering five pages into a permanent plan
and basis of union, requiring one hundred and six pages. This was the
end product of a committee that sought a basis of union which would
necessitate the least change in current procedures and usages of the
two churches and would harmonize differences "but never at the exp
pense of opportunistic compromise."88 The cause of organic union
received little support from the article defining the foundation
principles of the church; it did nothing to destroy the contention of
those who believed spiritual unity existed and further organic unity
was unnecessary.89 Yet changes were not only possible but solicited
for incorporation in the projected final Plan of 19Q9.

Church union did not dominate the General Synod which met from

 

Iowa, Mr. Bovenkerk also deplored the absence of discussion on the

Federal Council of Churches. The later debates in 19fl8 on this subject
must have proven more satisfying.

87Ibid., April 16, 1948, p. 14.

88Revised Plan of union: lggg (n.p., Joint Committee on
Union of the Reformed Church in America and The United Presbyterian
Church of North America, 19fl8), p. 5.

89Ihid., Art. 1, No. 5. pp. 5-6, which begins ”The visible
unity of the Christian church is not destroyed by its division into
different bodies or denominations.”

 

 

 

41m in... y

235

Ehy 20-25, at Buck Hill Falls. Not a single overture was presented
concerning union, although the Christian Reformed Church offered to
resume fraternal relations if each church were permitted to help the
other “remain true to the glorious Reformed faith.~9° Dr. John
Beardslee's State of Religion message, despite his position on the
Joint Committee, failed to mention the question of union. His empha-
sis rested on the insufficiency of minister's pay and the inefficiency

of underpaid ministers. He also called on the laymen to evangelize.

The formal report of the Committee on Uhion reviewed the in-

structions of the 1947 General Synod and the various meetings that
were necessary to carry them out. After commenting on the new
sections of the Revised Plan of Union, the report made several recoup
mendations. The General Synod agreed to its recommendation to invite
the Uhited Presbyterians to Buck Hill Falls for concurrent meetings

of the General Assembly and the General Synod.in l9fl9. This was
meant to be the last major effort to bring about a closer acquaintance
between the ministers and the laymen of the two churches. A.further
suggestion that one-third of the Reformed Church Committee members be
replaced so that additional members of the Church could share the rich
spiritual fellowship experienced at the Joint Committee meetings was
not acted.upon. The Committee forwarded a communication from Dr.
Douglas Horton of the Congregational Christian churches seeking a
general planning conference in the fall to achieve greater unity and

9°Minutes R,§.A., 193g, p. 123. This conditioned offer was
accompanied by a list containing six points interpreting how this
was to be done. Distrustful of a relationship which granted the
right to interfere internally in the affairs of the R.C.A., an un-
favorable repiy was delayed for a year until the Committee on
Fraternal Relations could present a report. The United Presbyter-
ians however approved a similar invitation.

236
promote church union, but advised the rejection of such a diver—
sionary alternative.
It is the Judgement of our Committee that our Church cannot

participate in this conference since we are engaged in con-
versations with the United Presbyterian Church and 519 pg];

mmne otiations .iaarmsarsaamsiaazm

2129. 22:. ear-W ""
Probably of greater interest to the Church than the General Synod's
acceptance of this recommendation was its acceptance by a 151-65 vote
of the majority report recommending continuance of membership in the
Federal Council of Churches.92

The United Presbyterians met on the campus of westminster

College, June 9-lh, 1948. They had a single memorial on Church union
but like the Reformed Church they had received several memorials con-
cerning membership in the Federal Council of Churches. The Presby-
tery of Oregon's memorial for immediate negotiations toward organic
union with other Presbyterian and Reformed.bodies was denied, because
it was felt the Committee on Church Relations was already exploring
all hopeful avenues.93 The General Assembly also turned down Dr.
Horton's invitation because the United Presbyterian Church was not
ready for such an advanced step as a general church union movement

29:. Yet the State of Religion report by the Moderator, Dr. Thomas

91mnutes R.C.A., 1&8, p. 186. The underlining has been
added. The Reformed Church Onion Committee was aware, perhaps more
so than their United Freebyterian'brethren,of the dangers of looking
beyond a single select union effort.

92The faculties of the two sendnaries had contributed to
this result by sending to all the ministers of the denomination an
atypical jointly endorsed letter recommending continued membership.
The Rev. William Goulooze at Western had been the sole abstainer.

”Amputee U.P.C.-N.A., 12a, p. 55.

gikfiiwgiu‘ Flu ii

237

H. Newcomb definitely showed an interest in the healing of Protes-
tantism's weakness through denominational unions. The mind of the
entire church seemed inclined toward some expression of union. The
Presbyteries had voted 926-103 in the spring on the principle of
union with the Reformed Church.9u

Both churches voted the necessary funds to continue their
union committees' activities. They also asked for earnest and prayer-
ful consideration of the revised Plan by the congregations and lower
courts so that suggested changes could be in the hands of the Joint
Committee by December 31, 19u8. :Most of the Classes had special
union committees to guide their thinking, though some belatedly
created them at the semi-annual fall session. Some consistories felt
so adamantly against union that they considered the Plan unworthy of
their study. Yet the co-chairmen of the Joint Committee on Church
Union received a larger number of responses than in 19u6, not only
from the regular and special sessions of the Classes and Presbyteries
but also from.individuals. The co-chairmen compiled separate lists
of comments that affected each of their five responsible committees.95
The comments ranged from grammatical corrections, to preferences for

previous manners of expression or practice, to rejection of entire

 

9“Ibid., p. 57.

95As an example, the Committee on Doctrine received twelve
pages of comments taken from the letters and communication of seven
individuals and five Classes and Presbyteries. One from.Dean Edwards
of the Federal Council of Churches, a former R.C.A. pastor, objected
to a new church expressing statements on ”The Fall of Mhn" and
"Election” which did not commend themselves ”to the intelligent
people of our day." (Kuyper Papers, W.T.S.) Apparently neither the
opponents of the Federal Council nor the opponents of this union,
who were generally one and the same, ever saw this letter.

238

statements or portions of the Plan. Dissatisfaction over the proposed
name and the lack of a property clause received frequent mention.

An exceptionally important report was made by the Classical
Committee on Church Uhion to a special session of the Classis of
Grand Rapids on November 15, l9fl8. The report questioned eleven
points of major or minor doctrinal significance and listed two consid-
erations in procedure for adopting this Plan of union. The latter
dealt with voting procedure and property holding for dissenting con-
gregations. It suggested that the General Synod make its decision on
the basis of whether or not this union received the support of a 75
per cent majority, both of a popular communicant vote and of the total
classical delegate vote. This meant an abandonment of the Presbyterian
system and the current Reformed Church constitutional requirements.
Despite the omission of the contention that union might be the “will
of God,” this report's presentation of nine ”thoughts suggesting that
union is advantageous” was one of the best presentations for union yet
made.96 Its seven ”thoughts that advance doubts on the feasibility of
Church union” were of a nature and presentation to strike a response,
especially in the Western branch of the Church. The report noted the
original United Presbyterian union offer had been extended to three
churches, not merely the Reformed Church, and quoted the action on the
Presbytery of Oregon's 1948 memorial to prove that the United Presby-
terian Church was intent on further union. It likewise elaborated
upon:

The apparent lack of interest on the part of the Reformed

 

96"Report of the Committee on Church Union" to the Classis
of Grand Rapids - Special Session, November 15, l9#8 (unpublished,
Church Uhion file, N.B.T.S.), p. “.

239
Church's constituency,
The schism and weakness of the divisions that might result,
The inability to really show that either the two churches or
Christ's Kingdom would benefit,
A.denominational co-operation that singly or collectively can
capitalize on existing spiritual union,

The inability of organic union to enhance or thwart this
spiritual unity,

The danger of "boardism."
The concluding resolutions approved the suggested revisions and pro-
cedural considerations and registered the Classis' Icoolness and.very
unenthusiastic attitude toward the proposed union with the united
Presbyterian Church."97

The editorial published in the Church Herald on the same day
and in the same city where this meeting had been held, indicated that
the editor shared many of the doubts about the feasibility of this

union. He particularly denied any suggestion or contention that the

97Ibid., p. 6. This report was submitted by the Committee on

Church Union, comprised of the Rev. Henry J. Ten Clay, chairman, the
Rev. Harri Zegarius and.E1der R. De Briune. The discussions
attendant upon this report and this meeting were important to the
later adoption, first by the Joint Committee and then by the two
Churches, of the principle of a 75% majority to consummate the
union. The Rev. Jacob Blaauw, then pastor of Bethel Church, was a
member of this Classis. Letter from the Rev. J. Blaauw, Grandville,
JMichigan, September 8, 1965, to the author, states,

”As to who proposed the three-fourths voting change from

the usual two-thirds, I must state this was my proposal.

In talking with.my colleagues of the ministry as a member

of the denominational Committee on Church Union, I learned

that there was a strong opposition to the usual two-third

vote, and I felt that a matter of such hugh implications

demanded a smaller minority and a larger majority than is

usually practiced.“

ellmbu. . .s..|.,( .L rN- r r. . .HI

 

: .I _

2&0

people in the Churches were eager for union. He averred that a true
church union can only come from a natural, almost inevitable grass-
roots desire and "not as something promoted by and sponsored from the
top down . . . ."98

The negotiations between the two churches had by 19h8 pro-
duced new areas of co-operation. The Board of Education's Curriculum
Committee in co-operation with the United Presbyterians and the Southern
Presbyterians had begun on January lst the joint publication of Sunday
School literature. The 1948 General Synod ordered the expansion of
this project to which Dr. Winfield Burggraaff was a major contributor.
It also announced that the Reformed Church would join the United Pres-
byterians in the publication of two new hymnals, and would study the
possibility of jointly establishing a college in Los Angeles.99 By
this time the promised Reformed Church assistance to the South Sudan
mission field had materialized. In January, students from the two
churches, attending the North American Student Conferences on Chris-
tian Frontiers, had held a joint meeting. In July, the first of three
consecutive summers of joint caravaning by groups of students had
begun.

The creation of the world Council of Churches may have con-
tributed to a.union aura, but the Berlin Blockade, the fighting in
China and Greece and the Presidential election of l9u8 effectively
countered this impression. The Church began to concern itself over

‘the new wave of Dutch emigrants entering Canada and initiated a new

 

98N0V9mbor 15, 19‘s, pe 50

99mnutes R.C.A., 19%, pp. 90-91.

Zhl
theological controversy. The controversy began when the Rev. Bert Van
Rhlsen protested Dr. Hugh B. thLean's Church Herald article, ”The
Relevance of the Old Testament."100 He charged this New Brunswick
professor had imputed the Jews might have rewritten part of the history
of Israel (the Book of Deuteronomy) to justify their slaughter of the
Canaanite inhabitants of the land. This called into question ”the
Bible as the word of God in its entirety." The debate spilled out of
the ”Letters to the Editor” column into the spring meetings of the
Classes and Particular Synods. The tremendous number of overtures
(thirty) revealed that this had been accepted, not as a mere debate over
liberalism, but as a western challenge to the Eastern branch of the
church.101 nr. MacLean found it necessary to state his acceptance of
the Church's standards and explain various points of his article to
the General Synod. His explanation satisfied a majority of those
attending and the matter was permitted to rest. As with the sharp
debate over continued Federal Council membership which aroused such
strong feelings in the participants, this controversy indirectly
affected their reflections on the union questions.102

100”I.etters to the miter,“ Church Herald, December 3, 19%,
p. 9. Dr. MacLean's article of October 22, l9fl8 was taken from.his
inaugural speech as Professor of Old Testament History at the New
Brunswick Theological Seminary.

1°1mnutes R.C.A“ 1932, p. 9. Fifteen Classes and 2 Particular
Synods, all in the East, sent overtures of support for the New Bruns-
wick Seminary, while 11 Classes and 2 Particular Synods in the Wbst re-
quested Dr. NacLean to explain his views on the inspiration of Scripture.
In an expressive resolution, the Classis of Albany not only
commended the seminary for the excellent work it was doing but "for
the high caliber [Sig of men added to the teaching staff.” Minutes
of the Classis of Albany, VII (April 19, 19W). 231.

102Letter from Dr. Lester Khyper, April 7, 19u9, to Dr. Lumen
Shafer. ”All this had its bearing on the union idea, so that we

2142

The last meeting of the Joint Committee on Church Uhion took
place January 19-21, 1949, at the Second Reformed Church of Kalamazoo,
Michigan. The subcommittees had weighed the suggestions and criticisms
directed at their particular part of the Revised Plan; the chairmen had
all prepared their reports. The Rev. James E. Hbffman, Secretary of
the Joint Committee, stressed in a letter of October 22, l9h8, that the
January meeting had to produce a final plan for presentation to the
assemblies of the two churches because a second meeting would be finan-
cially impossible.103 The Mnutes of this meeting do not reveal the
extent to which these reports were altered but the finalized form
appeared in the Plan of Union: l9h9.

Part V of this revised union plan contained the opinions of the
Rev. Dr. W. H. S. Demarest and Attorney Dr. Tim J. Campbell on the
legal aspects of Church.union first presented at this meeting. This
report revealed that while each Church had a method for amending its
constitution, neither ”expressedly provides a method for union of the
denomination with any other denomination.”104 It recommended that
because the basis of union involved adoption of a new constitution, the
procedures for amendment should be followed. As a result of a further

recommendation of this report, the Joint Committee instructed that its

cannot hope for a sympathetic treatment of the plan when the spirit
of the Church is unbalanced.” Previously he described the Churdh as
being in an ugly temper.

1°3Janes E. Hoffman, letter to sub-committee Chairman of the
Joint Committee on Uhion (Church union file, N.B.T.S.).
logfilgn of Union: 1992 (n.p., Joint Committee on union of
the Reformed Church in America and the Uhited Presbyterian Church of
North America, 19%). p. 113.

243

declarative statement effecting union should include the notation
"that the procedure has been in accordance with the laws and constitu-
tion of the church, and that the doctrines and principles of government
of the church have not been substantially changed.”105

The Committee failed to heed the advice that adoption of the
final Plan of Union follow the procedures for a constitutional amend-
ment. The Rev. Jacob Blaauw suggested that a three-fourths majority
should be required for ratification of this important union plan; the
Rev. Harry Hager seconded the motion. Despite the opposition of Dr.
T. J. Campbell, the motion carried. It is impossible to be sure which
was the prevailing influence in this decision - the logic of requiring
a more nearly unanimous approval, the idea that a concession had to be
made to insure the opportunity to bring the Plan to a vote, or simply
a case of overconfidence on the part of the union proponents. The
Reformed Church committee members and observers had.beld a separate
meeting on January 20 at which each informally remarked on his or her
feelings toward the proposed union. Thirteen members and two observers
favored this movement while two members and one observer claimed to be
uncommitted or to have reservations.106 At the United Presbyterian

meeting everyone present favored proceeding on to a union.107 These

105mnutes of Joint Committee on Church Union, January 19-21,
l9h9, U.P.C.-R.C.A., Kalamazoo,.Mich., p. 2.

106"Notes on the Individual Remarks at the Meeting of the
Reformed Church Members of the Committee on union," January 20, 19b9,
taken down'by Elaauw (Kuyper Papers, WLT.S.). The Rev. Rozendaal
(South Dakota) and.Eflitor Benes were not ready to commit themselves
while the Rev. Blaauw had serious reservations. Letter from the Rev.
Blaauw to the author, op. cit., stated that ”Dr. H. Eager a few days
after we adjourned retracted his vote and voted with me against the
proposal."

1°7mnutes U.P.C.-N.A., l9u9, p. M1.

Zhh
votes may have been conducive to overconfidence, particularly if the
members felt they represented a cross section of their churches and
were acting according to the ”will of God."

The recommendation adopted by the Joint Committee went beyond
the idea of an actual three-fourths majority vote to approve the union.
The triple three-fourths vote proposed to the two churches required "a
three-fourths majority vote in the Classes and Presbyteries and a
three-fourths majority of the total number of Classes and Presbyteries.
. . . The vote declaring the union effective shall be a three-fourths
majority in each assembly."108 The great discrepancies in the size of
the Classes and Presbyteries potentially meant the required majority
to consummate union would greatly exceed 75 per cent.109 The concluding
additional business concerned itself with the mechanics of getting the
plan printed, distributed and publicized especially among the women of
the churches.

The opposition within the Reformed Church had tried to gain
some organization and voice. In 1948 the Evangelical Brotherhood
organized and held meetings in Chicago, Benton Harbor and Grand Rapids.
A few of these same individuals for a little over one year published

without "a great.dea1 of outward success" a paper called The Reformed

 

View.110 In January of 1949 an active debate broke out in the official

10816.nutes of Joint Committee on Church Union, January 19-21,
1%9, UepeCe'ReCeAe, mmzoo, mChe’ pe 2e

109If union was achieved, dissenting churches would also be
required to secure a three-fourths vote of their members to petition
the new General Assembly for retention of their congregational pro-
perty. Plan of Union: 1999, p. 112.

11°l.etter from the Rev. Bert Van Halsen, Grand Haven, Mich”

245

organs of both churches. The basis of opposition at first centered
on a lack of enthusiasm in either church for a union desired merely
for the sake of union. Dr. Albertus Pieters called this 'unionitus
dogmaticus' a contagious mental disorder of those who contend all
disunion is a sin.111 He found no positive reasons for the proposed
union. Through a variety of approaches, the Rev. B. D. Dykstra
(Iowa) emotionally expounded upon many of these points. While Dr.
Pieters wanted a procedure to permit the sampling of the opinion of
the Church's membership, the Rev. Dykstra demanded for the “contem-
plated disbanding of the Reformed Church at least a plebescite of the
meals-“112

The influence exerted by Dr. Pieter's anti-union article is
hard to evaluate, for he had touched the lives of a generation of

ministers who had graduated from'western Theological Seminary.113 Bis

 

September 28, 1965, to the author. Underlining added. The Rev. Van
Malsen feels some of the ideas expressed in this paper helped‘gggy
tribute subconsciously to the defeat of the planned union.

111-Church Union . . . why Shouldn't We? Why Should We",
Church Herald, January 28, l9u9, p. 12. Interestingly, he found no
answer to the first question, for unlike many other opponents, he
found no real danger to evangelical orthodoxy or Reformed tradition
in the proposed union. This is very similar to his position and views
as expressed during the union talks of 1929 (supra, pp. 175-76).

The first attack in the United Presbyterian, January 17, 19b9,
p. 12, likewise saw all the benefits as problematical. This was but
one of many articles expressing a preference for union with other

Presbyterian churches or the fear that this union would prevent
further union.

112mm Be or Not To Be,- Church Herald, April 1, l9u9, p. 9.
He claimed if denominations "had no right to be, then this union with
the Presbyterians must be but the beginning of a process of union-
izing . . . until we arrive at Rome," for Oxnam, Jones and the
Christian Centggy's reasonings all pointed that way.

113Cf. Charles Wissink, ”Unitive and Divisive Mbvements
Within the Reformed Church in America" (unpublished M.S.T. dissertation,

246

article did not go unchallenged. Despite this emeritus professor's
declaration that justification of union by John 17:21 “gives me a pain,"
the Rev. EL Verne Oggel continued to insist this passage meant organic
union and not merely spiritual unity.nu The Rev. Harry Ver Strate
also attacked such a loose interpretation of the visible church and felt
the Committee's May 19H7IDigest of Facts provided just the type of
practical arguments Pieter's was seeking.115 Dr. Lester Kuyper deplored
the ”unionitus dogmaticus" statement and noted where faith is concerned
there is a line where conviction changes into pride and arrogance.116

As evidenced in the "Letters to the Editor” column and its
Uhited Presbyterian counterpart, ”Readers' Rendezvous,” the areas of
concern and debate widened. Within the Reformed Church the voting
procedure, the lack of unity within its own denomination and the ”fore
bearence in love" clause of the United Presbyterians' 1926 Confessional
caused most of the debate. The latter clause seemed a more open invi-
tation to liberalism.than even the Quatenus (in so far as) ordination
vow change in the Netherlands in 1816. So profound were these fears
that the l9u9 General Assembly deigned to make a pronouncement on it.

union Theological Seminary, 1965), p. 86. The Rev. Wiseink attached
great significance to the adverse influence of this article upon many
ministers in the Midwest where Dr. Pieters was highly respected.

11%; Plan for Union with the United Prubyterians,‘ Church
Herald, February 18, 1949, p. 18; ”A Sanction for Church Onion,"
Ibid.,lMay 6, 19h9, p. 11, and "Church Union? Yes in Christ's Name!”
which makes a strong attack on Pieter's article and questioned
whether its author was not simply allergic to all union, this last,
a manuscript article (Church union file, N.B.T.S.) was never pub-
lished by the Church Herald.

115"Ietter to the Editor,” Ibid., February 18, l9u9. p. 11+.

116"That They'Rhy'Be 0ne," Ibid., February 25, 19h9, P- 8°

247

The Presbyterian brethren in the first half of the year evi-
denced a dissatisfaction with the proposed name, their lack of knowb
ledge of and contact with their Reformed brethren and a concern that
this union might be a stumbling block to further union, Editor Graves
of the Church UniOn Herald favored these negotiations and anticipated
future negotiations but Editor Edie of the United Presbyterian never
editorially bestowed his blessing on this union. Professor T. M.
Taylor took the initiative in defending the current proposal supported
by the members of the Union Committee. Dr. J. Knox Mbntgomery
(Muskingum College) claimed the opponents were using the same arguments
used in 1932 but just reversed. Then the church being courted was con-
sidered too large and too liberal. He felt the "great and virtuous
United Presbyterian Church" remained too concerned over what it might
lose instead of “what it might give to the union."117

The deadline for suggestions for revision of the 19fl8 Plan had
already expired and current business of more immediate interest, such
as the.MacLean affair, dominated the spring Classes' meetings. Most
Classes did schedule special union meetings and the Classis of Albany
took an indecisive advisory vote. The majority (1“) of its delegates
were undecided while five favored and three opposed the union.118 The
Particular Synod of Iowa indicated a dissatisfaction rather than

117% I Favor Union with the R.C.A.," United Presbyterian,
March 21, l9u9, p. 10. Dr. Montgomery too favored additional union
but felt current consummation would facilitate such efforts. All
this debate on the effect this union would have on further union was
not lost on opposition members within the R.C.A. and eventually pro-
vides them.with one of their strongest talking points. Cf. Harri
Zegarius, Church Herald, Mny 13, 1949, p- 8.

118Minutes of the Classis of Albany, VII (April, 1949). 230.

248

indecision by overturing General Synod for a five year delay in voting
to remove the objectionable features of the Plan.119

During this period Dr. John W. Beardslee, Jr., had been assigned
the task of preparing a report to accompany the Committee's presentation
of the new revised Plan of Union to the General Synod. This took the
form.of an endorsement both of the Plan and of the proposed union. The
report sought to show that union was in accordance with the ideas of
the Apostle Paul and John Calvin, that it would strengthen both
churches and attempted to answer some of the charges of the anti-group.
Since the whole Committee could not agree on all parts of this report,
the proponents strove anxiously to avoid a minority report.

Only three of the twenty-one members of the Committee were
thought likely to submit such a report. 'On April 5 Dr. Kuyper wrote
to Dr. Shafer that the Rev. Blaauw had assured him he would not sign
the report, for he did not feel "the committee was engaged to promote
the plan,” but that he would not send in a minority report if the
Committee persisted. Dr. Beardslee had already received a letter from
the Rev. B. T. Rozendaal dated march 31 in which he disapproved sub-
mitting the report as constituted. Yet he would permit his name to
be attached if a majority of the Committee approved.it, and added ”I
certainly would not bring in a minority report.” The Rev. Harry Hager
also deClined to sign. He based his reason on the failure of the Coup
mittee or the Synod to implement his idea of social control over the

120

two denominations' educational institutions. The l9fi9 Church

119mmutes of the gartieular synod of Iowa (n.p., non-a 19W):
p. 39.

12°th from Dr. Harry Hagar, Chicago, Illinois, April 18,
19t9, to Dr..Luman J. Shafer. The Rev. Hager would.a1so have liked

249
Minutes duly record that he wished his name withheld from the report
(p. 167) but they contain no minority reports.

The growing doubts of the success of the union movement on the
part of some members of the Committee were only partly offset by the
successful avoidance of a minority report. This posed a dilemma.

Dr. Shafer wrote to Dr. Kuyper:
I agree with you that argument will not win the case,

and I also agree that I don't know what will . . . .

There has been some suggestion that we put this thing off

for a year and have more time to make the presentation.

my own feeling is that that will not do the job. I am

afraid that a postponement now would indicate that the

matter was being shelved.121
They decided to push ahead and make the best.possib1e presentation of
the Plan. Strong pro-union articles were written by Samuellh. Zwemer
(Mhrch 25), who had served the United Presbyterian Church on loan in
Cairo for seventeen.years, and by the Stated Clerk, James Hoffman
(April 22), who pointed out the historical fallacy of the contention
that co-operation removes the necessity and.advantages of organic
union.

The Rev. Henry Bast, whose agitation had so shaken the Church
the preceding year, sought to counter these and other favorable presen-
tations. In an article, ”Priorities in Church Union,” he declared
many of the previous arguments irrelevant to the real question of
whether to form a new denomination in the United States.122 By

differentiating between unity and church.union he found the Bible had

 

to have seen a separate vote in the General Synod on union and on
sending the Plan down to the Classes so the latter vote could not be
misinterpreted.

lzlletter from Dr. L. Shafer, May 12, 19u9, to Dr. L. Kuyper.
mChurch Herald, April 29, 1918, pp. 12, 22-23.

 

l‘lllll‘lll‘ llll.‘ll “

250

nothing to say about the latter. This peripheral matter out of the
way, his concern centered on the nature and authority of the Bible
and the way this would be taught in the Church's educational insti-
tutions. ”The view of the Bible taught in the schools of a denomina-
tion will in one generation mold the doctrinal position of that de-
nomination.” He felt the new church would be Presbyterian.in govern-
ment and administration but Congregational in doctrine and.discipline.
Since he professed it was only agreement.in doctrine that makes a
denomination, he opposed an effort to achieve unity through an over-
centralized administration.

The General Synod and General Assembly shared the Inn at Buck
Hill Falls from.May 20-25, l9h9. The regular sessions of each met .
concurrently but they shared joint services each evening and had
agreed that their respective body would take up the question of union
at 2 P.M; on May 24. Each Judicatory received an overture asking for
a postponement of the pending vote and each rejected the request. 0n
the appointed hour the Church Union Conmdttees made their reports .
Dr. Shafer reviewed the Committee's compliance with the authorizations
of the General Synod of 19u8 and the results of the January meeting in
Kilamazoo. He then presented the Plan which had evolved out of ”the
best thinking of both Churches” and was 'suffioientky well considered
to become the basis for decision on the question of union."123 The
Synodical delegates were requested, regardless of personal conviction,
to permit the Classes to express their decision on the union. The
voting procedure was explained and the hope expressed that votes could

be cast by representative but unbound delegates. After calling

 

123Mnntee R.C.A., 1918, p. 165.

 

251

attention to a property clause for dissident congregations, the Commit-
tee asked to be discharged. The Synod concurred but a debate broke
out on the nature of the pending decision. Dr. Shafer's contention
that the vote was not to be on the merits of the case but only for the
purpose of referring the Plan to the Classes lost. Instead, a strict
constitutional interpretation prevailed that the General Synod must
approve the presented Plan and recommend it to the Classes as an amend—
ment to the Constitution for adoption.

Nevertheless, each church passed the necessary resolution,
the Reformed Church, lu7-60, and the united Presbyterian Church,
241-9. The vote by the General Synod was not very comforting. Only
71 per cent had approved under confused circumstances what later the
classical delegates, the Classes and the 1950 General Synod all had to
approve by a 75 per cent majority. Dr. Thylor felt the united Presby-
terian vote of 96 per cent indicated not only that the Union Committee
had done its work well but that the only requirement ”for the consum-
mation of this union is love - love for Christ and for one another.”12u
Strangely enough, at the same General Assembly, the State of Religion
message defended the healthy division of Protestantism and declared
"the immediate issue facing the church today is not of itself church
union but cooperation and coordination of efforts.'125 The message
concluded that religion needed a reformation that union, being
basically a matter of machinery, could not impart, though it might
follow in the wake of a religious revival. This message did not

 

12“Wiener-n3. Assembly of the United Presbyterian Church,-
Chupch Herald, June 10, 1949, p. 10.

lemnutes UePeCe’NeAei 1%9’ P0 ”07.

252

prevent the election of Dr. Tim Campbell, a pro-unionist lqyman, as
Mbderator for the next year.

Both Churches appointed committees to help present the Plan
to each Classis and Presbytery. The General Assembly took one final
action regarding union. It presented the General Synod with an inter-
pretation of its "forbearance in love” clause in the Preamble of its
Confessional Statement. While acknowledging that the clause permitted
exemption to anyone unable to fully subscribe to the Standards of the
Church, it ”does not in any way minimize or abrogate the vows taken
by ministers or elders in ordination."126

The Reformed Church's old Uhion Committee sent home with each
delegate its pamphlet of endorsement entitled ”Statement on union of
the Reformed Church with the United Presbyterian Church.” The spectrum
of advocacy and opposition can be gleaned from its twenty-four sub-
titles. One stressed that current denominational separation was due
merely to different origin. Three centuries ago geography and poli-
tics had made a united organization of doctrinal kin impossible.
Another ascribed most objections to fear of the novel and untried.
Yet it noted the future of the Church would be uncertain whether the
denomination remained separate or united. Thenty-five current and past
members of the Committee had signed this endorsement.

The 19u9 concurrent meeting at Buck Hill Falls had exposed a
sizeable number of ministers and laymen of both churches to their first
real contact with their proposed partners. A Church Union Herald

article evaluated the result: ”It is our considered.view that this

 

125ma., p. #53.

253
amicable interchange did much to forward the cause of Christian
brotherhood even if it may not prove to eventuate in organic union."127
Others also had doubts not confined to the success of the union
approach. The Reformed pastor, the Rev. Theodore J. Jansma (New
Jersey), presumptuously questioned the accuracy of the General Assem—
bly's pronouncement on their ”forbearance in love" clause for which
he was publicly and privately rebuked by some of his colleagues. The
Church Herald also reprinted part of the June speech before the “Dutch
Arms" Society of the Classis of Orange by Moderator T. Campbell. He
testified to the conservative, evangelical character of the United

Presbyterian Church and the faithfulness of its ministers to their

ordination vows.128

The problems faced by the committees of the two churches for
presenting the Plan differed. In the Reformed Church it had to be ex-
plained widely at numerous meetings to assure a fair presentation and
discussion before the voting commenced. In the United Presbyterian
Church it involved a ”continuing program of publicity . . . lest a
false impression that the Committee's ardor has cooled, as was some-
what the case during the past year, gain circulation."129

The new Committee appointed to present the Plan to the
Classes was headed by Dr. Lester Kuyper, "one of the most vocal and

 

127June 12, 1949, p. 12. This article huncurously noted that
Moderator Campbell had inadvertently walked off with the R. C.A.
official gavel and a messenger had been sent over to retrieve it for
"apparently the General Synod could not do business without it.“

128Church Herald, October 7, 19u9, p. 12.

129lilimeographed letter from Chairman '1'. M. Taylor, Septem-
ber 15, 19149 to all members of the General Assembly's Comnittee on
Church Relations (Kuyper Papers, W.T.S.).

254
articulate proponents forunion."130 It decided at a meeting on
August 3, 1949 at Holland, Michigan, to seek to establish sub-
committees in each Classis and to publish a pamphlet to assist in pre-
senting the Plan. The instructions from General Synod had called for
this presentation of the Plan with the background facts and the reasons
fgg.and against the union. In the fall, this Committee published and
distributed its brochure, "Information on the Plan of union with the
Presbyterian Church of North America,” to all Reformed Church pastors.
While it presented reasons both for and against uniting, it placed
a negating comment after each reason opposed to union. As Dr. Hager
feared, the rather confused vote that committed the Plan to classical
action was interpreted as an endorsement for adoption. Meanwhile,
the members continued their efforts to reach not only the ministers
and elders but in some cases to get past them.to the members in the
pew.131 They spoke before special meetings of the Classes and area
churches, published articles, corresponded.privately and even de-

bated. A series of debates in the Midwest between Dr. Kuyper and the

 

13oWissink, op. cit., p. 83. This Committee was composed of
ministerial representatives from each of the 5 Particular Synods.
Dr. Kuyper was to supervise the presentation in the important Parti-
cular Synod of Chicago, H. T. Rozendaal (reluctantly) - Iowa, A. E.
Dykhuizen - Albany, A. J. Neevel - New York, and M. V. Oggel - New
Jersey. Members at large were Mr. Allen Redeker, Mrs. Eflith'WIlvoord
ananrs. J. J. Vin Strien.

131Letter from.committee member Allen Redeker, July 27,
l9h9, Denver, 0010., to Dr. Kuyper. He suggested a special effort
to reach the leymen.because of the possibility of classical delegates
being influenced by straw votes and also because some ministers were
so afraid of the anti-union group that they did not dare speak out
even to their own congregations. He felt a special effort was
needed in Classes of Grand Rapids, Holland, Wisconsin, Pella,
.Dakota, and East and west Souix.

255

Rev. Henry Bast caused a great deal of interest. They did little,
however, to advance the cause of union for the exhortation ”Let's
remain Reformed!" generally evoked the warmest response.132

Numerous articles in the church paper helped to further the
assertion that ”none had to be ill-informed of the issues for they
had.been given the widest possible coverage throughout the church."133
During this last interlude before the decisive voting, the major dis-
cussion dwelt not on doctrine and theology but on whether or not there
should be a;Qgtgh Reformed Church in America. Dr. Paul Ehrrison,
former missionary to Arabia, felt union would help the Reformed Church
Eggpt to the challenging task of evangelizing Americaelau The Rev.
Theodore Brinckerhoff (New York) felt that it was a continuing error
to attempt to preserve in America the Dutch cultural tradition. He
therefore welcomed a.union which.wou1d "cancel out our respective
national cultures and leave our conservative Calvinism as the dis-
tinctive feature of our church life.'135 Both insisted the Reformed
faith was not dependent upon a.Dutch background.

The opposition, too, had.ready access to the pages of the
ghurch Herald. On December 2, 1949, Dr. Barry Hager implied the

132Interview‘with Dr. Lester Kuyper, Professor of Old Testament
Language and Literature, western Theological Seminary, Holland, Michi-
gan, July 3, 196“. Dr. Kuyper felt that the Rev. Bast's speeches
aroused a warm.emotion and were much.better'received than his own.

133msstblk, OEe Cit" Pe 87s

13""Union with the United Presbyterians,' Church Herald,
July 15, 19h9, p. 6. He described the East as in need of an 'intenser
type of Evangelical faith” and the west as being shaped by the Mbody
Institute and the State university.

135-Should We Remain the 'Dutch' Church?” Ibid., November 11.
1949, Pe 13e

256

choice was between being Reformed or Presbyterian. He felt the rank
and file of the Western branch of the Church was psychologically very
unprepared and unconditioned for this union. Ignoring the effects of
almost a century of competition and debate with the Christian Reformed
Church, he felt these members, socially only a very few generations
removed from the Netherlands, had barely begun to be fully concious of
their own denominational identity. While he had cast aspersions on the
efficiency, productiveness and intent of the United Presbyterian Church,
a fellow westerner, the Rev. Jacob Blaauw, conceded that they were
"probably as good as we are."136 This minister based his opposition on
a feeling that union was but a postwar fad associated with the liberal
contaminated ecumenical movement. He envisioned the needless extinc-
tion of the Reformed Church when every reason advanced for this union
could be accomplished by Christian co-operation instead. Ehrlier he
had stated that "to me the over 300 years of Reformed heritage is too
valuable and.precious just to discard it and within a few years comp
pletely lose it, just for the sake of joining another denomination."137
Both of these opponents quoted statements by united Presbyterian
ministers to justify their fear that this union would be but a stepping
stone to further Presbyterian union.

The debate continued.until after the voting had begun. Dr.
Khyper managed one last appeal to the west. He pointed out the current
appropriateness of many of the reasons contained in the letter in which

1361131de’ Jmun'y 20, 1950’ pe 10s

137Letter from the Rev. Jacob Blaauw, August 18, 1919, to Dr.
J. Beardslee, Jr. These views held so doggedly and sincerely in the
late 1940s are still held by the Rev. Blaauw today (1966) as he opposes
a new'union proposal.

257
the Holland Classis in 1850 had.requested.union.with the Reformed
Church.138 The provision for seriously dissenting congregations to
remain outside of a united church and still retain their local property
kept the later stage of the negotiation relatively free of schism
threats. An Eastern pastor had warned that there could possibly be a
reaction of another kind if union failed. The proponents might even
conclude that no union of any kind could ever suit the anti-unionists
"so we might as well go ahead and try to effect a more ambitious
union via the two-thirds majority of our Classes required.by our Consti-
tution."'139 Mhinly, however, the arguments put forth had become so
standardized it was clearly time to vote.

By this time the early balloting in some of the Presbyteries
had already taken place. The Plan as accepted by the two churches'
highest courts had.provided that voting could commence any time after
January 1, 1950. In addition, the United Presbyterian Church had
required their Presbyteries to have recorded their decisions by
March 31, 1950. Rhnw'of the Reformed Church Classes were slow to
vote. Before the.ghurch Herald began publishing its weekly cumulative
results on April 7, the United Presbyterians had already noticed a
foreboding trend. Only 66 per cent of the returns favored merger.“0
The early Reformed Church results were predominantly adverse to the
cause of union and the later flow of returns failed to reverse this

 

138Chureh Herald, February 10, 1950. Po 13-

139George B. Scholten, ”Letter to the Editor," Church Herald,
January 27, 1950, p. 10. The merits of Christian Schools became a
livelier issue in this column in succeeding issues.

mounited Presbyterian, Mhrch 20, 1950, p. 20.

 

258

verdict. By May 5th the vote had been completed except for two of
forty-two Classes and seven of sixty-six.Presbyteries. The Religious
News Service releases spread the word ”ReformedpPresbyterian Merger
Fails.'141 Twenty-three out of a total of forty-two Classes had.voted
either against the union proposal or failed to obtain the required
three-fourths favorable majority. The onus for thus failing to con-
summate the first’merger within the United States of a church derived
from continental.Ehrope and one originating in the British Isles fell
on the Reformed Church of America. Overlooked was the fact that sevenp
teen Presbyteries, sufficient to defeat the Plan, had already voted
against union or failed to reach the 75 per cent requirement.1u2

Those statistically minded now got out pencil and paper and
went to work. Dr. Wallace N. Jamison, pastor of the First United
Presbyterian Church of Indianola, Iowa, was one of the first. In a
personal letter to the editor of the Uhited Presbyterian, he voiced
his disappointment that the Uhited Presbyterians had turned down the
union, though it had been known for some months that the Reformed
Church would do so.”3 He expected inunediate overtures for union
with other Presbyterian bodies and did not want the commissioners to
take the recent vote as a mandate from the church not to entertain

these future proposals. He reasoned the method of voting had given

 

141mm,, May 8. 1950. p. 3.

142Ibid., p. 20. The incongruous individual vote from the
Presbyterians showed 85% of the delegates favored the union.

lu3letter from Dr. Jamison, May 8, 1950 (Church Union file,
N.B.T.S.). The close kinship of these two churches was again evidenced
when Dr. Jamison joined the faculty at New Brunswick in 1956 and
became President of this Reformed Church Seminary in 1963.

259
a “wholly undemocratic advantage to the smaller presbyteries in de-
ciding the policy of the denomination.” Theoretically, eighty votes
properly placed within the seventeen smallest Presbyteries, or*b per
cent of the 1,970 possible votes, could.block union under a.gggblg
three-fourths voting requirement. As it was, the votes not being
this ideally placed, a 15 per cent minority had defeated the union
movement in the United Presbyterian Church.

Dr. Jamison had a point. By applying the same method to the
Reformed Church vote, one finds that 26 per cent of the delegates in
each of the eleven smallest Classes or 3.99 per cent of the 1,219
delegates could have defeated this union. Only 6.8 per cent of the
delegates located in eleven of the western Classes actually in opposi-
tion could have defeated any union movement under these special voting
regulations. A double two-thirds voting regulation would only raise
the theoretical minimum.necessary to have defeated this union to 6.2
per cent of the total delegates. Actually the opposition cast 49 per
cent of the total delegate vote in 1950, more than enough to defeat
this approach by either the special voting requirements adopted or the
single two-thirds rule required by the Reformed Church in America's
Constitution.

The exercise in statistics continued when the General Synod
assembled at Buck Hill Falls on Mey 19, 1950. The report of the Church
Union Committee listed the result of the vote in each Classis and
Presbytery. Nineteen Eastern Classes but not a single one of the
sixteen Wbstern Classes had approved this union. According to the
three-fourths rule seven Eastern Classes had also been opposed though

two of these had favored the Plan by the constitutional two-thirds

260

requirement. Thirty-one Presbyteries in the United States and all
eleven foreign voting Presbyteries had favored this union. Nineteen,
predominately west of the Allegheny Mountains, were listed as opposed
though six of these also exceeded their constitutional two-thirds
requirement. While acknowledging that the vote results ended the plans
for consummation of the union, the statistics quoted tried to leave the
impression that both a majority of the Classes and of the total Reformed
Church classical delegates had favored union. By basing these statis-
tics on a simple majority this could just barely be shown; actually,
under the voting regulations agreed upon, only 45.2 per cent of the
Classes and 68.9 per cent of the voting Presbyteries had approved of
this union. Upon the instigation of the Committee, a fraternal greet-
ing, coupled with an expression of gratitude for the fellowship enjoyed
and a pledge of continuing co-operation, was sent to the Uhited Presby-
terian Church.

The Classis of Ulster overtured unsuccessfully for a union
vote by a constitutional two-thirds majority. It also evidenced a
dissatisfaction when it asked, regardless of the outcome of the vote,
for the right of churches singly or in groups which, ”sensing the
deep need for union with churches of kindred faith, may follow their
convictions by withdrawing from said union or uniting with affiliated
groups without loss of church property.'1uu This divisive motion was
denied and union was temporarily dead. The Church turned to other

interests.

Union was far from being a dead subject when the Uhited

 

l"“hhuuutes R.C.A., 1950, p. 115.

261

Prosbyterian Church met on June 14 at Musldngum College. The Commit-
tee on Bills and Overtures asked that the Plan of Union overture be
considered carried because "the vote far exceeds the requirement of
our current standards for constitutional change, from which we can
not legally depart. “145 The Conunittee on Church Relations produced
its statistics which they felt evidenced a changing attitude toward
acceptance of union with sister denominations. Three Presbyteries
had presented resolutions favoring negotiations with two Presbyterian
Churches (U.S.A. and U.S.) which had again reissued their invitation
to unite with them in the plan of union they were developing. The
General Assembly approved this move and also authorized further nego-
tiations for the readmission of that part of the Associate Reformed
Presbyterian Church which had failed to enter their union of 1858.
It expressed the "earnest hope that at an appropriate time in the
future they [the Reformed Churcfl may wish to reopen negotiations
looking toward the organic union of our two bodies."]-l"6

Once again the Reformed Church in America had been involved
in a serious but unsuccessful union approach. The vote climaxed
six years of deliberate and spiritually invigorating negotiations on
the part of varied Joint Committee members. Failure resulted
basically because of the apathy of a sizeable segment of the member-
ship within each Church and the evidence of a good deal of negative
thinking on the part of others. The tendency was to think more of
what one night lose through this proposed union instead of what one

might bring to it. That apathy should play a part is not hard for

 

145mm... U.P.C.-ILA” 1950. p. 830.
1“6mm” p. 791+.

262
most Americans to accept when even their most important national
elections never cause more than 70 per cent of the eligible electorate
to vote.

The Reformed Church opponents of the movement are quick to
point out that both churches failed to vote their agreement of this
union. Yet only the special extra-constitutional voting requirements,
hesitantly accepted, prevented the united Presbyterians from registering
their approval. Indeed, 85 per cent of the presbyterial delegates
voted favorably and even the total number of Presbyteries might have
reached the required 75 per cent except ”that many of our last voting
presbyteries registered negative or insufficiently affirmative simply
because they knew from reports that had filtered through that the
Reformed Church vote had already defeated the issue.~1“7 A second
factor in the defeat of the Plan of Union by this church was the vote
of those who feared its consummation might block efforts for further
union with more natural Presbyterian brethren.

As for the Reformed Church, it simply was not ready for this
union in 1950. The reasons for the 55 per cent negative vote by the
Classes are more complex. Besides the previously noted apathy, the
following reasons can be noted:

1. The overwhelming and stereotyped opposition within the
thtern branch of the church.

2. The fear and/or conviction that one union leads to another.

3. The lack of unity within the Church.

a. Thctical errors of the union committees and proponents.

 

147wtor1e1,~mmneuon on the Failure of Union,” Church
Union Herald, June 4, 1950, p. #.

263
The overwhelming opposition of the Nest is evident from their
classical vote, for only one of these sixteen Classes (California) cast

even a 50 per cent vote in favor of union.148

The Classis of Mhskegon
had the lowest percentage favoring union and serves as an example of
the difficulty of evaluating classical votes. At its spring Classis
meeting, April 10-11, 1950, an unofficial poll of its congregations
showed about 17 per cent of their membership and a little over 8 per
cent of their consistory members favored union; yet the official

149

recorded vote was 4 per cent. Perhaps this calls into question the
representative nature of the delegates to Classis who are selected
frequently either on a rotation basis or simply one of availability.
Such delegates, for lack of preparation or experience, are generally
dominated by their minister's views.

The Western opposition sprang from varied sources and apparently
increased as the negotiations proceeded, for both the Classes of Grand
Rapids and Wisconsin had initially overtured for this union in 1945.

Dr. Winfield Burggraaff had correctly predicted in 1946 that the anti-

union votes would hinge basically on ”small personal reasons,” especially
the fact that ”we feel at home in our little Reformed Church."150
Emotionalism played a large partLin the defeat of this union. A.small,

hard core group rejected all union as a threat to the name and.heritage

 

“absentee R.C.A.. 1950. pp. 148-49. lists the resultS- Th1“
is twice the number of western Classes in existence as when union with
the German Reformed Church was defeated in 1893.

1["9These unpublished ”Minutesr as is true with the majority of
the classical minutes particularly in the west, remain in the custody
of the Stated Clerk of the Classis rather than being published or on
deposit at the Church Archives.

15oSu ra, p. 26. This also recalls the similar observances of
the retiring Presidents of the General Synod in 1943 and 19hh, su ra,
p. 20

26h

of this beloved denomination; a second group, and the members over-
lapped, saw liberalism everywhere and feared the truth as they under-
stood it to be too weak to hold its own unless isolated; a third group
did not fear the orthodoxy of the proposed partner, but while it found
nothing to condemn, it also found nothing to commend this union. All
three agreed that neither Christ nor the world situation demanded or-
ganic union and felt co-operation could achieve all the advantages of
union without its required sacrifices.

many of the doubts and fears evidenced above were based on the
belief that this union would be but the first step to further, even
less desirable Presbyterian unions. These fears were not entirely
groundless. The Reformed Church Union Committee had stressed the
necessity of keeping the negotiations free from other union proposals
and the United Presbyterian Church could honestly state after 19”?
that no other unions were officially being considered. Yet their
church papers carried articles calling for more natural or additional
unions with fellow Presbyterians. Eflitor Graves of the Church Union
figggld supported this union but also additional unions. Editor Edie of
the united Presbyterian failed to write a single editorial supporting
this union but was an ardent proponent of a Presbyterian union. Editor
Benes of the Church Herald, the Reformed Church paper, doubted the
wisdom of this union because of the likelihood of additional unions
developing. This was the most consistent and important reason advanced
hy.the leading opponents of the 1950 union for their negative
attitude.1151

151m: is borne out in the numerous articles in the Church

265

A third factor was the lack of unity within the Church. The
steady flow of Dutch immigrants during much of this century had.in-
creased the number of Classes in the West and insured their control
by what they considered a conservative and orthodox element. This
Western element suspected the more Americanized East of liberalism and
questioned its doninant control of the boards of the Church. The con-
troversies over continued membership in the then Federal Council of
Churches and Professor MacLean's orthodozqr in turn made other positions
held by the Eastern branch, including its support of this union move-
ment, suspect. This lack of unity was obvious to many, including the
United Presbyterians. At first the West had talked of possible schism
but toned down its references after concessions on voting and retention
of property were made. By 1950, rumblings of dissatisfaction and
secession were being heard in the East instead (Ulster overture). This
lack of unity tended to give sectional spokesmen such as the Revs. Bast
and Hager increased influence beyond the merit of their contentions
that Union meant an overcentralization of authority and a social con-
tamination. Nevertheless, the appeal to delay union until after the
Reformed Church had I‘set its own house in order" was basically a
diversionary and an anti-union move and had been correctly identified
as such by the Union Coxlnxz'l.ttee.152 There is and always has been a

spectrum of opinions and views in every denomination which never

 

Herald, in the printed results of various Classis meetings, in the
pamphlets of the Union Comnittee and substantiated by personal letters
and interviews initiated by the author.

152Information on the Plan of Union with the United Presby-
terian Church of North America, p. .

266
completely disappears. The East itself revealed a disunity when the
upper Hudson Valley and the PattersonpNewark area rejected the pros
posed.union. The conservative nature of much of the Rochester Classis
was well known while Dutch immigration since 1880 into the Classis of
Passaic had temporarily reversed the pattern of Americanization there.
Newark's opposition is harder to classify though a desire for union
with the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) may have been a contributing
factor.

The alert union committees (l9fl5-h9) had managed to avoid or
negate three of the five reasons responsible for the defeat of the
German.Reformed approach in 1893, but still tactical mistakes occurred.
The efficiency and.enthusiasm of this Joint Committee led to the
creation of a time schedule designed to lead to a final union vote in
19h8. This created the feeling in some minds that the Church was
being rushed into a union by an.interested.few. The Committee pre-
sented a skeleton Plan of Uhion in l9h6 primarily because this method
had worked in the 1858 formation of the United Presbyterian Church.
This was an error on the part of the Reformed Church committee meme
bers. The cautious nature of many members of their Church might have
been expected to lead to a demand for the spelling out of all aspects
of this union prior to a final vote. This demand did arise and
necessitated a two year delay in the final vote, which in turn ruined
much of the value of an earlier intense presentation of information
about the two churches. The program ended in May 19’+7, almost three
years before the decisive balloting. The practice of printing the
early results while the balloting is still in progress frequently

reveals trends that affect those who still must vote. While this

267
practice conceivably could be advantageous to either side depending
upon the circumstances, it worked to the disadvantage of the pro-union
forces in this particular decision.

Perhaps the greatest single error was the acceptance by the
Committee of the precedent of a multi three-fourths voting majority
to officially consummate the union. The determination of Dr. Shafer
and others to have sufficient unanimity to avoid a schism was admirable
but probably less drastic voting concession could have been made. A
further contributing factor may have been the failure to adequately
recognize the spectrum of views in the Reformed Church in America and
to select both the personnel and the arguments attuned to these
special areas when presenting the Plan of Union.

It is questionable whether any Reformed Church committee, even
by avoiding the above pitfalls, could have successfully promoted a
union in 1950. Initially the lack of acquaintance between the two
churches was felt to be the main obstacle to union. The geographic
separation of their congregations seriously impeded this program
despite the best efforts of the Committee. On the other hand, one
of the chief advantages of union, the conservation of membership and
ministers in a mobile age, apparently exerted little influence on the

final vote.153 No amount of reasoning or contact had any real effect

153During the period of these negotiations, the R.C.A. re-
ceived 33 ministers from other denominations and released 53 ministers
to other denominations. Of these 22 arrived from Presbyterian pul-
pits and 40 departed to become Presbyterian pastors. It is impossible
to tell by comparing the Minutes R.C.A. how many Reformed Church
members were lost to the Church or to what extent the Church had.been
infused by those raised in other denominations. The author, raised in
the Reformed Church in America, is for the second time a geographic
Presbyterian and has thrice worshipped with other denominations for
varying lengths of time owing to the restricted size of his natal
ChurChe

268
on the mindpset of the West.

The vote in 1950 provided the answer to the questions the
editor of the Church Herald had asked four years earlier:

Are we of the Reformed Church in earnest about union with
the United Presbyterians, or only toying with the idea? Are
we willing to surrender our wills, and forget our plans,
whether they favor or oppose union, for the larger sake of
the program of God? Are we interested enough to give time
and thought to this matter, and open minded enough to con-
sider it impartially without prejudice115l"

The answer of the Reformed Church had been an obvious "No!”

15“Apr11 26, 19%, p. 5.

CHAPTER VII
CONCLUSION

Very little in the way of Protestant ecumenism took place
from the time of the Synod of Dort in 1619 until the century surveyed
in this study. The various national Protestant churches were rela-
tively content to live apart, as were most of the multi-denominational
groupings within such countries as the United States of America.
During this period, prior ecumenical and unionist tendencies finally
bloomed forth in the form of national and international conferences,
alliances, federations and other visible forms of co-operation and
union. The formation of the Wbrld Council of Churches of Christ in
1948 was perhaps the outstanding example of the fact that the forces
of Protestantism were "now beginning to find . . . that they belonged
together."1 These tendencies, while not as animated within the
Reformed Church in America as in many of its sister churches, never
ceased to exist and to seek expression in the years from 1850 to 1950.

This predominately Americanized Eastern church had already
forfeited by 1850 any hopes of being a major denomination. For too
long a time its eyes looked eastward to the Netherlands rather than

westward to the moving frontier. Though it had overcome a prolonged

 

1Howard G. Hageman, lily;Among the Thorns (New Ybrk: Curricu-
lum Committee of the Board of Education of the Reformed Church in
America, 1953), pe lme

269

270
usage of the Dutch language and a shortage of ministers, its influence
within American Protestantism continued to decline.2 The contribution
of a few outstanding individual leaders could not reverse this trend in
a church which hesitated to expand unless a nucleus of Dutchmen could
be found. This practice was not actually modified until after Wbrld
War II.

The first half century began auspiciously enough from an ecu-
menical standpoint. The 1850 union with the thousand member Holland
Classis of western Michigan gave new emphasis to the tardy attempt to
create a Western branch of the Church. The newly created international
EVangelical Alliance received denominational endorsement, while in 1875
membership in the world-wide Presbyterian Alliance began which has con-
tinued to the present. During the latter half of the nineteenth century
numerous individual members participated in interdenominational Christian
bodies for the betterment of society and the evangelization of the world.

Yet the Union of 1850 proved to be the sole union achieved not

only during this first half century but the entire one hundred years

 

2Theodore Brinckerhoff, I'A.M’anifesto Advocating Merger of the
Reformed and Presbyterian Churches" (Whppingers Falls, New York: by
the author, 1962), p. 2. The Rev. Brinckerhoff's persistent advocacy
of union with the former Northern Presbyterians is reminiscent of the
role played by the Rev. William veenschoten in the 1880s. In the above
four page paper which he sent to all the Church's ministers, he claimed
the R.C.A. in 1959 constituted only a minor 4.6% segment of the limited
ReformedpPresbyterian family. Others feel the decline in the R.C.A.'s
influence can be attributed as much to a lack of productive scholarship
within the Church as to its smallness of size. This viewpoint was
stressed during an interview with the Rev. Bert Brower, former Director
of Adult work, R.C.A., July 2, 196#; M. Eugene Osterhaven, “Prospects
of Calvinism,” American Calvinism, ed. Jacob T. Hoogstra (Grand Rapids,
Mich.: Baker Book House, 1957), p. 132, suggests the fear of non-
conformity may have caused this hesitation to research and publish.

271
investigated. This apparent absorption of an immigrant Dutch Classis
actually provides one of the keys to an understanding of why the Reformed
Church in America had never achieved another union. While both sections
of the Church grew numerically, the slowato-Americanize west grew at a
much faster rate and continued to spread geographically.3 This newest
section brought ”a theological zeal and.vigorous churchmanship which
imparted new vitality to the denomination as a whole, but did not
notably improve the situation of the older eastern churches."u Although
it was a revitalizing force in the Church, the full benefits of this
new growth failed to be realized owing to the schisms which shook the
west in 1857 and 1882 and the growing dichotomy of the sections. Not
only did the proposed bridging of the geographical gap fail to take
place, but a growing theological gap emerged after the western section
developed educational institutions of its own. These institutions were
expected to produce an orthodox leadership for the western churches and
to enable the Church to compete with the Christian Reformed Church.in

gaining adherents from among the incoming numbers of Dutch immigrants.

 

3The following statistics trace the growth of these two sec-
tions in terms of Classes:

1851 - 24 Eastern Classes and 1 western Classis

1900 - 26 Eastern Classes and 9 western Classes

1950 - 26 Eastern Classes and 16 western Classes

1963 - 23 Eastern Classes and 23 western Classes
By 1963 the west had surpassed the East in the number of churches but
still did not contain quite one half of the communicant membership.

“Brinckerhoff, op. cit. The Rev. Brinckerhoff feels the Re-
formed Church, as such, had already become irrelevant, and.was well on
the way to merger with the Presbyterians by the mid-18003 when the
arrival of the new Dutch immigrants in the Midwest halted this merger.
This is an interesting hypothesis but the greater mobility of the coun-
try's citizens since the 18505 and the less competitive nature of de-
nominationalism may have fostered this feeling of irrelevancy among
numbers of Eastern pastors at a more recent date. The western branch

can not be held directly responsible for thwarting the 1870-74 approach
though its opposition has been very real in the twentieth century.

272

What in 1850 appeared to be an absorption was rapidly achieving
a different complexion by 1950. The leadership of the Church appeared
to be passing slowly into the hands of those raised or educated in the
west. One evidence of this trend has been the fact that the chief ex-
ecutive office in the Church, that of the Stated Clerk, had been in
their hands since the 19405.5 Although the Western birth of these
Stated Clerks did not automatically predestine their beliefs and
actions, it insured that the positions and attitudes evidenced in the
west were understood and weighed.

In the century studied, the Church's record of union activity
was not a very active ledger. It was the threat of an absorption
rather than a union which ended the discussions with the much larger
Northern Presbyterians in 1870-7% and 1929-31. Mainly for geographical
reasons, the Reformed Church failed to actively seek more than co-
operation with the Southern Presbyterians. In only two instances in
one hundred.years had this cautious denomination presented union plans
for the approval of its lower courts and each time the western opposi-
tion proved to be the largest obstacle.

After more than a century of predominately friendly relations

and six years of negotiation, a Plan of Federal Uhion with the German

5The Rev. James E. Hoffman was elected to this office in 1943
and was succeeded by the Rev. thion de Velder in 1961. As for
future leadership, the majority of the students and faculties at the
R.C.A.'s two theological seminaries are graduates of the denomina-
tion's three Midwestern colleges. Statistics for 1965-66 obtained
through correspondence with the presidents of these two seminaries
reveals that at New Brunswick 2“ of its students were educated at
these western.institutions, 8 at Rutgers and 15 elsewhere. At
western the respective figures are an overwhelming 60-1-18. The
figures for faculty members are as follows: New Brunswick, 3-0-6; at
western, 9-1—1.

273
Reformed Church received the known approval of over two-thirds of the
Classes in 1892. A technicality and the vigorous opposition of the
minority west, coupled with the possibility of a wider Painresbyterian
union, postponed the necessary General Synod enabling vote for one
year. Closing further its own ranks and rejecting amendments assuring
the Dutch Church's individuality, the west intimidated by threat of
schism a sufficient number of Eastern Classes to reject the union in
1893. Never again did the German Reformed Church, which had given its
overwhelming approval. consider seriously the Reformed Church in‘
America as a prospective union partner. This attitude was particularly
evident after Dr. George Richards, a leading German Reformed ecumenist,
became in 1917 the chief union negotiator for his church.

The proposed union, which seemed such a constructive step in
the nineteenth century, could have provided the geographical bridge
between the two sections of the Church. A.proposed union with the
United Presbyterian Church of North America, voted down in 1950,
probably could have provided a theological, as well as geographical,
bridge. However, the tremendous progress in communications during the
first half of the twentieth century mitigated this necessity. The
ecumenical movement, missions, and the new wave of immigrants to
Canada had broadened the geographical interests of both sections of the
Reformed Church, but their differences persisted. By this time the
western branch totaled more than a third of the denomination. By
voting as a solid block at the classical level, the west could now
prevent any further union with other denominations, even without
special multi-majority voting concessions. This actually happened in

1950, when all sixteen western Classes rejected this union while

274

73.1 per cent of the Eastern Classes approved it despite the obstructive
and non-constitutional voting arrangement. In addition, the inability
to really get acquainted at the grassroots level of these two denomina-
tions led to an apathy which tended to favor the proponents of the
status quo. Lack of an adequate acquaintance was not as much of a
factor in the Eastern sections of the Church for wherever there is
great mobility there is a type of local ecumenicity as far as denomina-
tional lines are concerned. Some areas of the East in 1950 preferred
a union with the better-known Northern Presbyterians. The pro-unionist
Rev. T. Brinckerhoff sums it up this way: ”These churches have con-
tinued to stand on a sort of 'dead center,‘ awaiting the time when the
newer Dutch constituency would be ready to enter the main stream.of
American Calvinism as represented by the Presbyterians."6 The west
still seems content to recognize only the need for Christian co-opera-
tion while rejecting any necessity for organic union.7

Though written six years after the failure of the federal
union effort between the German and Dutch Reformed Churches, the words
of the German Reformed historian, Professor James I. Good, still are

relevant.

How often it happens that the nearer two denominations
are together, the farther they are apart. The closer
toward union that denominations come, the larger become
the few remaining differences. Mble hills are exaggerated
into mountains, until the union is prgvented, not by great
differences but by petty divergences.

éBrinckerhoff, op. cit.

7The debate over the interpretation of Christ's prayer for unity
(John 17:21) and the necessity of organic unions still occupies the in-
terest of churchmen beyond the boundaries of the R.C.A. See Christianity
Today, November 5, 1965, p. 4.

 

8James I. Good, History of the Reformed Church in the United

275
The Rev. Wayne Christy, after studying the successful union effort of
the United Presbyterian Church of North America in 1858 and the sub-
sequent unsuccessful union effort of the next ninety years, reached the
same conclusion. He stressed the need to avoid emphasizing small
details and to unite on the basis of a rather generalized plan because
I'the newly formed church is a distinctly new organization, not just a
sum of two existing groups. Accordingly the new body should determine
for itself what its policy should be.”9 The Reformed Church in America
had proven to be too cautious and too self-centered to debate other than
a detailed plan of union, even then dwelling consistently on what might
be lost through union rather than what she might bring to a union.
Emotionalism.has indeed enlarged Professor Good‘s mole hills on the
infrequent and selective occasions on which the Church has seen fit
to conduct serious negotiations. The fear of liberalism, the loss of
their distinct heritage and, to some members, the loss of a distinct
mission provide the chief bases for this emotionalism. Other factors
which negatively influenced union sentiment have been differences in
social customs (including membership in secret societies), disunity
within the negotiating bodies, and faulty methods in negotiating.

Rejection of union has not caused a cessation of curiosity

States: 1225,1292 (Reading, Penna.: Daniel Miller, 1899). p. 478.

9wayne H. Christy, ”The United Presbyterian Church and Church
Union" (unpublished.Ph.D. dissertation, university of PittSburgh,
l9h7), p. 279. This type of plan was employed when the united Presby-
terian Church united with the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. in
1958. The proposed Presbyterian Confession of 1967 is an attempt to
complete the details pertinent to consummating this act of organic
union and is also a legitimate attempt to restate a 317 year old
standard in terms relevant for the present.

276
about the growing ecumenical movement nor halted a general willingness
to co-operate if the Reformed Church's identity is not endangered..
Despite the suspicions of part of its membership, the Church readily
joined the Federal Council of Churches of Christ in America, its
successor the National Council of Churches and also the werld Council
of Churches. Its continued membership in the latter two has never
been seriously challenged. It currently participates in the Lutheran-
Reformed groups' exploration of areas of theological agreement and
differences which have been held since 1962.10 Reformed Church
ministers have normally co-operated in local ministeriums, some of
which are engaged in a Protestant-Catholic dialogue. The Church
recently went beyond the old community church concept, which merely
submerged the denominational name, when they agreed with four major
denominations to ”jointly sponsor an 'Ecumenical Congregation' in the
newly planned community known as Sterling Forest, in Orange County,
New York."11 This attempt to create a single strong church through
an ecumenical action is a sharp departure from the former comity idea
of non-competitive allocation of new unchurched areas.

The attitude of the Reformed Church toward ecumenicity on

 

10The Presbyterian Outlook, March 30, 1964, p. 3, explains
that this dialogue is aimed solely at a theological relationship, and
neither various types of fellowship or organic union are the immediate
objectives. This partially explains the R.C.A.'s presence and even
more fully the presence of the Christian Reformed Church and the Ortho-
dox Presbyterian Church.

11"5 Churches Have Vital Agreement,” The Daily News (Hunting-
don, Pa.), February 19, 1966, p. 3. The other participating denomina-
tions are the United Church of Christ, the Lutheran Church in America,
the Methodist Church and the United Presbyterian Church, U.S.A. The
idea had been pioneered by the previous co-operation of some of these
churches in interdenominational churches located near university
campuseSe

277

what was formerly known as the foreign mission field has diverged from
the attitudes being expressed by the Church in the United States. The
dictates of a non-Christian environment prompted more ready acceptance
of co-operation and even unions, despite a consequent loss of the
Reformed name and a loss of mission fields themselves. Today the Church
has no singular mission effort. A listing of the world mission efforts
reveals the extent of the trend.

In Africa the Church functions in association with the Church
of Christ in the Upper Nile;

In Arabia the Church functions with the Christian congrega-
tions (Churches of Christ) in the Arabian Gulf;

In India the Church functions in association with the Church
of South India;

In Iraq the Church functions in association with Christian
congregations in Iraq and the United Missions in Iraq;

In Japan the Church functions in association with the United
Church of Christ in Japan;

In Mexico the Church functions in association with the
Presbyterian Church;

With the Overseas Chinese - in association with the United
Church of Christ in the Philippines, the Hong Kong Council of the
Church of Christ in China, the Presbyterian Church in Formosa, the
Malaya-Singapore Synod of the Chinese Christian Church.

Despite the fact that missionaries and concern for missions
played a leading role in the organization of the modern ecumenical

movement, not all Reformed Church missionaries favored the union

movements conducted by their Church in the United States.

278

In the midst of the negotiations with the United Presby-
terians, a Reformed Church pastor, the Rev. A. Nelson Doak (Long
Island), posed a question which has remained unanswered to the pre-
sent, namely, "If we can't unite with the United Presbyterian Church,
with whom can we unite?"12 Besides predicting the failure of the
proposed union, he evidenced a concern that this might be the Church's
last chance to unite with another denomination. It is true that both
the German Reformed and the United Presbyterians found more willing
partners but the latter fear proved unwarranted. In 1961 the General
Synod received overtures from four Eastern Classes for talks looking
toward union with various Presbyterian churches.13 By 1962 the newly
created Executive Committee under the continuous leadership of the
Stated Clerk decided to concentrate on an approach to the Southern
Presbyterians. These negotiations commenced and a union vote is
projected for 1970.

Despite the optimism in some quarters within the Church, the
Rev. Doak's question probably will not be positively answered at that
time. Whatever the outcome of this current union approach, it is
very unlikely that the Reformed Church in America can long maintain
both its current distinct identity and its present degree of unity.

The idea of union refuses to die, while the possibility of disunion

12"Letters to the Editor," Church Herald, May 2, 1947. p. 11+.

13The Acts and Proceedings of the General Synod of the
Reformed Church in America for 1961 (New York: Department of
Publication and Sales, Reformed Church in America, 1961), pp. 135-36.
Three additional Eastern Classes sought discussion or action leading
to multi-denominational mergers as proposed by Dr. Eugene Carson
Blake in his sermon of December h, 1960 in Grace Cathedral, San
Francisco.

279
has been suggested by elements in each of the major sections of the
Church.

While it is obvious that the ecumenical movement has definitely
affected the Reformed Church, it is equally apparent that the Reformed
Church as such has little affected the continuing ecumenical movement.
The central question raised in the ”Introduction” was whether the
Reformed Church in America would attempt to meet the growing religious
needs of the United States individually or together with other
churches. The answer throughout the study has been a consistent
pattern of co-operation with other denominations locally, nationally
and internationally, both collectively and on a more individualized
basis. So far the Church has evidenced the belief that the "togetherb
ness' required to witness to modern man in the mid-twentieth century
does not require the sacrifices inherent in the closer ties of
organic union.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

UNPUBLISHED MATERIAL
Primary

De Baun, John A. "Articles of Constitution and Federal Union of
Denominations Holding the Reformed Faith and the Presbyterial
Form of Church Government. " Fonda, New York: By the author,
1890.
An inclusive plan by an Eastern pastor of the Dutch
Reformed Church adjusted so as to encourage union negotiations
with the German Reformed Church on a federative basis.

Kieffer, J. Spangler. Personal diary from Mhrch 15, 1887-Merch 15,
1890. (MS.) At the Historical Society of the Evangelical and
Reformed Church, Lancaster, Pennsylvania (Franklin and Marshall
College library).

This diary, but recently opened to the researcher, contains
several interesting observations on the Dutch and German
Reformed Churches' explorations of union possibilities though
its lack of exact dates or page numbers is an obstacle in its
us‘gOe

Kuyper Papers (Lester J.). Beardslee Library, western Theological
Seminary, Holland, Michigan.
At the time of its release in 1964 this was the most
complete and valuable collection of union committee minutes
and letters for the 19h5-50 period.

"Minutes of the Classes of the Reformed Church in America.”

This fruitful but uneven source of information is much
more productive than the Minutes of the Particular Synods but
the decentralized custody of many of the more recent minutes
by the classical stated clerks limits their availability.

"Report of the Committee on Church union to the Classis of Grand
Rapids at a Special Session, Grand Rapids, Nichigan, Novem-
ber 15, 19118. (Mimeographedd

A.brief but excellent discussion of the pros and.oons
of union with the United Presbyterians which provides a good
insight into the opposition to union in the western branch of
the Church.

Taylor File ('nleophilus Mills ) . Pittsburgh Theological Seminary
library.
Similar to the Kuyper Papers but less complete in regards
to union committee minutes and the number of personal letters.

280

281
Secondary

Christy, wayne H. ”The United Presbyterian Church and Church Union.”
Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, 1947.
Though it fails to cover the last three years of the
Uhited Presbyterian-Reformed Church approach, this well
written study gives a perceptive evaluation of the general
barriers to church union on the part of the smaller conserva-
tively inclined denominations.

Harmelink, Herman III. "Christian Uhity and Church Union: a Study
of the Ebumenical Approach of the Reformed Church in America.”
Unpublished M.S.T. dissertation, Uhion Theological Seminary
(New York), 1964.

An admirable master's dissertation written by an
Eastern pastor stressing both the Church's ecumenical leader-
ship on the mission field and the stalemate that prevails
between the two sections of the Church in the Uhited States.

Hoffman, James E. "A Digest of Synodical Legislation of the Reformed
Church in America: 1938-1957.” Gardner Sage Library, New
Brunswick Theological Seminary, New Brunswick, New Jersey.
(memttene )

A rather brief and terse index of the Mnutes of the
Church.

Ingham, J. A. ”A.Digest of Constitutional and Synodical Legislation
of the Reformed Church in America: 1906-1936." Gardner Sage
Library, New Brunswick Theological Seminary, New Brunswick,
New Jersey. (Typewritten.)

Kromminga, John. ”The Christian Reformed Church: a Study in Ortho-
doxy.“ unpublished Th.D. dissertation abstract, Princeton
Theological Seminary, 1999.

A conceptual preparation for the use of Dr. Kromminga's
book by the same title.

Ponniah, Sam. ”The Contribution of the Reformed Church in America
to the Church of South India.” Unpublished Master's disserta-
tion, western Theological Seminary, 196“.
A good example of the Reformed Church's willingness to
units on the mission field.

Wissink, Charles J. 'Uhitive and Divisive Movements within the Re-
formed Church in America." Unpublished M;S.T. dissertation,
Uhion Theological Seminary (New York), 1965.

A.rather generalized coverage of the entire period of
the Church's existence in North America with the major
emphasis being the author's conviction that there is a divine
imperative for church union.

Yoder, Donald H. ”Church Uhion.Efforts of the Reformed Church in the
United States to 1934.” Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,

282

deer, Donald H. “Church union Efforts of the Reformed Church in the
United States to 193“.” Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
University of Chicago, l9h7.
A.very informative work on the former German Reformed
Church whose particular value is its coverage of the period
1870-1920 and its excellent bibliography.

OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS

The:Agts and Proceedings of the General §z§od of the Reformed Church
in America. New Ybrk: Board of Publication of the Re 0
Church in America, 178“, 1792-1962. This Church was formerly
known as the Reformed Protestant Dutch Church; the publication
is now done by the Department of Publication . . .

Though the details of the General Synod debates are not

reproduced these annual Minutes provide the essential facts
and the reference source for this study.

 

Bate, H. N. (ed.) Eaith and Order: Proceedings of the Wbrld Con-
ference: Lausanne, August 3-12, 1927. London: Student
Christian Mbvement, 1927.

This source has little value to this study except to

record the Reformed Church's presence and interest in the
movement.

Board of Domestic Missions. Annual Report of the_§oard of Domestic
s of the e 0 ed otestant Dutch Ch ch to the
General Syn . New York: Board of Publication of the
Reformed Protestant Dutch Church, 1849-59.
These reports fill in the sparse outline of the early
growth of the immigrant churches in the west as found in the
Church's Minutes.

Classis of Holland. glgggis Hgllgggg Minutes 18h8-l8§§. Translated
by the Joint Committee of the Christian Reformed Church in
America and the Reformed Church in America with an introduction
by Albertus Pieters. Grand.Rapids, Michigan: Grand Rapids
Printing Co., l9h3.

The official record of this Classis' union with the

Rgformed Protestant Dutch Church in 1850 and its schism of
1 57.

Conference Committee. anerenge on Mon Between the Reformed
Church in America and the Reformed Church in the United States.
Philadelphia: Reformed Church Publishing House, 1888.
A.major source containing not only all the prepared
speeches for this important 1888 conference but indicating
when debate occurred and.its substance.

     

- e. e- V... ‘ ;"-_ge ' Jr -'
Uhited_§tates of America. Philadelphia Presbyterian
Board of Publication, 1869-1930.

283

These Minutes served primarily as a check against the
committee reports made at various times to the Reformed Church
and also offered insight into the mood of this church both
during and after the several union approaches.

Minutes of the General Assembly of the UnitedePresbxterian Church of
North America. Pittsburgh: United Presbyterian Board of
Publication and Bible School work, 1929, 19h4-50.

The State of Religion messages and the overtures from

the Presbyteries best revealed the similarities and differences
between the two churches.

Minutes of the General Synod of the Reformed_§hurch_ig;the united
tate . Philadelphia: Reformed Church Publishing House,
18 6-93 and 1923-29.
One of the few sets of Minutes to include the speeches
of fraternal delegates and an especially valuable source
during the latter third of the nineteenth century.

Minutes Of the Particular §|2R0d Of lone nope, none, 1%9e
Theserhinutes and those of the other Particular Synods
of the Reformed Church in America generally were very barren,
lacking detail and frequently even failing to record overtures
they were forwarding to the General Synod.

Plan of Union: 19fl9. n.p., Joint Committee on Union of the Reformed
Church in America and the united Presbyterian Church of North
Ammo" 1%90

The final plan voted upon and rejected in 1950.

Proposed Plan of Union, n.p., Joint Committee on Union of the Reformed
Church in America and the united Presbyterian Church of North
Am.r1ca,[19u6] .

The first plan drawn up but recommitted to the Committee
because of its lack of detail.

Report of act- din
Synod of the Reformed Church in_America. n.p., n.n., 1929.
An excellent review of the previous attempts at union by
the Reformed Church in America and the twentieth century
efforts of American Protestantism.

Revised_§lan of Union: l9h8. n.p., Joint Committee on union of the
Reformed Church in America and the United Presbyterian Church
of North America, 19h8.

A tentative plan put forth to solicit criticism and
suggested amendments.

State of New York. Ec esiasti e s .
vol. I of VII. Cempiled by Hugh Hastings. Albany: James B.
Lyon, State Printer, 1901.
Particularly good in establishing the position of the
Dutch Reformed Church under both Dutch and English rule.

28#

United Presbyterian Church of North America. Book of Government and
ngghip, Pittsburgh: Board of Publication and Bible School
work, 1926.
USed to substantiate a single point on the legality of a
purely straw vote on a proposed union by the Presbyteries.

PAMPHLETS

Address of Mr. Robert E. Speer, delegate from the General Assembly of
the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A, to the General §ygod of
thg_Reformed Church in America, Holland, Michigan, June 7,,1229.

A persuasive invitation to union.

This and the succeeding pamphlets can be located in the
Church union file, Gardner Sage Library, New Brunswick
Theological Seminary, New Brunswick, New Jersey.

Anderson, James. Church Marriage. New Ybrk: Press of Rogers and
Sherwood, 187“.
This emotional work shows the depth of feeling that
could be engendered in the Dutch Reformed Church over its
doctrine, heritage and name, even in a non-Dutch member.

Bast, Henry. An Appeal to the Ministers and Lamen 9;; the Chicago
as: Iowgggynods. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Don Van Osterberg,
l 7.
The question of composition and location of the Church's
administrative boards as well as continued membership in the
Federal Council of Churches were the two main debates pro-
voked by this pamphlet.

  
 

 
 

Brinckerhoff, Theodore. : : - -_
03b ri has 0
the author, 1962.

Though dismissed by some in the west as the work of an
incurable unionist, this manifesto strikes a sympathetic
response in some ministers in the East and deserves the study
of those concerned over the future of the Church.

A veteran Observer [William L. Brewer]. Organic Union Not flavored.
11.1). 9 none , 1929e

    

       

P. \' °

Nappingers Falls, New’Iork:. By

  

. Some Thoughts on thg_Report of the Fact-Pinging Committee

a
n.p., n.n. l929 .

W. L. E. [William L. Browefl . Some Ihogghts on Organic Union. New
- York: By the author, 1930.

These three pamphlets were all written to thwart any
union movement with the largest Presbyterian Church in the
united States of America. .Mr. Brewer's anxiety may have been
more out of a concern for the Collegiate Church Corporation

than for the denomination per se.

285

Digggt of Facts. n.p., Joint Committee on Union of the Reformed
Church in America and the united Presbyterian Church of North
America, 1947.
A booklet to consolidate and preserve the comparisons
made of the two churches and the advantages of union previously
published in the two churches' papers.

How, Samuel. Slaveholdigg Not Sinful. New YOrk: J. A. Gray, 1855.
An attempt to remove the major obstacle to admittance
of the German.Reformed Classis of North Carolina to membership
in the Dutch Reformed Church.

Veenschoten, William. A Plan for Organic Union. n.p., n.n., 1887.

. ,Shguld_thg_fie§om Mgh wch in America Continue a
Seggrate Organization? Albany: Burdick and Taylor, Printers,
18

A presentation by reason and statistics to show that the
Reformed Church should unite with the Northern Presbyterians.

PERIODICALS

Christian Intelligencer (after 1922 the Christian Intelligencer and
Nflssion Field): 1839-1934.
A.majoF—source for this study and particularly valuable

for its detailed coverage of the Synodical debates.

Church Herald. 19hu-1966.
This unified successor to the Christian Intelli enm
and The Leader and currently the only official paper of the
Church has a propensity to provide a forum for its readers
rather than leadership when issues are being debated within
the Church.

Church union Herald. 19Q5-l950.

The least valuable of the two united Presbyterian
periodicals and one difficult to use containing neither a
table of contents nor an annual index.

DQJIQEQ- 1892-1893.
A.Dutch language weekly expressive of the views of the
slowly Americanizing elements in the western branch of the
Church and the focal point of opposition to church.union.

 

The Leader. 1928-1931.
This English language companion and the successor to
De Hope as the voice of the Host was not a very valuable
source during its existence from.1905—hh, except during the
union approach to the Northern Presbyterians.

286

United Presbyterian. 19144-1958.
During this period an increasing readiness for a Presby-
terian union becomes evident though proponents of union with
the Reformed Church were not denied access to its pages.

Articles

Apple, Thomas G. "The Union of the 'No Reformed Churches,” Reformed
Church Messegger, April 2, 1891, pp. 8-9.

”5 Churches Have Vital Agreement,” The Daily News (Huntingdon,
Pennsylvania), February 19, 196K, p. 3.

Frantz, John B. ”The Return to Tradition: an Analysis of the New
Measure Movement in the German Reformed Church," Pennsylvania
History-Quarterly, XXII (July, 19611,), 311-26.

Good, James I. ”General Synod of R.C.U.S.," The Presbyterian and
Reformed Review, June, 1893, p. 671+.

Hager, R. John. ”Gysbert Haan: a Study in Alienation,” Reformed
Journal, (in three parts) November, December, 1953 and
January, 1961}.

Heideman, Eugene. ”Reformed Ecumenicity, 1883-1893," Reformed
Review, XVIII, No. 1 (September, 1961*), 17-214'.

Kieffer, Henri L. G. ”Extracts from the Diary of J. Spengler Kieffer
Relating to the Reformed Church in the United States,”
Bulletin: Theolcgical Seminary of the Reformed Church in the
United States, I, No. 3 (191103: 33-39.

Klaus. "Timely Protest," The Sunday School Guide, February 23, 191W.
p. 5.

Levan, Franklin K. ”The Late Union Movement of the Two Reformed
Churches,” The Mercersburj Review, XXII (April, 1875), 239-58.
One of the few first-hand accounts of this final meeting
so inadequately described in the Church's Minutes.

”Lutheran-Reformed Group in Third Annual Meeting, " The Presbyterian
outIOOk’ erh 30, 196“, Pa 3e

Mathews, S. ”Protestantism, Democracy and Unity," Journal of
Religion, Ix (April, 1929), 183.

"Organic Church Union: Are Churchmen Ready7," Christianity Today,
November 5, 1965, pp. 4-5. 7-8.

Stob, George. 'Gysbert Ham and the Secession of 1857," Reformed
Journal, March, 1961+, p. 14.

287
INTERVIEWS

Grand Haven, Michigan. Personal interview with the Rev. Dr. Bert
Brower, former Director of Adult Work, Reformed Church in
America. July 2, 196+.

Lebanon Reformed Church, Lebanon, New Jersey. Personal interview with
the Rev. Dr. Thomas P. Haig. April 3, 19611».

New Brunswick, New Jersey. Personal interview with Professor Emeritus
Elton Hoffman. April 2, 1961+.

. Personal interview with the Rev. Dr. M. Stephen James,
former President of the New Brunswick Seminary. June 18, 1964.

New Brunswick Theological Seminary, New Brunswick, New Jersey.
Personal interview with Professor James Eelman. September 9,
1965.

Western Theological Seminary, Holland, Michigan. Personal interviews
with Professor Lester J. Kuyper. July, 1961‘ and July, 1965.

 

. Personal interview with Professor John H. Piet. July 7, 1965-

CORRESPONDENCE

Grand Haven, Michigan. Letter to the author from the Rev. Bert Van
Malsen. September 28, 1965.

Grandville, Michigan. letter to the author from the Rev. Jacob
Blaauw. September 8, 1965.
All additional letters quoted in this study are located
either in the Kuyper Papers, Western Theological Seminary or
the Church Union file, New Brunswick Theological Seminary.

BOOKS

Corwin, Edward T. flflst of Constitutional and Synodigal ngigla-
tion of the Reformiwm New York: Board of
Publication of the Reformed Church in America, 1906.

An exceptionally valuable and complete index listing a
wide number of subjects and containing selective quotes from
the mutes of the Church.

. A Manual of the Reformed Church in Ameriga: 16284992,,
4th ed. revised. New York: Board of Publication of the
Reformed Church in America, 1902.

The last and finest edition of those published over a
period of more than forty years by this outstanding historian
of the Church; a major source covering the growth of the Church
and its institutions as well as a lengthy biographical section
on its ministers, past and present.

288

Demarest, David W. The Reformed Church in Agrica: its Origin,
govelopment and Characteristics, Eth ed. New York: Board
of Publication of the Reformed Church in America, 1889.
A useful presentation of the pre-l850 period with in-
teresting statements on the Church's educational institutions
and the possibility of union with larger denominations.

Good, James I. Eton of the Reformed Church in the United States
in the Nineteenth Century. New York: Board of Publication
of the Reformed Church in America, 1911.
A conservatively inclined German Reformed historian who
extensively covered the development of the Mercerng Theology
and its consequences for his church.

Goodall, Norman. The Ecumenical Movement; What Itjgmd What It
Does. 2d ed. London: Oxford University Press, 1964.
A book directed at the layman with significant emphasis
on the attitudes and approaches evolved on the world mission
fields.

Hageman, Howard G. Lily Among the Thorns. New York: Curriculum
Committee of the Board of Education of the Reformed Church
in America, 1953.
An interestingly written history of the Reformed Church
in America which evidences a concern for what historically
are the true Reformed traditions the Church professedly supports.

Hutchison, John A. We Are Not Divided. New York: Round Table Press
Inc. ’ 1%1.
A sympathetic treatment of the origins and development
of the Federal Council of Churches of Christ in America.

Hyma, Albert. Albertus C. Van Raalte and His gatch Settlements in the
United States. Wand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans
Publishing COe, 19+?e

A fine presentation of Van Raalte's background and the
early struggles of the settlements in Western Mchigan, but
his later conclusions concerning Van Raalte and the establish-
ment of parochial school systems are somewhat debatable.

lCLein, Harry M. J. The sto
Church in the United States. Lancaster, Pennsylvania:
Eastern Synod, 1943.
A history of one of the major parts of the German Reformed
Church, mainly used to provide a balanced perspective to the

writings of other ministers and professors from this denomina-
tions

Kromninga, John. The Christian Refngmed Church: a gym in gthodgggz.
mm RBPidS, Mchlgfint Baker BOOk muse, 1%90
Probably the most lucid account of the beginnings of this
church by one of its own members, this work also offers a
logical explanation for the different development of the
Western and Eastern sections of the Reformed Church in America.

289

McNeill, John T. The History and Character of Calvinism. New York:
Oxford University Press, l95h.
A valuable book for the period prior to 1850 both in the
Netherlands and America but it fails to recognize the renewed
Calvinistic zeal brought by Dutch immigrants to the Midwest
after this period.

Rouse, Ruth and Neill, Stephen C. (eds.) A History pf the Ecumenical
Movemehh: 1517-1948. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1951;.
This is the official history of the founding of the World
Council of Churches but it also makes a contribution by trading
the development of organizations like the Presbyterian Alliance.

Russell, George B. Four Score and More. Philadelphia: By the author,
1 .

An autobiography by a German Reformed pastor whose strong
opinions and impressions are recorded concerning his involve-
ment in the 1874-75 and 1886-93 efforts at union with the
Dutch Reformed Church.

Tercentenary Studies 1928: Reformed Church in America: a Regard of
_B__eQ._nr_1;lngs. Compiled by the Tercentenary Committee on Research
and Publication. New York: Reformd Church in America, 1928.

A series of studies of 29 geographic areas within the
Church.

Van Eyck, mlliam O. The__‘ Union of 1850: a Collectign of Papers. Ed.
by the Permanent Committee on History and Research of the
General Synod of the Reformed Church in America. Grand Rapids,
Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1950.

The sources quoted in these papers show an exceptional
depth of research but the committee which published then post-
humously refused to endorse all the logic employed to prove
the schism of 1857 was totally unjustified.

The following were of lesser value:

Beets, Henry. The Christian Reformed Chprch: Its Roots, Elston,
Schools and Mission Work. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker
Book House, 1 .

Rinckerhoff, Jacob. The History of the True Reformeg Dutcwurch
1% the Uni_ted States of America. New York: E. B. Tripp,
l 73.

Brodhead, John R. History of thg State of N91 York. Vol. I: 1609-
166+. New York: Harper and Bros., 1853.

Brown, Mllard D. Higtom of the Beformg qurch in America. New
York: Board of Publication and Bible School Work of the
Reformed Gaurch in America, 1928.

290

Corwin, Charles E. A Manual of the Reformed Church in‘America:
1628-1222. 5th ed. revised. New York: Board of Publica-
tion and Bible School Work of the Reformed Church in
America, 1922.

Corwin, Edward T. A Mhhgal of the Reform

W
1628-1822. 3d ed. New York: Board of Publication of the
Reformed Church in America, 1879.

Crow, Paul A. The Ecumenical Movement in Biblioghaphicgl Outline.
New York: Department of Faith and Order of the National
Council of Churches, 1965.

De Visser, J. Th. Kerk en Stat. Vol. III. Groningen, The Nether-
lands: n.n. ca.ll927l.

Ebnigenburg, Elton M. A Brief Histo 0 th formed urch in
W. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Douma Publications 958].

Gunn, Alexander. Memoirs of the Rev. John H. Livingston. New York:
Rutgers Press, 1829.

Hansen, Maurice G. The Rgformed Church in the:hetheglands: From
A.D. 1390 to A.D. 18h0. New York: Board of Publication of
the Reformed Church in America, 188“.

Latourette, Kenneth S. The Great Century in Europe_and the Uhitgd
States of America: A.D. $604.13. 19K Vol. Iv of A
History of the Expansion of Christianity. New York: Harper
and Brothers Publishers, l9ul.

Macfarland, Charles S. International Christian Movements. New York:
Fleming H. ReveII Co., 1925.

Mackay, James H. Religious Thoughts in H9;land Dgrgng the Nineteenth
Centhgy. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1911.

Marty, Martin. Church Unity and Church Mission. Grand RBPids,
Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1946.

Prescott, William.H. History of thg Reigh of Philip The figcond,
.hin of sin. 6th ed. Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott 00.,
l 91. ‘

 

Scholte, Leonora R.

W
W Grand Rapids, Inch-ism: William
B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., l9fl6.

Swander, John I. The Reformed Church: a Sketch of Its Histogy,
Together 31th a Statement of Itghpggtrineg, Government,

cultus ghd thtoms, Dayton, Ohio: Reformed Publishing 00.,
1889.

291

Sweet, William W. The StorLof Relhiglon in America. New York:
Harper and Brothers Publishers, 1930.

Tannenbaum, Edward R. European Qiyilization Since the fiddle Ages.
New York: John mley and Sons, Inc., 19 5.

U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Reli ous
Bodies: 1936. Vol. II, Part 2, 1941.

 

Van der Meulen, Jacob. H011 ders' e v o

jectives in Eurgpe and ;A_merica. n.p., First Reformed Church
of Zeeland, Mchigan, n.d.

Whitehead, J. H. et al. History of the Classis of Paramus of the

Reformed Church in Amgr‘ILca: 1809-1999. New York: Board of
Publication of the Reformed Church in America, 1902.