Lessons from Dort: Finding Unity in Divisive Times
by Jason Ruis
The Beauty & Importance of History
There are so many benefits from reading and learning history. It’s common to talk about the importance of learning from the past, so we don’t repeat failures again in the future—this idea of learning wisdom. That’s obviously a great benefit from studying history. However, I also find myself often receiving two additional benefits that I don’t hear often mentioned. I found these benefits to be particularly true as I worked through a brief history of the Synod and Canons of Dort. Those benefits were 1) a strong feeling of fellowship and camaraderie with those who have gone before us and 2) the beautiful reminder that I’m not as crazy as some people think I am. That’s a good feeling.
I don’t want to overplay what has been happening in the Christian Reformed Church the last few years—although I do believe it’s historic in it’s own way—however, as I read the history leading up to and following the Synod of Dort, I found myself repeatedly feeling deja vu—like I’ve read this story before, or like I’ve lived this story before.
Leading Up to Dort
Of course, historians have a wide range of opinions about what officially caused the Synod of Dort, but the easiest place to start is with a guy named Jacobus Arminius. Arminius had a pretty solid resume, he had studied at Leiden University, but had also studied under Theodore Beza—which was a big deal. That gave him some street cred, which led to being hired to serve as professor of theology at Leiden University. Some of the professors were uneasy about his hire from the start. Arminius hadn’t outright denied any reformed doctrines, but he definitely skirted around them. A year after he was hired, things got heated and public. As things went public, pamphlet wars and public debates increased dramatically. There was a constant back and forth—lot’s of content being produced. Eventually, Arminius even filed—what we would call—a confessional revision gravamen to change wording in the Heidelberg Catechism and Belgic Confession. There was a lot of heat and division and frustration going both ways. Sound familiar?
As things heated up, so did the name calling. One Arminius’ primary “combatants” was a guy name Franciscus Gomarus—who was also a theology professor at Leiden. Gomarus would be called intolerant, rigid, too blunt, fanatical, someone who caused unnecessary problems. I’m also sure he was accused of focusing too much on “this one minor issue”. I also found it crazy when I hear how much politics got thrown into the mix—from both sides. Both sides accused the other of getting too caught up in the politics and associating with one party or another. Sound familiar?
The Arminians said they just wanted some space—tolerance. They wanted to be in a church that allowed for a greater variety of theological views on non-essential points of doctrine. They argued that this should be handled at the local level, and not brought into broader assemblies. They also argued that the Reformed Church should be able to hold that both of these doctrines could be believed and that they should not push for strict subscription—especially on this doctrine. They also argued that the Synod of Dort was rigged and that the decisions were already decided before they got there. Sound familiar?
I also want to point something out before we dive into the Synod itself. Does anyone know how long it took between the moment Arminius made his views public and the Synod of Dort officially condemned those views? It was fifteen years. I make that point as another reminder to us that these things take time. We live in a time and age of impatience. I know that many have been frustrated at how long it took the CRCNA to be clear on this matter and end the discussion—but it was a similar timespan, or shorter, than what happened with the Synod of Dort.
Arminius had actually been dead for 10 years, when the Synod was held, but his followers continued to push. They wrote what was called the Five Articles of the Remonstrance: 1) Conditional Election, 2) Universal Atonement, 3) Non-Total Depravity, 4) Resistible Grace, and 5) Uncertain Perseverance. I’m not sure how many people realize that the Canons of Dort were a direct response to these five points—each point claiming the absolute opposite of the doctrines of the Arminians.
The Synod of Dort
The Synod of Dort was held to directly address each of these points. It had delegates from around the world—although primarily Dutch and met for six months! There are two different numbers on how many sessions were held, but it’s either 154 or 180 sessions over a six month period. Can you imagine? People complain about a week-long Synod. Think about six-months—and don’t forget that it began in November and went through May—so over the winter. The goal was to create a broad Reformed consensus regarding these issues and to make a definitive statement.
I found it interesting reading about the different personalities present at the Synod of Dort. I’ve already mentioned Franciscus Gomarus, who was not appreciated by the Arminians. This guy was fiery and passionate and could sometimes be harsh. At one point during the Synod, someone questioned/critiqued his doctrine. He was so upset that he stood up and threw his glove on the floor in front of the synod and said, “I take that personally!” That may not seem like a big deal—besides yelling in the middle of the meeting—but throwing your glove down was challenging someone to a dual. We’re talking about a fiery and passionate guy. Yet, because of his fire and passion, he’s known for holding fast, standing firm, AND helping others to do the same in the midst of the battle. He’s one of the main reasons people continued in the fight.
You have someone like Johannes Bogerman. Bogerman served as the president of the Synod of Dort. He played a large part in the actual writing of the Canons and had the task of keeping everything together and on track. On the one hand Bogerman is considered “a peace-loving president, who…was able to control the emotional and even quarrelsome nature of the delegates” (Johannes Bogerman - Wikipedia). He was also known for the fact that he held strong supralapsarian views, but pushed hard so that both infra and supralapsarian views could be held by those who signed the Canons of Dort. On the other hand, he was firm and known for his theological conviction and desire for doctrinal purity. So, he’s a lot more mellow than Gomarus, but not soft.
It also struck me how they balanced the Dutchness with the broader delegates from England, Switzerland, and Germany. I definitely laughed out loud when I read that the English were sent to the gathering with one mission. They knew that the Dutch were prone to being too blunt, so their task was to make sure the Canons had a softer tone to them—not so harsh. They sought to be a moderating influence, which they were.
My point in drawing this out, again, is to remind us that it takes all types of personalities. If you’re like me, you have images of people, or names, popping into your mind as I described each of these parties. You know people who are like Gomarus. You know people like Bogerman. You know people like the English delegation. I found it to be a helpful reminder that it took all of them working together to bring about this document that has had such a powerful impact.
I also found it interesting that whole Bogerman is known for being a peace-loving president, he also had his limits. The Synod had been set up to function in a particular way, with a particular schedule, and the Arminians were not happy with that. So, they continually demanded that things be changed and tried all different number of political maneuvering to get things changed. They even eventually accused Synod of not being a rightful judge in ecclesiastical matters. They tried to delay things, draw them out, filibustered, and made long speeches. Eventually Bogerman had enough and said, “I will dismiss you…with no other elogy than what one of the foreigners gave you: with a lie you made your entrance into the Synod; with a lie you take your leave of it…Your actions have been full of fraud, equivocations, and deceit…But I assure you the synod shall make known your pertinacity to the world…” (Johannes Bogerman and His Powdering Speech) and he kicked them out of the Synod.
From there the Synod got to work writing the Canons. Synod appointed a Drafting Committee of theologians to write the canons. The broader Synod was divided into sub-committees (something like advisory committees) to work through the Five Points of the Remonstrance and bring a judgment and response to the full assembly. When a final draft of a section was finished, it would be read aloud to the entire Synod, and then debated with further edits recommended. We know that it went through at least three drafts. The goal was to remain true to the Scriptures and the Reformed confessions, while also gaining unanimous approval from the delegates—which they got on April 23, 1619.
After the Canons were approved, all members of the Synod signed the Canons in order to show their agreement with the doctrines and the decisions. Not only were the delegates to Synod required to sign this document, but all pastors, professors, and teachers were required to sign the Canons of Dort to show their agreement and willingness to uphold the doctrines. Anyone who refused to sign the Canons were dismissed—200 in all.
The Beauty of the Canons of Dort
With all of that in mind, I want to take some time to point out some of the beauty in the Canons of Dort. I think they often get a bad rap for being the overly academic confession or the non-pastoral confession. Yet, that’s not true at all. The Canons are not only careful academically and theologically, but they also move the heart in ways similar to the Heidelberg Catechism. To make this point, I plan on taking one article from each of the four sections in the Canons—they combined the third and fourth points of doctrine into one.
In article 12, under the first point of doctrine, we read, “Assurance of their eternal and unchangeable election to salvation is given to the chosen in due time, though by various stages and in differing measure. Such assurance comes not by inquisitive searching into the hidden and deep things of God, but by noticing within themselves, with spiritual joy and holy delight, the unmistakable fruits of election pointed out in God’s Word—such as a true faith in Christ, a childlike fear of God, a godly sorrow for their sins, a hunger and thirst for righteousness, and so on.” This isn’t about knowing more and studying more, or diving into things we should dive into. Rather, it’s about seeing the fruit of the Spirit grow in your life—seeing joy and delight in the things of God. It’s about having a childlike faith and fear of God. It’s about increasingly hating your sin and hungering and thirsting for righteousness. Don’t tell me this isn’t beautifully pastoral..
From article 9, under the second point of doctrine, we read, “This plan, arising out of God’s eternal love for the elect, from the beginning of the world to the present time has been powerfully carried out and will also be carried out in the future, the gates of hell seeking vainly to prevail against it. As a result, the elect are gathered into one, all in their own time, and there is always a church of believers founded on Christ’s blood, a church which steadfastly loves, persistently worships, and here and in all eternity praises him as her Savior who laid down his life for her on the cross, as a bridegroom for his bride.” This election is about God’s love for his people. God has such a powerful love for his people that nothing will be able to come against them—not even the gates of hell. There will ALWAYS be a church—always. And that church will always love and worship their savior who laid down his life for her. Don’t tell me that’s not pastoral.
From article 11, under third and fourth points of doctrine, we read, “Moreover, when God carries out this good pleasure in the elect, or works true conversion in them, God not only sees to it that the gospel is proclaimed to them outwardly, and enlightens their minds powerfully by the Holy Spirit so that they may rightly understand and discern the things of the Spirit of God, but, by the effective operation of the same regenerating Spirit, God also penetrates into the inmost being, opens the closed heart, softens the hard heart, and circumcises the heart that is uncircumcised. God infuses new qualities into the will, making the dead will alive, the evil one good, the unwilling one willing, and the stubborn one compliant. God activates and strengthens the will so that, like a good tree, it may be enabled to produce the fruits of good deeds.” When God works in his elect, he penetrates into the deepest part of our being, and opens closed hearts, softens hard hearts, and infuses new qualities into our heart. He makes dead people alive and evil people good. What power and glory and might! Don’t tell me this isn’t pastoral.
From article 8, under the fifth main point of doctrine, “So it is not by their own merits or strength but by God’s undeserved mercy that they neither forfeit faith and grace totally nor remain in their downfalls to the end and are lost. With respect to themselves this not only easily could happen, but also undoubtedly would happen; but with respect to God it cannot possibly happen. God’s plan cannot be changed; God’s promise cannot fail; the calling according to God’s purpose cannot be revoked; the merit of Christ as well as his interceding and preserving cannot be nullified; and the sealing of the Holy Spirit can neither be invalidated nor wiped out.” Apart from God undeserved mercy and strength, we would walk away from him and leave the faith in a moment. Yet, God does not change, his plan does not change, his promises will never fail. He will hold on to you through the deepest, darkest storms, and will never let you go. Nothing can separate you from his love. Don’t tell me that’s not pastoral.
One of the most exciting things for me coming out of the past few Synods of the Christian Reformed Church has been a renewed desire to dive into and understand our confessions. This conference is a result of that desire, but I’m seeing it everywhere. I’m seeing people all over the CRCNA creating resources to help us dive deeper into these confessions. I have members of my church, who have no connection to the CRCNA apart from my church, hungering and thirsting to dive into the confessions. It’s a powerful work and movement of God and it’s my prayer that we would not just focus on the Heidelberg, or the Belgic, but that we would also learn to love and cherish the Canons.
Unity & Building Following Dort
I want to wrap up by pointing out something beautiful that happened following the Synod of Dort. I already mentioned all of the difficulty and tension and fighting and name-calling that went on leading up to the Synod. I want to focus on what came after the Synod. I want to focus on two things.
One of the powerful things that came out of the Synod of Dort was UNITY. There was clarity on what was within the bounds of Reformed orthodoxy and that created a sense of unity throughout the Dutch Reformed church, in particular. Now, everyone knew where the church stood. The fog had lifted. And there was true, lasting unity, which also caused there the Dutch Church to have a truly reformed identity. That’s powerful.
Then, because of that unity something very powerful happened. Once the fight was over regarding Arminianism, and unity was created throughout the Dutch church, they were able to start building. It was upon this foundation that the “Further Reformation” built—this period of time where the Dutch focused on applying these teachings in every area of their life and growing deeper in their piety. In addition to that, once Gomarus and Bogerman were finished with the battle over Arminianism, they began their work on the Dutch Bible—a bible that influenced the Dutch church in similar ways to Luther’s translation in Germany, and the King James in England. This translation was in every home and church and had a profound impact beyond the church, but influenced Dutch language and culture.
It’s my dream and desire that we would see the same thing begin to happen in our day in the Christian Reformed Church. That after the fighting and turmoil and overtures and discipline—all things that were good and necessary—we will begin the process of building. It’s my desire that all of the work of the past years would pave the way for us to begin creating tools and materials that will transform the CRCNA not just right now, but for generations to come.
When I heard you give this address at the "Three Forms" conference, Rev. Ruis, your speaking style was engaging. That gift of communication is evident in this written text of your speech as well. You are a persuasive communicator. As a preacher, I am sure that you are well aware of the shadow side of persuasive oratory, the dangers of oversimplification, inuendo and creative omission. These color this address, both in its oral and its written versions. For instance, you rather briefly dismiss Arminius in a single paragraph, failing to note any of his truly inspiring life story (he was orphaned as a boy, but became an incredibly brilliant student AND a deeply caring pastor at the same time. He was so well-loved and appreciated that he was affirmed in ministry by all of his congregants and ministerial colleagues, and received unsolicited letters of commendation from the most revered leaders of the Calvinist Reformed community at the time, including Theodore Beza, John Calvin's great friend and ministry successor. Gomarus, with his "intolerant, rigid, too blunt, fanatical, someone who caused unnecessary problems" personality, as you described him, was adamant that supralapsarian descriptions of God's sovereignty were the absolute and only manner of interpretation. This meant that unless one openly stated that God intentionally created many persons in our human race specifically so that they would be eternally punished after their God-given, divinely-determined, inherently-created inability to respond to the gospel call resulted in a lack of saving faith, one was not Reformed, nor true to the Word of God, nor even Christian. Arminius frequently and regularly declared Pelagius a heretic, and rejected Pelagianism, as had Augustine and the 4th-5th century church. But Arminius, in his pastoral sensitivity and missional engagement, would not give in to those who railed against him, demanding that he openly assert alignment with supralapsarian articulations. There is no evidence that Arminius ever became what later was described by the appellation "Arminianism," or promoted what would become the five points of Remonstrant "Arminianism." Much of the problem became, as you note, a confluence of cultural and political polarization. This would undermine meaningful biblical exegesis and theological discussion. While the politicking around the Synod of Dordrecht was unfortunate, the discussions of that body and its tremendous and brilliant outcomes are truly a high point of both human and Christian history. Your quotes from sections of the Articles of the Canons are wonderful. While they were written in response to the overstated declarations of the Five Points of the Remonstrants, they exhibit a tenderness and pastoral sensitivity that would have made Arminius glad. In reality, the response to the Five Points emerges from a single concept (the Sovereignty of God), but pastorally interacts with five key emphases: (a) with regard to humankind generally, the Canons declare and affirm that we are incapable of finding or renewing our broken relationship with our Creator apart from God's initial redemptive efforts toward us; (b) with regard to the heart of the Father, the Canons paint the biblical portrait of a truly loving God who fully desires redemptive renewal with God's children and actively makes this happen; (c) with regard to the work of Jesus, the Canons declare the mystery (directly from scripture) that Jesus' redemptive activity is sufficient for all, but somehow efficient only for those who believe; (d) with regard to the work of the Holy Spirit, the Canons affirm that the divine initiatives to melt stony hearts and grow seeds of faith cannot be thwarted; (e) with regard to the new humanity of the Church, the Body of Christ, the Canons inspire confidence that God, who begins a good work in us will always bring it to completion, even if, at times, it seems as if we, like callous and disobedient children, are more powerful in our antagonism to our Heavenly Father's good will than is God's benevolent guidance toward us. I wish you would not have tried so hard to draw strong parallels between the events of the early 1600s that led to the Synod of Dordrecht and the unfortunate polarization of our times as it affected our recent CRCNA synodical gatherings and outcomes. These comparisons cloud our imperfect understanding of those times, and deepen unfortunate misunderstandings among us in our times. The "unity" you praise, both then and now, is more of the thrill of presumed victory by those who dominate, and often overlooks legitimate concerns and perspectives of those who are summarily dismissed, and leads, many times, to inappropriate caricatures of them, directly in violation of our Lord Jesus' specific instructions. When I was a missionary among the Tiv people of western Africa, a Dutch gentleman visited our area for a few days, seeking ways in which his denomination might assist in bringing the blessings of God's people to meet some of the challenges the Tiv were facing at the time. Our conversations, of course, turned to our denominational connections. He was a member of the Remonstrant Calvinist Church in the Netherlands. I was quite taken aback, after my many years of theological training, and personal and pastoral engagement with the Canons of Dort. But here was a man whose heart and mind were as fully devoted to Jesus as were my own. We talked and laughed about the rift of the past that attempted to give root to enmity between us, and found ourselves in common prayer and commitment to God, to the Church of Jesus Christ, to active mission engagement and transformation, and to sincere devotional and theological study of the Bible. Sometimes our narrowed understanding of "peace" masks an unwillingness to hold tightly the commitments of Body life (1 Corinthians 12-14) that Jesus urges in and among us.