Letter of Resignation
LETTER OF RESIGNATION OF THE MEMBERS OF THE HAGUE SOCIETY FROM THE GENERAL CHURCH OF THE NEW JERUSALEM
The Hague, August 29th, 1937.
RIGHT REVEREND GEORGE DE CHARMS
Bryn Athyn, Pa.
Dear Bishop:
The announcement of the separation of our priest, the Rev. Ernst Pfeiffer from the GENERAL CHURCH has deeply affected us, who are members of the Hague Society. According to the Documents concerning the Separation of the Rev. Ernst Pfeiffer from the General Church of the New Jerusalem, the separation took place because the Rev. Pfeiffer had expressed the intention of forming an independent body. The argument put forth lacks essential ground. The Rev. Pfeiffer could only have had this intention if it had been present also with us, since without members no body can be formed. We, the members of this Society, in cooperation with the priest, have always striven to preserve the unity of the Church, there being at the same time a great longing for a solution of the existing difficulties. Although by you not a single effort was made to preserve the unity, while at the same time respecting our freedom of thought, yea, a separation was even considered necessary, it was nevertheless attempted on our side to make it possible to maintain a bond by suggesting the institution of a separate diocese.
The sudden separation of the Rev. Pfeiffer therefore shows us that the decision has not been led to by love and wisdom but by the principle of human authority. A separation of a priest from the members of his Society, with which members he cooperates for the upbuilding of the Church, indicates to us not only a lack of episcopal care for us, who are members of the Hague Society, but also a denial of the function and the use of the laity of the Church.
It proves that the things of the Church are seen as being only in the hands of the priests; the result being that dominion and thus human authority breaks in, in consequence of which the priests are no longer servants, the office to which they have been called by the Lord. Where there arises a priestly authority of this kind, the freedom of thought departs. It is this freedom of thought which we consider to be the essential of the Lord's New Church. This freedom of thought has been limited in the GENERAL CHURCH OF THE NEW JERUSALEM, which appears from the principle of human good and human truth now ruling. Human good and human truth is of value only in so far as it is derived from spiritual good and spiritual truth. Since by this principle it has been manifested that the Church has no longing for spiritual good and spiritual truth, but only for human good and human truth, it closes for the Church the way to an interior conjunction with the Lord and thus deprives the Church of the freedom as of itself to be placed in the possession of spiritual good and spiritual truth, as a result of which the Church would receive its Doctrine, spiritual out of celestial origin. It is this essential alone that is meant by the Doctrine of the Church and for which our eyes have been opened, and it is on this essential alone, that, according to our interior conviction, the upbuilding and the development of the New Church depends.
The Word given to the New Church makes a distinction between human good and human truth, and spiritual good and spiritual truth, and this Word teaches us clearly that spiritual good and spiritual truth is the essential for the Church and the man of the Church.
In THE DOCTRINE OF CHARITY, chapter III, in section IV (n. 56, 57, 59), we read the following:
"The neighbour which a man will love from charity will be spiritual good. Without this good there is no charity; for the good of charity is spiritual good, since it is according to this good that all in the Heavens are conjoined.
Moral good, which is actual human good - for it is the rational good according to which man lives with man, as a brother and associate - is neighbour so far as it is derived from spiritual good; for moral good without spiritual good is external good, is of the external will, and is not internal good. It maybe evil, which is not to be loved.
The laws of the Decalogue first become civil laws, afterwards moral, and finally spiritual; and then first do the goods become goods of charity, according to degrees".
Since our love for the truth longs for an interior conjunction with the Lord and the required freedom of thought is not permissible in the GENERAL CHURCH, therefore also there is no place for our love in that Church.
We request you therefore to remove our names from the roll of membership of the GENERAL CHURCH OF THE NEW JERUSALEM.
Very sincerely yours
CHS. H. VAN Os
N. V. OS-KLEINHOONTE VERSTRAATE
J. P. VERSTRAATE-VRUGTMAN
J. M. WEIJLAND
D. V. D. LOOS
J. v. D. LOOS
C. J. M. WEGMAN
W. WAALWIJK
J. L. TEERLINK
R. K. SIKKEMA
C. E. VANDER
J. M. V. DUYVENBODE VR.- RUHAAK
C. DE MOOIJ
E. C. DE MOOIJ-POOL
J. H. PFEIFFER-COURTIER H. BRANDENBURG-GRAAFLAND
TH. VISSER
P. VISSER-POOL
J. LINTHUIS
M. A. LINTHUIS-POOL
P. GELUK
W. S. GELUK-POOL
H. K. HAPPEE-WIJNTJE
for C.W. HEIJER
N. J. Vellenga
for H. A. C. HEIJER-GROENEVELD
N. J. Vellenga
GROENEVELD
M.J.GROENEVELD-LEDER
N. J. VELLENGA
T. VELLENGA-V. D. MEIJDEN
W. C. SCHIERBEEK
CH. B. SCHUURMANS
MARY BARGER
W. SCHOONBOOM
F. A. LANS
J. L. KLAMER
J. DE VISSER-SEMLER
J. KAMERLING
H. M. HAVER MAN
J. A. SCHOLTES
P. SCHOLTES-MOSER
J. J. DE BRUIN
J. C. DE BRUIN-V. D. FEEN
P. POORTVLIET
J. N.C.POORTVLIET-GELUK
C. P. GELUK
M. GELUK-KORSTEN
E. J. GELUK
A. E. A. MONTAUBAN VAN SWIJNDREGT-BRONS
H. M. V AN DER MAAS
M. J. E. BORF
H. V. D. FEEN
N. V. D. FEEN-VOGELSANG
for A. J. v. D. Loos
D. v. d. Loos
for A. P. GELUK
P. Geluk
for M. A. DONKER-V.D.FEEN
N. v. d. Feen- Vogelsang
for EMIL SCHULTZ
Verstraate
for MARTHA SCHULTZ
Verstraate
for B. J. URBAN-HiiBSCHER
Verstraate
for ANTON ZELLING
Verstraate
for LEONIE ZELLING
Verstraate
for N. H. URBAN
Verstraate
for PHILIPPE SMIT
Verstraate
for O. M. BOODEN-ADELINK
Verstraate
(This letter is from the Seventh Fascicle of De Hemelsche Leer, p. 126)
The Hague, August 29th, 1937.
RIGHT REVEREND GEORGE DE CHARMS
Bryn Athyn, Pa.
Dear Bishop:
The announcement of the separation of our priest, the Rev. Ernst Pfeiffer from the GENERAL CHURCH has deeply affected us, who are members of the Hague Society. According to the Documents concerning the Separation of the Rev. Ernst Pfeiffer from the General Church of the New Jerusalem, the separation took place because the Rev. Pfeiffer had expressed the intention of forming an independent body. The argument put forth lacks essential ground. The Rev. Pfeiffer could only have had this intention if it had been present also with us, since without members no body can be formed. We, the members of this Society, in cooperation with the priest, have always striven to preserve the unity of the Church, there being at the same time a great longing for a solution of the existing difficulties. Although by you not a single effort was made to preserve the unity, while at the same time respecting our freedom of thought, yea, a separation was even considered necessary, it was nevertheless attempted on our side to make it possible to maintain a bond by suggesting the institution of a separate diocese.
The sudden separation of the Rev. Pfeiffer therefore shows us that the decision has not been led to by love and wisdom but by the principle of human authority. A separation of a priest from the members of his Society, with which members he cooperates for the upbuilding of the Church, indicates to us not only a lack of episcopal care for us, who are members of the Hague Society, but also a denial of the function and the use of the laity of the Church.
It proves that the things of the Church are seen as being only in the hands of the priests; the result being that dominion and thus human authority breaks in, in consequence of which the priests are no longer servants, the office to which they have been called by the Lord. Where there arises a priestly authority of this kind, the freedom of thought departs. It is this freedom of thought which we consider to be the essential of the Lord's New Church. This freedom of thought has been limited in the GENERAL CHURCH OF THE NEW JERUSALEM, which appears from the principle of human good and human truth now ruling. Human good and human truth is of value only in so far as it is derived from spiritual good and spiritual truth. Since by this principle it has been manifested that the Church has no longing for spiritual good and spiritual truth, but only for human good and human truth, it closes for the Church the way to an interior conjunction with the Lord and thus deprives the Church of the freedom as of itself to be placed in the possession of spiritual good and spiritual truth, as a result of which the Church would receive its Doctrine, spiritual out of celestial origin. It is this essential alone that is meant by the Doctrine of the Church and for which our eyes have been opened, and it is on this essential alone, that, according to our interior conviction, the upbuilding and the development of the New Church depends.
The Word given to the New Church makes a distinction between human good and human truth, and spiritual good and spiritual truth, and this Word teaches us clearly that spiritual good and spiritual truth is the essential for the Church and the man of the Church.
In THE DOCTRINE OF CHARITY, chapter III, in section IV (n. 56, 57, 59), we read the following:
"The neighbour which a man will love from charity will be spiritual good. Without this good there is no charity; for the good of charity is spiritual good, since it is according to this good that all in the Heavens are conjoined.
Moral good, which is actual human good - for it is the rational good according to which man lives with man, as a brother and associate - is neighbour so far as it is derived from spiritual good; for moral good without spiritual good is external good, is of the external will, and is not internal good. It maybe evil, which is not to be loved.
The laws of the Decalogue first become civil laws, afterwards moral, and finally spiritual; and then first do the goods become goods of charity, according to degrees".
Since our love for the truth longs for an interior conjunction with the Lord and the required freedom of thought is not permissible in the GENERAL CHURCH, therefore also there is no place for our love in that Church.
We request you therefore to remove our names from the roll of membership of the GENERAL CHURCH OF THE NEW JERUSALEM.
Very sincerely yours
CHS. H. VAN Os
N. V. OS-KLEINHOONTE VERSTRAATE
J. P. VERSTRAATE-VRUGTMAN
J. M. WEIJLAND
D. V. D. LOOS
J. v. D. LOOS
C. J. M. WEGMAN
W. WAALWIJK
J. L. TEERLINK
R. K. SIKKEMA
C. E. VANDER
J. M. V. DUYVENBODE VR.- RUHAAK
C. DE MOOIJ
E. C. DE MOOIJ-POOL
J. H. PFEIFFER-COURTIER H. BRANDENBURG-GRAAFLAND
TH. VISSER
P. VISSER-POOL
J. LINTHUIS
M. A. LINTHUIS-POOL
P. GELUK
W. S. GELUK-POOL
H. K. HAPPEE-WIJNTJE
for C.W. HEIJER
N. J. Vellenga
for H. A. C. HEIJER-GROENEVELD
N. J. Vellenga
GROENEVELD
M.J.GROENEVELD-LEDER
N. J. VELLENGA
T. VELLENGA-V. D. MEIJDEN
W. C. SCHIERBEEK
CH. B. SCHUURMANS
MARY BARGER
W. SCHOONBOOM
F. A. LANS
J. L. KLAMER
J. DE VISSER-SEMLER
J. KAMERLING
H. M. HAVER MAN
J. A. SCHOLTES
P. SCHOLTES-MOSER
J. J. DE BRUIN
J. C. DE BRUIN-V. D. FEEN
P. POORTVLIET
J. N.C.POORTVLIET-GELUK
C. P. GELUK
M. GELUK-KORSTEN
E. J. GELUK
A. E. A. MONTAUBAN VAN SWIJNDREGT-BRONS
H. M. V AN DER MAAS
M. J. E. BORF
H. V. D. FEEN
N. V. D. FEEN-VOGELSANG
for A. J. v. D. Loos
D. v. d. Loos
for A. P. GELUK
P. Geluk
for M. A. DONKER-V.D.FEEN
N. v. d. Feen- Vogelsang
for EMIL SCHULTZ
Verstraate
for MARTHA SCHULTZ
Verstraate
for B. J. URBAN-HiiBSCHER
Verstraate
for ANTON ZELLING
Verstraate
for LEONIE ZELLING
Verstraate
for N. H. URBAN
Verstraate
for PHILIPPE SMIT
Verstraate
for O. M. BOODEN-ADELINK
Verstraate
(This letter is from the Seventh Fascicle of De Hemelsche Leer, p. 126)
