Meeting with Bishop deCharms
DE HEMELSCHE LEER
EXTRACT FROM THE ISSUE FOR JULY-AUG. 1937
--------------------------------------------------------
THE NEW CHURCH THE NEW JERUSALEM
THE FIRST DUTCH SOCIETY OF THE GENERAL CHURCH OF THE NEW JERUSALEM
Extract from the Minutes of the Special Meeting of April 21st, 1937.
119
The chairman, Prof. Dr. Charles H. van Os, outlined briefly the reason for this special meeting and then asked Rev. Pfeiffer to give an account of what had taken place in Bryn Athyn.
Rev. Pfeiffer related that he and Mr. Groeneveld arrived in Bryn Athyn on Thursday evening, March 18, filled with the desire to find, by direct contact with the leading persons of the GENERAL CHURCH, a common basis in some essential things of the Church whereby the serious difficulties could be overcome and further cooperation would be possible. Just as those of the Hague Society during all these years of controversy had rejected with determination the thought of separation, so in all their preparation for this journey and during the journey they had also been of this insight and conviction.
On the very first day after his arrival Rev. Pfeiffer had asked Bishop de Charms for an interview. He began the conversation by giving expression to his desire to find a common basis. Bishop de Charms said that he shared this desire but that the only common basis was "the plain teachings of the Writings". Rev. Pfeiffer said that he entirely agreed with this, but one of those plain teachings was that the Word cannot be understood unless man makes for himself a genuine Doctrine out of it, and that therefore also these Writings, being the Word, without such Doctrine remain a closed book; and furthermore that one of those plain teachings was that the Lord, as He is the Word, is also the Doctrine out of the Word.
120
Bishop de Charms said that he could not see this otherwise than as arbitrary interpretations, and that he understood these teachings entirely otherwise. He was well aware of all those places. There was indeed taught there that the Doctrine of the Church, good and truth, and other things, were of the Lord; but it was never taught that they were the Lord. Rev. Pfeiffer said that there were a number of places that taught this. Bishop de Charms continued that he clearly saw in this new concept a confusion of the things of the Divine Proceeding, which indeed was infinite, with the created things of good and truth with man, which never were infinite, and therefore never may be called Divine. He cited a place from DIVINE PROVIDENCE, n. 219, that the finite cannot proceed from the Infinite. He summed up his belief concerning these things in the words that one may never call anything with man Divine, not even good and truth, but that this was human good and human truth. What was Divine remained always outside of the human mind; as soon as the Divine Proceeding touched and entered the human mind it ceased to be a Proceeding and was the created finite good and truth of man.
Rev. Pfeiffer said that the number 219 also taught that the Infinite can proceed out of the finite, however not out of the finite but out of the Infinite through the finite, and that hereby are clearly meant the genuine good and true things of charity and faith with man. He indicated also the places in THE TRUE CHRISTIAN RELIGION where it is taught that love and wisdom are uncreatable. He gave Bishop de Charms to know that he considered this doctrine of the human good and true, that had never existed before in the Church, and that is not to be found in any place in the Word, to be of such a destructive nature that thereby the Church must lose her real essence, because by a conscious confirmation of it all regeneration of man would be impossible.
Bishop de Charms answered that he had a whole series of places that taught human good and truth, and at the request of Rev. Pfeiffer he mentioned and read in part the places: DOCTRINE OF LIFE 32, DIVINE LOVE AND WISDOM 30, 102, 179, 198. Rev. Pfeiffer was surprised at seeing these places, since they clearly taught just the opposite from what Bishop de Charms saw in them.
In the course of the conversation Bishop de Charms com-
121
plained also that DE HEMELSCHE LEER from the very first appearance had claimed a spiritual judgment over the GENERAL CHURCH, likewise on grounds of purely arbitrary interpretations. He said also that the recent Sixth Fascicle of the English edition was full of similar things, and as an example he quoted a place from the article of Rev. Hendrik Boef "The Church as our Spiritual Mother" where it is said: "We should especially be on guard against the poisonous thought that there is such a thing as human good and truth. He who holds this, is paralyzed as to the spiritual life of his internal man, as the life of the body is paralyzed by the sting of a scorpion", Sixth Fasc. 113. Bishop de Charms cited this place and added with an indignant voice: "I accept this thought of human good and truth and believe in it". In the course of this part of the conversation he said that if DE HEMELSCHE LEER continued in the future with such examples of impermissable spiritual judgment, and if a decided stop was not put to them, separation was unavoidable.
Rev. Pfeiffer said that he regarded the statement cited as a most important truth, and that the love for truth and the importance of a truly internal Church made it necessary to give utterance to such essential things. It was however wrong ever to see in it a personal judgment or a spiritual judgment which is forbidden. They had in these cases done nothing else than publish the genuine True of the Word, and if there were a judgment, this was the judgment of the True out of the Word.
Rev. Pfeiffer subsequently related the gist of a conversation that he had had with Bishop Acton together with Rev. Pitcairn and Mr. H. D. G. Groeneveld, on the same afternoon. The conversation which for a considerable time was between Bishop Acton and Mr. Groeneveld, concerned itself with the possibility of being able to form for oneself a sure judgment about the good and the evil and the true and the false. Here Bishop Acton had apparently the same complaint in mind as Bishop de Charms, namely that we had assumed a judgment over the state of the Church, a judgment that was entirely impossible. He grounded his argument on this, that the internal states of man are only known to the Lord and always remain hidden to the fellow man. Mr. Groeneveld acknowledged that the real state of
122
the fellow man always remains hidden to us, as the Word also clearly teaches; but it was, nevertheless, incumbent on everyone, and especially on the man of the internal Church, to form a judgment, in the light of the genuine Doctrine drawn from the Word, concerning the good and the evil and the true and the false, of things that clearly appear in externals. He argued that if such a judgment were not possible, it would also not be possible for man to choose the true way, and to know with certainty with whom he must conjoin himself, and whom he must avoid, in the interest of the spiritual life.
Bishop Acton kept denying the possibility of any judgment in spiritual things. He said that one could never say more than that this or that appeared to be the truth, but certainty of judgment was absolutely impossible. He objected very much to the apparent certainty with which the new conceptions about the Word and Doctrine, and especially the so called judgment of the state of the Church, were being proclaimed in DE HEMELSCHE LEER. He elucidated his conception by saying that from his side he would never be willing to claim absolute certainty for the truth of his standpoint, yea, he would go so far as to say that he would acknowledge the possibility that the Dutch standpoint was right and his was wrong; the only thing he could say was that he considered the Dutch position false and his own position right; but he could not have an absolute certainty of it. Rev. Pfeiffer said that the genuine faith is nothing else than the seeing of the genuine True, and that the new principles concerning these Writings as the Word and the genuine Doctrine drawn out of it, principles that were taught in the Word itself, could stand firm as irrefutable eternal truths, for everyone who was in the genuine faith.
The conversation with Bishop Acton ended in his statement - similar to that of Bishop de Charms - that if the judgments in DE HEMELSCHE LEER of the GENERAL CHURCH did not cease, separation would be a matter of charity for both parties.
From what was said it appeared that in these two meetings both Bishops declared themselves in favour of the necessity of separation, unless essential principles were abandoned. The impression had been created, by the estab-
123
lishment - on the part of the Acting Bishop of the GENERAL CHURCH - of the doctrine of the human good and the human true, together with the curtailing - by threat of separation - of the liberty to proclaim the True as also to point out the essential of the false, as taught in the Word itself, that, under these conditions, further cooperation in the present form was no longer possible. It was clear that no part of the principle of freedom could be abandoned. But one saw a deed of charity in proposing to the leaders to cooperate in a peaceable solution by making possible a new independent episcopal diocese for the new movement, whereby a complete break could be avoided. It was therefore decided to propose this to the leaders of the GENERAL CHURCH in a meeting which was to be asked for. But the proposal was refused. It also constituted the most important subject of the Ministers' Meeting and the Joint Meeting which was held shortly afterwards. For the particulars of these meetings Rev. Pfeiffer referred to the reports which were to be published at the earliest opportunity.
Some days after the meetings were over Rev. Pfeiffer was requested in a letter from Bishop de Charms to resign as pastor and as member of the GENERAL CHURCH. When Rev. Pfeiffer did not wish to do this because he considered it contrary to the interest of the FIRST DUTCH SOCIETY, he was informed on the 7th of April that his name had been removed from the list of pastors and members. By this action of Bishop de Charms, who with Bishop Acton had been the first to speak of a separation in charity, the First Dutch Society suddeuly came to be without a priest.
The chairman, Professor van Os, then gave the floor to Mr. Groeneveld.
Mr. Groeneveld told how he had come to the conviction by the things that had taken place in Bryn Athyn that a further remaining together was no longer possible. The principle of the human good and the human true that was now reigning there closes the way to regeneration. For if man cannot elevate himself to the genuine things of the Divine Human of the Lord and come into possession of them as if from himself, neither can he be liberated from his proprium and will necessarily remain in it. It is only through the
124
power of such Divine things in the consciousness of man - Divine things that man never may attribute to himself, but, as it were, must always give back to the Lord - that the human things in man are brought into a true order and are established as truly human.
Mr. Groeneveld said that it must especially not be thought that we are now spiritual and they who cannot follow our insight are natural, but it here concerns a new basis for the Church and for the man of the Church whereby the possibility is opened to come into the possession of spiritual things as if from oneself.
Mr. Greoeneveld further pointed to freedom as an inmost principle and an indispensable condition for the possibility of a Church. He also gave expression to his disappointment that by his actions Bishop de Charms without for a moment considering the Church in Holland simply deprived the Church of its priest.
119
The chairman, Prof. Dr. Charles H. van Os, outlined briefly the reason for this special meeting and then asked Rev. Pfeiffer to give an account of what had taken place in Bryn Athyn.
Rev. Pfeiffer related that he and Mr. Groeneveld arrived in Bryn Athyn on Thursday evening, March 18, filled with the desire to find, by direct contact with the leading persons of the GENERAL CHURCH, a common basis in some essential things of the Church whereby the serious difficulties could be overcome and further cooperation would be possible. Just as those of the Hague Society during all these years of controversy had rejected with determination the thought of separation, so in all their preparation for this journey and during the journey they had also been of this insight and conviction.
On the very first day after his arrival Rev. Pfeiffer had asked Bishop de Charms for an interview. He began the conversation by giving expression to his desire to find a common basis. Bishop de Charms said that he shared this desire but that the only common basis was "the plain teachings of the Writings". Rev. Pfeiffer said that he entirely agreed with this, but one of those plain teachings was that the Word cannot be understood unless man makes for himself a genuine Doctrine out of it, and that therefore also these Writings, being the Word, without such Doctrine remain a closed book; and furthermore that one of those plain teachings was that the Lord, as He is the Word, is also the Doctrine out of the Word.
120
Bishop de Charms said that he could not see this otherwise than as arbitrary interpretations, and that he understood these teachings entirely otherwise. He was well aware of all those places. There was indeed taught there that the Doctrine of the Church, good and truth, and other things, were of the Lord; but it was never taught that they were the Lord. Rev. Pfeiffer said that there were a number of places that taught this. Bishop de Charms continued that he clearly saw in this new concept a confusion of the things of the Divine Proceeding, which indeed was infinite, with the created things of good and truth with man, which never were infinite, and therefore never may be called Divine. He cited a place from DIVINE PROVIDENCE, n. 219, that the finite cannot proceed from the Infinite. He summed up his belief concerning these things in the words that one may never call anything with man Divine, not even good and truth, but that this was human good and human truth. What was Divine remained always outside of the human mind; as soon as the Divine Proceeding touched and entered the human mind it ceased to be a Proceeding and was the created finite good and truth of man.
Rev. Pfeiffer said that the number 219 also taught that the Infinite can proceed out of the finite, however not out of the finite but out of the Infinite through the finite, and that hereby are clearly meant the genuine good and true things of charity and faith with man. He indicated also the places in THE TRUE CHRISTIAN RELIGION where it is taught that love and wisdom are uncreatable. He gave Bishop de Charms to know that he considered this doctrine of the human good and true, that had never existed before in the Church, and that is not to be found in any place in the Word, to be of such a destructive nature that thereby the Church must lose her real essence, because by a conscious confirmation of it all regeneration of man would be impossible.
Bishop de Charms answered that he had a whole series of places that taught human good and truth, and at the request of Rev. Pfeiffer he mentioned and read in part the places: DOCTRINE OF LIFE 32, DIVINE LOVE AND WISDOM 30, 102, 179, 198. Rev. Pfeiffer was surprised at seeing these places, since they clearly taught just the opposite from what Bishop de Charms saw in them.
In the course of the conversation Bishop de Charms com-
121
plained also that DE HEMELSCHE LEER from the very first appearance had claimed a spiritual judgment over the GENERAL CHURCH, likewise on grounds of purely arbitrary interpretations. He said also that the recent Sixth Fascicle of the English edition was full of similar things, and as an example he quoted a place from the article of Rev. Hendrik Boef "The Church as our Spiritual Mother" where it is said: "We should especially be on guard against the poisonous thought that there is such a thing as human good and truth. He who holds this, is paralyzed as to the spiritual life of his internal man, as the life of the body is paralyzed by the sting of a scorpion", Sixth Fasc. 113. Bishop de Charms cited this place and added with an indignant voice: "I accept this thought of human good and truth and believe in it". In the course of this part of the conversation he said that if DE HEMELSCHE LEER continued in the future with such examples of impermissable spiritual judgment, and if a decided stop was not put to them, separation was unavoidable.
Rev. Pfeiffer said that he regarded the statement cited as a most important truth, and that the love for truth and the importance of a truly internal Church made it necessary to give utterance to such essential things. It was however wrong ever to see in it a personal judgment or a spiritual judgment which is forbidden. They had in these cases done nothing else than publish the genuine True of the Word, and if there were a judgment, this was the judgment of the True out of the Word.
Rev. Pfeiffer subsequently related the gist of a conversation that he had had with Bishop Acton together with Rev. Pitcairn and Mr. H. D. G. Groeneveld, on the same afternoon. The conversation which for a considerable time was between Bishop Acton and Mr. Groeneveld, concerned itself with the possibility of being able to form for oneself a sure judgment about the good and the evil and the true and the false. Here Bishop Acton had apparently the same complaint in mind as Bishop de Charms, namely that we had assumed a judgment over the state of the Church, a judgment that was entirely impossible. He grounded his argument on this, that the internal states of man are only known to the Lord and always remain hidden to the fellow man. Mr. Groeneveld acknowledged that the real state of
122
the fellow man always remains hidden to us, as the Word also clearly teaches; but it was, nevertheless, incumbent on everyone, and especially on the man of the internal Church, to form a judgment, in the light of the genuine Doctrine drawn from the Word, concerning the good and the evil and the true and the false, of things that clearly appear in externals. He argued that if such a judgment were not possible, it would also not be possible for man to choose the true way, and to know with certainty with whom he must conjoin himself, and whom he must avoid, in the interest of the spiritual life.
Bishop Acton kept denying the possibility of any judgment in spiritual things. He said that one could never say more than that this or that appeared to be the truth, but certainty of judgment was absolutely impossible. He objected very much to the apparent certainty with which the new conceptions about the Word and Doctrine, and especially the so called judgment of the state of the Church, were being proclaimed in DE HEMELSCHE LEER. He elucidated his conception by saying that from his side he would never be willing to claim absolute certainty for the truth of his standpoint, yea, he would go so far as to say that he would acknowledge the possibility that the Dutch standpoint was right and his was wrong; the only thing he could say was that he considered the Dutch position false and his own position right; but he could not have an absolute certainty of it. Rev. Pfeiffer said that the genuine faith is nothing else than the seeing of the genuine True, and that the new principles concerning these Writings as the Word and the genuine Doctrine drawn out of it, principles that were taught in the Word itself, could stand firm as irrefutable eternal truths, for everyone who was in the genuine faith.
The conversation with Bishop Acton ended in his statement - similar to that of Bishop de Charms - that if the judgments in DE HEMELSCHE LEER of the GENERAL CHURCH did not cease, separation would be a matter of charity for both parties.
From what was said it appeared that in these two meetings both Bishops declared themselves in favour of the necessity of separation, unless essential principles were abandoned. The impression had been created, by the estab-
123
lishment - on the part of the Acting Bishop of the GENERAL CHURCH - of the doctrine of the human good and the human true, together with the curtailing - by threat of separation - of the liberty to proclaim the True as also to point out the essential of the false, as taught in the Word itself, that, under these conditions, further cooperation in the present form was no longer possible. It was clear that no part of the principle of freedom could be abandoned. But one saw a deed of charity in proposing to the leaders to cooperate in a peaceable solution by making possible a new independent episcopal diocese for the new movement, whereby a complete break could be avoided. It was therefore decided to propose this to the leaders of the GENERAL CHURCH in a meeting which was to be asked for. But the proposal was refused. It also constituted the most important subject of the Ministers' Meeting and the Joint Meeting which was held shortly afterwards. For the particulars of these meetings Rev. Pfeiffer referred to the reports which were to be published at the earliest opportunity.
Some days after the meetings were over Rev. Pfeiffer was requested in a letter from Bishop de Charms to resign as pastor and as member of the GENERAL CHURCH. When Rev. Pfeiffer did not wish to do this because he considered it contrary to the interest of the FIRST DUTCH SOCIETY, he was informed on the 7th of April that his name had been removed from the list of pastors and members. By this action of Bishop de Charms, who with Bishop Acton had been the first to speak of a separation in charity, the First Dutch Society suddeuly came to be without a priest.
The chairman, Professor van Os, then gave the floor to Mr. Groeneveld.
Mr. Groeneveld told how he had come to the conviction by the things that had taken place in Bryn Athyn that a further remaining together was no longer possible. The principle of the human good and the human true that was now reigning there closes the way to regeneration. For if man cannot elevate himself to the genuine things of the Divine Human of the Lord and come into possession of them as if from himself, neither can he be liberated from his proprium and will necessarily remain in it. It is only through the
124
power of such Divine things in the consciousness of man - Divine things that man never may attribute to himself, but, as it were, must always give back to the Lord - that the human things in man are brought into a true order and are established as truly human.
Mr. Groeneveld said that it must especially not be thought that we are now spiritual and they who cannot follow our insight are natural, but it here concerns a new basis for the Church and for the man of the Church whereby the possibility is opened to come into the possession of spiritual things as if from oneself.
Mr. Greoeneveld further pointed to freedom as an inmost principle and an indispensable condition for the possibility of a Church. He also gave expression to his disappointment that by his actions Bishop de Charms without for a moment considering the Church in Holland simply deprived the Church of its priest.
