This review on Herman Hoeksema's The Protestant Reformed Churches in America (3rd edition, 2025) was written by Jeff Kalsbeek, a member of Hope PRC, Grand Rapids. This review is Part 1 of 2, covering the content of The PRCA, pp. 9-318.

On the occasion of the 100^th anniversary of the PRC, the Reformed Free Publishing Association has published the 3^rd edition of this book, first published in 1936.

This has given opportunity for me, a Protestant Reformed believer, to once again read about the events that directly affected the lives of my grandparents, parents, my wife and I, and our children. What were the issues from Rev. Hoeksema’s perspective? In what ways does Herman Hoeksema speak to me who was born 4 years after Hoeksema had already been brought to heaven? Are there things I can learn from this that are relevant today?

The book is divided into two main sections. In Part One, taking up 300 pages and 15 chapters, Hoeksema relates the church political events that culminated in the formation of the Protestant Reformed Churches. In Part Two, being 150 pages and 10 chapters, Hoeksema examines, in question/answer format, the doctrinal issues in the controversy, specifically the Three Points of Common Grace adopted by the CRC Synod of 1924. There is not a full separation between the history and the doctrinal issue, but intermingling of the two in each section, which actually helps make it more interesting.

Hoeksema begins the history by pointing out that the overall spiritual state of the CRC prior to 1924 was one in which the well-meant offer of grace was generally accepted as good gospel preaching and there was indifference to the Reformed Confessions in favor of a broader view of the world. This was known to the leaders at that time and Hoeksema relates that he was working closely with other ministers and professors to strengthen the church against these errors. Reading this, and knowing as we do, that God never allows His glory to be subverted indefinitely, it seems inevitable that things would come to a head.

The Jansen case was the occasion for Hoeksema’s teaching to be subsequently scrutinized, and the book recounts the accusations and protests against Hoeksema and Danhof. The reader can draw his own conclusions but my judgment is that one protestor, Mr. Vander Mey, most correctly understood and articulated Hoeksema’s teaching and hit on the essence of the matter when he protested against “a particular grace” and argued for “a fellowship with the world”. Subsequent chapters give an eye witness account of how these protests were dealt with at each level, the consistory, the Classis, and at the 1924 Synod.

What becomes plain rather quickly is that there were two things going on simultaneously. Not only was there a doctrinal controversy, but also, proper church order was disregarded, as consistories were simply bypassed in order to get the protests before Classis and Synod immediately. The explanation for the disorderly way in which this controversy was dealt with, is interesting and instructive for the average church member. The underlying reason was a shift in thinking by church leadership from Reformed church polity to a mixture of Reformed polity with, what Hoeksema called Collegialism, attributing power to broader assemblies over a local consistory. This encouraged individuals and assemblies to disregard proper order. Second, it was argued that the welfare of the church was at stake, the way of protest and appeal was insufficient, so this unconventional way was necessary. This highlights how crucial it is that office bearers follow good order, especially during controversy.  Christ’s establishing of this order in His church is for the purpose that His Spirit is made known to an assembly. The Lord has shown time and again that He guides deliberately, not in haste. Bypassing this can result in man’s own will being done, apart from the leading of the Spirit. One hundred years later, legality consideration and proper order have a prominent place in PRC assemblies. Undoubtedly this makes for a slower process and appellants sometimes misinterpret this as a Classis or Synod attempting to stall, but it is likely that office bearers have not forgotten a painful aspect of PRC history. Just as relevant today, it becomes clear that during the common grace controversy office bearers were following proper order only when it was convenient. When proper order would hamstring their personal desires it was not followed, as ambition became more important than “endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit”. With proper Reformed polity, it is easier to recognize schismatic behavior in the church of Christ.

At the 1924 Synod in Kalamazoo the delegates, in Hoeksema’s estimation, were ill-prepared for a doctrinal declaration due to the disorderly process, as well as general ignorance and misunderstanding of the issues. This was not Hoeksema’s opinion alone. Rev. Manni, one of the synodical delegates, made a motion to drop the matter in order to make a thorough study of the issue rather than a rush to judgment. Instead, Synod made Arminian doctrinal statements and adopted them as Reformed truth.    

In the “Testimony” that the Synod sent out to the churches, there may be a hint as to why the theory of Common Grace was adopted in such haste. Almost the entire Reformed church world, as represented by Dr. A. Kuyper, held to some form of a common grace of God. After reading this section, it is my opinion that the CRC leadership correctly perceived that their standing in the larger church-world was at stake. The charismatic Hoeksema was taking the churches in a  narrow direction, away from the main-stream. Hoeksema was also very convincing with his biblical and confessional arguments, so having open discussion and deliberative debate threatened to favor Hoeksema. It had to be appalling to many leaders in the CRC that a prevailing doctrine of Dr. Kuyper and other luminaries was being called into question by the likes of Danhof and Hoeksema. The truth about God does not seem to be what was most important.

The aftermath of the 1924 Synod is a study in how ambiguous decisions and disorder make matters worse. Hoeksema relates his consternation with the ensuing events. According to Synod, common grace was now considered Reformed truth, but needed to be studied and discussed. But those who did study and discuss it were condemned. Here, Hoeksema calls out Rev. Idzerd Van Dellen, who had been president of the Synod, for his public advocating for the upcoming Classis to finish what Synod started, and to discipline Hoeksema and Danhof. So, in God’s providence, not secretive church political maneuvers, but the doctrine of who God is and who man is in relationship to God came to the foreground.

Throughout the history, Hoeksema points out how various individuals and groups attempted to influence the members of the CRC denomination with false narratives and subversion. These attempts were successful in creating a cloud of skepticism over Hoeksema so the doctrinal issue was not front and center. A century later, social media has increased this type of public maneuvering. Is there any hope for unwary, impressionable church members? It is important to keep in mind that, just as in the 1920s, if we are led astray by such things, we have only ourself to blame. God is just, and He chastises when the 9^th commandment is disregarded or our love for Him wanes. Then we look down on others or do worse to them. Then we listen to others rather than seeking answers from the Lord in His Word. Just as true, God is faithful to sanctify us to be “wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.”    

The closing portion of the history section begins with Hoeksema ominously stating that there is always a “dark side”. He then relates the unpleasant facts regarding the breach only a few years later with the three Danhof ministers. Hoeksema also relates a “bright side”, the new PRC denomination having graduated 16 students in the first 11 years.

- Jeff Kalsbeek

Click the image or this link to order the book reviewed in this post, and check out the blog new week for part 2 of this review!