Reformed Presbyterian Church of Central and Eastern Europe

 

The purpose of this article is to raise the question stated in the title and respond to an article in the Christian Observer (April 1999) entitled "The Hungarian Reformed Church" by Albert Kovacs, minister of the Hungarian Reformed Church in Woodbridge, New Jersey. In his article Rev. Kovacs cites my February 24 newsletter where I had said: "The seminaries of the HRC (in Hungary and Romania) are liberal; this church is run by iron-fisted bishops who are intolerant of the true faith; a third of its ministers are women; and the sacraments are offered in a blasphemous way." In other words, judged by biblical standards, the HRC is not a faithful church. It is apostate. To use biblical imagery, it is an "unrepentant women whose adultery is under the wrath of God Almighty."

Is the HRC really apostate? (The dictionary defines "apostate" as "having abandoned one’s faith.") Is it really an "unrepentant woman whose adultery is under the wrath of God Almighty?" Rev. Kovacs thinks not. He labels my piece a "diatribe" and claims: "The Reformed family of churches has bruised heels from the poisonous venom of asps who instigate divisions among its members." He says: "This in yet another assault by Anabaptists in Geneva gowns. They use the Reformers’ names but lack any irenic spirit in demanding everything in the church be done according to their accultured way, as if everyone shared America’s history and style." He goes on: "The presbyterial system . . . is built on . . . collegiality, recognizing that God speaks not just to one . . . . But divisive spirits seek to rend the body of Christ, for these are wolves in sheep’s clothing." He concludes: "As a third generation American who was baptised, confirmed, married, and ordained in the Reformed faith, I hold it a privilege to wear its unique gown . . . . (we) don’t want this band’s false gospel, rank with the odor of party-spirit, anger and curses."

This is a hot reply! The discerning reader will note, however, that for all its indignation, none of my evidence about the apostasy of the HRC is denied. I had said that all the seminaries of the HRC are liberal; that they reject Biblical inerrancy and teach the Bible has errors; that they give doctor’s degrees to Roman Catholics; that their bishops help install Unitarian bishops; that they set up centers for idolatrous worship with Roman Catholics and Unitarians; that the church is an active member of the World Council of churches and supports its broad inclusivism; that its theologians openly reject the basic principles of the 16th Century Reformation – the very principles which gave birth to the HRC. Rev. Kovacs does not dispute these things. Instead, he relies on the traditional liberal argument that if one insists a church be biblical in order to be a true church – that person is divisive and "lacks any irenic spirit by demanding everything be done according to his accultured way, as if everyone shared America’s history and style."

Here is classic liberalism versus the Bible. Liberalism insists that the liberal church be accepted as a true church even though it has departed from the Word of God. It may even quote Scripture in support of its Baalism, but when push comes to shove, the real argument is not Scripture, but the church and its long and glorious history. This is why Rev. Kovacs does not even bother to discuss my evidence that the seminaries of the HRC reject the Bible; that its bishops run the church; that a third of its ministers are women and that the sacraments are given in a Christ-dishonoring way.

Is it really all that critical to know whether the HRC in a faithful church or not? Indeed, it is! For on this issue hangs the issue of how we should do missionary work in Central/Eastern Europe. If the HRC is a faithful church, we sin against the Lord by calling it apostate and do, indeed, rend the body of Christ. But if it is not faithful, we sin against the Lord by calling evil good, by building on a false foundation, by wasting millions of missionary dollars and by misleading Reformed believers in this country who want Gospel work in Central/Eastern Europe done in a biblical way. So it is an issue of tremendous importance. On the one hand, millions can be spent in vain cooperation with a church which has a spiritual veneer but is a liberal, Bible-rejecting, bishop-run, Reformation-departing, state-funded church which opposes true Gospel work. On the other hand, these same millions can be spent on developing a new testimony for the Lord Jesus Christ which will be hated by the world but will, in the end, glorify God and be worth something.

And let the record be set straight. We are not schismatics. How could we be? We did not leave the HRC did we want to start a new church. Of course, when we started our school in 1992, we knew it could not be run by the bishops. But we did not prejudge the church itself and, in fact, did everything we could to live at peace with it. We even submitted an application to the national synod of the church in 1996 to be accepted and recognized as one of the schools of the HRC. Acting contrary to church law, however, the bishops tabled it, then, the following year, put a ban on our school and excommunicated our students. It was only after we were thrown out for the faith that we understood it was the will of God we begin a new church. Who, then, are the schismatics?

There are two fronts to this warfare. One is in Central/Eastern Europe. The other is here in the West where two different stories are being told. According to the one, the HRC is a faithful church and its bishops occupy only a "consultative" office. According to the other, the HRC was going liberal even before the Communists took over; then, during the Communist era, sold out, in the main, to the Communists; then, after Communism, did not lift a finger to try to reform the church. Oh, yes, there was the emergence of some evangelical societies in the church. BUT NONE OF THESE SOCIETIES HAD EITHER THE VISION OR COURAGE TO TRY TO REFORM THE CHURCH. Case in point: the Bible Society in Hungary. Our mission wanted to work with them in setting up our seminary, but they declined because they did not want trouble with the bishops. Now how do you reform a church when all the seminaries are liberal and the evangelicals are unwilling to pay the price for change?

These societies have since become pawns in the hands of the bishops. There was a time when they talked of resistance. That day is over. In Transylvania, the CE movement, which tried to resist the bishops, especially Tőkés, threw in the towel when our school, Károlyi Gáspár Institute, was banned by the bishops. As soon as that happened, they issued a proclamation in the church paper of the district that they were breaking off relations with us. It was obvious their evangelical heart failed them when it become a question of the survival of their organization and the loss of their church properties.

Here in this country, the battle goes on. The bishops of the HRC recognize the Christian Observer run by Edwin Elliott and TRAC (Transylvania Reformed Assistance Committee) run by Bernie Woudenberg. Both these organizations (do all they can to promote the HRC and oppose us. Helping the Observer is an impressive array of big names Elliott uses as "Staff Editors." It is not that these men necessarily endorse his support for the HRC and his attacks on us. It is rather that he has built an arrangement by which the different conservative Presbyterian groups can network with one another through him, and they have real advantages because of this. (This communications network includes all the Presbyterian denominations except the PCA.) It also enables Elliott to keep up a steady flow of slanted news to them in which he presents the HRC, as a faithful Reformed church and its bishops as good men whose office is only "consultative."

There are some very fine men whose names grace the masthead of the Christian Observer. These men rarely write for the Christian Observer, but they let the Observer use their names. Then when a piece appears lauding the HRC they are quiet, and when I am attacked (two years ago a fraudulent document was printed against me and these men were all advised) they say nothing. It seems they do not want to rebuke Edwin Elliott for his actions and rein him in. The list goes on and on. Westminster Seminary (East) gets an "honorary" chair for Van Til from the ultra liberal HRC seminary in Debrecen (with TRAC’s help). Mid-America Seminary gives lecture time (through TRAC) to a professor of church history from the liberal HRC seminary in Cluj. Kelly Douglas of RTS in Charlotte goes to Transylvania to lecture for the CE group. D. Clair Davis (Professor, Westminster) says MTW of the PCA should "work together with the HRC in preaching the Gospel" (though, thankfully, this effort never got off the ground). Is the HRC apostate? Yes. Does it matter whether Reformed people in this country understand this? Yes, true missionary work depends on it. Paul said, "I am free from the blood of all men." This is where I stand and where all of God’s people ought to stand. May the Lord give us such a unity as this!

May 19, 1999