Groen van Prinsterer
always remained a member of the national Dutch Reformed Church. After his
return from Brussels to The Hague he visited the Walloon Reformed Church, a
French speaking congregation belonging to the national church where the rev.
Secretan was the minister, just like Merle d’ Aubigné a man of the
Reveil-movement, or the Reformed Church were the orthodox-Reformed rev. Molenaar
preached.
Although Groen could
not follow the people that had separated from the Dutch Reformed Church, he
felt himself inwardly united with them. In this connection he distinguished
between the national church as a community of true believers, and between the
national church as an institution.
The people that had left ‘the institution’ belonged, as Groen van Prinsterer saw it, still to the national Dutch Reformed Church as a community of true believers. To say it in other words: for Groen van Prinsterer the unity of the church both nationally and worldwide was first of all a unity of faith and not a unity in structures.
The people that had left ‘the institution’ belonged, as Groen van Prinsterer saw it, still to the national Dutch Reformed Church as a community of true believers. To say it in other words: for Groen van Prinsterer the unity of the church both nationally and worldwide was first of all a unity of faith and not a unity in structures.
In this context he
used to speak about ‘the Reformed persuasion or party’ which united dissenters
and orthodox and evangelical Christians in the Dutch Reformed Church and
ultimately of true believers during the centuries and all over the world. The
Reformed persuasion was for Groen van Prinsterer an expression to indicate the
unity in the faith of the free grace of God revealed in Christ and applied to
the heart by the Holy Spirit.
In the nineteenth
century Dutch society Groen van Prinsterer was an advocate for the rights of
the people of the Reformed persuasion in the church, the school and society. He
looked forward to the restoration of the Reformed Church as ‘the soul of the
nation’, in order that the dissenters could return to her.
His ideal was that in the Dutch constitution the Protestant character of the Dutch nation should be explicitly acknowledged. In a fierce way he turned himself against the harsh measures, which the government had taken against the dissenters. In 1837 he wrote his The measures against the Dissenters compared with constitutional law.
His ideal was that in the Dutch constitution the Protestant character of the Dutch nation should be explicitly acknowledged. In a fierce way he turned himself against the harsh measures, which the government had taken against the dissenters. In 1837 he wrote his The measures against the Dissenters compared with constitutional law.
The government
prohibited the meetings of the dissenters because they were seen as ‘a new
religious sect’, which could not claim religious freedom as stipulated by the
constitution which only guaranteed freedom for the existing religious
persuasions.
But Groen van Prinsterer declared: ‘but the dissenters are no new religious sects, as they are members of the Reformed persuasion. It is very well known that they are Reformed, Reformed pre-eminently. Perhaps they are disloyal to the church as an institution, but surely they are loyal members of the Reformed persuasion, of the real church. The confession, which is the expression of the common faith, is the mark of this persuasion. The dissenters do not leave the Reformed confession, but they keep closely to it, they embrace it, if I may say it that way.’
But Groen van Prinsterer declared: ‘but the dissenters are no new religious sects, as they are members of the Reformed persuasion. It is very well known that they are Reformed, Reformed pre-eminently. Perhaps they are disloyal to the church as an institution, but surely they are loyal members of the Reformed persuasion, of the real church. The confession, which is the expression of the common faith, is the mark of this persuasion. The dissenters do not leave the Reformed confession, but they keep closely to it, they embrace it, if I may say it that way.’
The repression by the
government of the dissenters was for Groen van Prinsterer the evidence that the
so-called liberals were in fact very intolerant. The tolerance about which they
spoke was only applied to those who held the views of the French Revolution.
So Groen van Prinsterer could speak of the intolerance of the tolerant. Among other points, it is here that we perceive how very timely Groen van Prinsterer’s thoughts are. Everywhere in western society there are forces active that wish to impose to the whole of society their ideology of absolute equality.
So Groen van Prinsterer could speak of the intolerance of the tolerant. Among other points, it is here that we perceive how very timely Groen van Prinsterer’s thoughts are. Everywhere in western society there are forces active that wish to impose to the whole of society their ideology of absolute equality.
By this ideology the
differences between marriage and ‘other forms of living together’, and between
the different positions of man and women in marriage, church and society are
wiped out. When this ideology is not accepted they speak in a very misleading
way of intolerance. Everyone who does not accept the ideology is considered as
intolerant and sometimes it is suggested that they reject the ideology, must be
compelled to be tolerant.