THE 1953 PROTESTANT REFORMED CHURCH SPLIT

REVISITED
Introduction

Early in the 1950’s there was a growing tension between followers of the Reverend Herman
Hoeksema and Rev. Hubert De Wolf. Both were pastors of the First Protestant Reformed Church
in Grand Rapids, Michigan. This tension and conflict surfaced publically from about 1951 and
continued until the ultimate split of the church and denomination in 1953. Two-thirds of the PRC
ministers and church members across the country supported and followed Rev. H. De Wolf.

De Wolf was charged with “heretical” statements made in two sermons. The first sermon in
question was preached on April 15, 1951 and the second was delivered Sept. 14, 1951. There is no
direct evidence that any heretical statements were ever made or intended. However it was the
Hoeksema group who chose to interpret his statements in such a way to meet their own ends and
agenda. They had a planned strategy to conjure up theological reasons to support the accusations in
an effort to depose him. A PRC pastor at the time acknowledged that Rev. De Wolf was never
given a formal opportunity to address the charges in an effort to resolve the “misunderstanding.”

Hoeksema and his followers were never able to convince or persuade the majority of ministers and
church members of the validity and sanctity of his position, or his arguments. Their efforts to
present theological arguments did, however, help to “legitimize” their actions. Much has been
written about the split, but primarily from the Protestant Reformed sect’s perspective.

Nevertheless, in 1953 the Hoekesma group won a court decision granting them the church’s
property despite the fact that the majority of the pastors and church members disagreed with the
Hoeksema position. The De Wolf group met for several years in the Calvin College Chapel in
Grand Rapids as the Orthodox Protestant Reformed Church. All the while they were also meeting
with the leadership of the Christian Reformed Church. In 1960 they reached a doctrinal and
theological understanding with the CRC. In so doing they concluded that they as a body of
believers, could best further the Kingdom of God by uniting with the CRC.

Having said the above, I became curious about the events of the 1953 split after reading the
memoirs of the late Rev. Cornelius Hanko, Less Than Least. This book represents a series of
articles that appeared in a PRC newsletter and includes several documents that Rev. Hanko wrote
prior to his death. His granddaughter, Karen van Baren, edited them and put them in book form.
Rev. Hanko was an assistant pastor at the First Protestant Reformed church at the time of the split.

I found the book to be interesting from several viewpoints. One, much of Rev. Hanko’s life story
takes place in Grand Rapids where I grew up and so the geography and setting represented an area
that I was quite familiar with. Secondly, I found that Rev. Hanko went through a surgery for a
stomach ulcer similar to that of my father, the Rev. Hubert De Wolf. Thirdly, I learned that after
Rev. De Wolf was called to be an assistant minister at the First Protestant Reformed Church in
Grand Rapids, Rev. Hanko followed Rev. De Wolf as the minister for the PRC church in Church
Hill, Montana. Finally, the chapter on the 1953 PRC split raised some new facts/issues for me
regarding that period of time in my life. That is the main focus of this paper. Frankly, not much

1
has been written that gives time and attention to the 1953 PRC split from the De Wolf perspective.
Therefore, I found it quite fascinating to hear how others felt about what happened then and some
of the reasons for why the split occurred at all. This is an attempt to record part of the history of
the split that is not oft talked about.

I was inspired to seek clarification so I prepared a series of nine questions and set about in search
of answers. In retrospect, I realize some of them are not very important, but they represented my
curiosity at the time I read Rev. Hanko’s memoirs. I will include the responses to my questions no
matter how trivial they may sound now. I sent them to several persons who were part of the church
at the time of the split. One was a PRC pastor who has been preaching Reformed truths for over 6
decades, two were PRC seminary students who have since been pastors for many years preaching
Reformed truths and doctrines. One person was a church member at the time that had almost total
recall of events and statements made during those years. Others were family members and friends
of the family. One of these persons was not in the PRC church at the time but is a respected
Christian Reformed Church (CRC) pastor and one who also has preached and continues to preach
Reformed truths. He had a peripheral connection back in the 50’s but had a valuable perspective
to offer. I also had informal conversations with several classmates who, like me, were only 12 or
13 at the time, to get their perspective.

I confess that at the time of the split at the age of 12, I was not overly involved or interested in the
details of the existing conflict. Nor did my parents burden me or my siblings with the pressure and
stress of the unfolding events leading up to the actual split. I did know that the split caused many
families to be splintered over the situation, that my father needed stomach surgery and that for the
most part the whole fiasco was more personality related than theological. Those are my memories
from that time. I knew, of course, that we went to court over the buildings, being on the losing end
of the court’s decision, and that we were required to move out of the parsonage we lived in. Even
today it is not an emotionally charged issue for me. It has more to do with a curiosity than
anything else. I will say that when talking and communicating with the above referenced persons,
their memories and the recollection of events were still quite vivid.

Several commented on how they had not thought about those events for sometime. But their
responses were passionate and thoughtful. It would be very easy for this subject to take on a life of
its own, even after almost 60 years. Many of my interviewees had suggestions and
recommendations of others to talk to who could shed some light on the issues, then and now. I
choose to limit my review only to the questions posed and responses given. Any additional
editorial comments are my conclusions and opinions. I would like to believe that there was a
foundation for my thoughts.

I will list the questions and summarize the responses in the order that I forwarded them. Keep in
mind that the questions did spring from material in the Hanko book.

1. Rev. Petter did some writings in church papers back then, “Faith a condition
of Salvation” being one. Any recall of that, or any other writings?

2
A number of people responded “yes” to this question. Most did recall that he wrote on this
subject. One person stated that not only did he recall the articles, but that he found them to be the
heart of the controversy. Another was so profoundly amazed that the Hoeksema faction would use
Rev. De Wolf’s reference to “faith as a condition of salvation” as being heretical that he
memorized Hebrews Chapter 11. Petter defended the possible use of the word “condition” with
regard to faith, and that it is God’s spirit which enables us to meet that condition in believing. One
pastor who faithfully preached Reformed doctrine for many years stated Rev. Petter and Rev. De
Wolf both quoted John Calvin along with many other Reformed writers who used that expression
as being both allowable and proper.

2. Hanko claimed De Wolf was preaching “conditional theology” and not

“Reformed” truths. What is your take on that?

The responders agreed that Rev. De Wolf preached that God works out his plan by means of faith
that is by believing. One stated that “if that is conditional theology, he did indeed preach that. I
think he understood Reformed thinking to be exactly that, I agree and so does Calvin.” Another
writes, that Rev. De Wolf believed and preached “that it is only through the gracious working of
the Holy Spirit in our falling natures that we come to faith and meet that condition. If your father
was not reformed, then neither was John Calvin, etc. Your father was very Reformed and very
biblical in calling all men everywhere to believe.” Another person felt that Rev. De Wolf was
“really beginning to read the Bible and moving beyond theological slogans and proof texts.” This
person also wrote “Romans 10-if you believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead and
confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord you shall be saved. That certainly sounds conditional
to me.” Another writes, “The content ‘they’ put on ‘conditional theology’ is not Reformed, but
DeWolf NEVER spoke of it in that way. He simply said what Scripture says that you must believe
to be saved.”

3. On April 15, 1951 Rev. De Wolf preached on Luke 16:29. In that sermon he
stated “But I assure you, that God promises every one of you that if you
believe you will be saved. On Sept.14, 1951, Rev De Wolf preached on
Matthew 18:3 “Verily I say unto you, except ye be converted, and become

3
 as little children, ye shall not enter the kingdom of heaven.” Rev. Hanko
concludes that De Wolf makes conversion a requisite to enter the
Kingdom. Hanko goes on then to suggest that these statements put
“man” in a position of saving himself. What is your take on this
conclusion? Armenian?

One man who has preached Reformed truths for over 60 years responded by stating that
“Conversion is a ‘requisite’ to enter the kingdom”. He goes on to say “Of course, one must repent
and be converted to enter the Kingdom, and in that sense one can speak, as your father did, of faith
as a requisite to enter the kingdom. Only through the Spirit’s empowerment will this take place.
(As God stopped Saul/Paul on the way to Damascus, his conversion taking place in a wonderfully
powerful working of Christ.”)

Another pastor of over 50 years was a bit blunter. He avers “Hanko’s problem is not with De Wolf
but with Scripture: Matthew 18:3. De Wolf never preached that a man can save himself.”

A third pastor who preached Reformed doctrine for more than 50 years stated that
Rev. De Wolf “was quoting scripture itself and was as Reformed as can be-namely that Divine
election is worked out by means of faith, which faith God Himself gives to us. That is as
Reformed as I know!”

In a document in Rev. De Wolf’s own hand writing he wrote the following. April 15, 1951 – “God
promises to all of you salvation, if you believe.” Then he wrote “Sept 14, 1952 – Our act of
conversion is a pre-requisite to enter into the Kingdom of God.” A subsequent comment was
made stating “Hoeksema contended these statements --- were un-Scriptural!” I might add that
there are over 300 references in the Bible which speak to the notion of “believing” as a
prerequisite to salvation.

The irony of the accusations made against Rev. De Wolf is that Rev Hoeksema himself taught
conversion as a perquisite to enter the Kingdom, and that faith is a condition of salvation.

Rev. Hoeksema is quoted in the Standard Bearer having used certain meditations taken from his
sermons, one in particular being Matthew 18:3. I quote “Even the gate whereby we enter
admits no one but him who has humbled himself as a child. . . . For through that gate he
alone can enter by faith, and by faith everything is laid aside. . . He alone enters who sees
and acknowledges no other possibility than that of grace…. he humbles himself and has
become as a little child.”

In spite of Herman Hoeksema and his followers repeated efforts to coerce the congregation that
Rev. De Wolf was preaching heresy, they failed to persuade and convince the majority of the
consistory and members of the First Protestant Church‘s congregation, and they failed to convince
the majority of the denominations’ ministers and church members.

Now before I leave this question it is noteworthy that Rev. De Wolf was never given a chance to
formally defend himself regarding statements made in the April 15, 1951 sermon. Thus, he was

4
forced to communicate his position in writing. The Hoeksma/Hanko “lynch mob” mentality
seemed to be that they were not interested in coming to peace on this issue. Therefore to ask for an
explanation would not serve the purpose they had in mind, which was to censor Rev. De Wolf.
Reasons for their actions will become clearer in question and answer number 9.

After the April 15 sermon, Rev. De Wolf wrote a letter dated Aug. 27, 1951 to the consistory in
defense of his statements which were being used as accusations against him. It is quite lengthy, but
it addresses the accusations that he was preaching heresies and it is included here to memorialize it
for historical purposes.

The following is his statement in its entirety.

8/27/51
The Consistory Of The First Prot. Ref. Church
Grand Rapids, Michigan.

Dear Brethren:

Since you have again placed me before the same demand, to which I have already given my
answer, I feel that my only recourse is to explain the statement that has been brought into
questions. Although the consistory has never in all this time asked for an explanation, I
believe nevertheless, since the whole case hinges on that one statement, that an
explanation of that statement should resolve the case.

The statement reads as follows: The Lord promises everyone of you that if you believe you
will be saved.

The consistory has adopted the conclusions of the committee which read: That the
statement referred to in the protest………cannot be harmonized with Scripture and the
Confessions, regardless of the context, and, “Everyone of you,” makes the promise
general, even though Rev. De Wolf assures us that this was not his intention.

I contend that these conclusions are not correct. No one has the right to read that
statement as though it simply said, “God promises everyone of you that you will be saved,
period.” The words, “If you believe” certainly limit this promise and therefore the first
part of the statement may not read as though nothing more followed. If we do this we can
find all kinds of heresies in Scripture itself. Then, e.g. the apostle Paul can be accused of
teaching universal salvation in I Tim. 4:10 which reads: “For therefore we both labor and
suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially
of those that believe.” Now leave the last phrase off and the apostle teaches that God is
the Savior of all men. But the apostle limits the “all men” by the words, “especially of
those that believe.” Surely no one is going to say, it doesn’t make any difference what the
apostle may say, the “all men” makes it general. The same thing is true in Rom.1:16,
“For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to
every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.” Also here the apostle
limits the “every one” by the words, “that believeth” or, as we would say “who believes”.
Are we going to say that the “every one” makes it general irrespective of the limiting

5
 words “who believes”? That would be doing the apostle Paul an injustice. But it is just as
unjust to say that the “every one of you” in my statement makes it general. And please do
not say that “who believes” is not the same as “if you believe” for the latter is just as
scriptural as the former. It is the very same language which the apostle uses in Rom.10:9
“That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart
that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.”

These examples could be multiplied, But I trust that you see, brethren, how unfair it is to
lift out a part of my statement and then conclude that the “everyone” makes it general.

What does my statement mean? It means that God promises salvation to every believer. It
does not teach that God promises salvation to every one, but to everyone who believes.
That is the promise of the gospel and in the preaching of the gospel, God confronts
everyone who hears that gospel with this promise and thus leaves him without excuse.
That was the point I sought to make in my sermon. There was no need that anyone should
rise from the dead to convince people. They have Moses and the prophets, they have the
gospel and that promise of the gospel is clear. Let them hear it. If they do not hear it, it
will not help to send someone from the dead. Hence he, who has heard that gospel and
goes lost, must not say, and will never be able to say, “God did not give me enough: if
only He had sent someone from the dead to talk to me, things would be different.” That is
putting the blame for his misery on God. And that is impossible. He will therefore have to
admit that he goes lost because of his own unbelief.

And finally, I made very plain that when we do believe that gospel and are saved it is not of
us but the gift of God’s sovereign grace.

This, brethren, is the truth which I preached.

Respectfully submitted,

Rev. H. De Wolf.

.
I want to emphasize the second to last paragraph where Rev. De Wolf states “And finally, I made
very plain that when we do believe that gospel and are saved, it is not of us but the gift of
God’s sovereign grace” Had his sermons been anything but a possible misunderstanding this
statement alone would have ended the controversy and the outcome of the PRC would have been
significantly different.

One final thought about this element of the split of 1953. The Rev. H. DeWolf was asked by the
Hoeksema faction to “publically retract the two statements as heretical regardless of what
interpretation might be given to them.” He refused to retract his statements. What he did do
was express regret that his accusers “misunderstood” what he said and what his intentions were.

6
4. Who was the missionary in Canada referenced by Hanko regarded as “not
preaching Reformed truth?”

Several men were mentioned but most responders did not know who Hanko was referring to. One
who did recalled it to be Rev.Bernard Kok a PRC pastor at the time. This pastor was sent to
Canada to try to encourage new immigrants to join the PRC. One respondent goes on to say that it
did not work and most of the immigrants joined the Christian Reformed Church. The respondent
who knew Rev. Kok goes on to say that he was very Reformed in his preaching. In any event, it
was irrelevant to the issues other than Hanko looking for something to discredit pastors who didn’t
agree with him and Hoeksema.

There were similar rants. For example, Hanko states that “Hoeksema and the consistory had had
their fill. They realized how deceptively Rev. De Wolf was working to win over as many as
possible in the congregation. Not a Sunday went by but that De Wolf did not try to create
sympathy by choosing Psalter numbers that stressed how much he had to suffer as a martyr for
the cause.” Wow! Really! Psalter numbers? This accusation does provide some insight into the
depths to which this conflict had sunk to in finding fault with Rev. De Wolf for whatever the
reason. My thoughts and those of the respondents on the precipitating reasons for the split will be
offered in the response to question 9.

5.Adams St. Protestant Reformed school – Hanko states “De Wolf and his
friends opposed it.” Is this true? If so why?

Yes this is true. I was told that a number of PRC pastors opposed the school. They believed that
they could work with other reformed bodies in support of the existing Christian school structure
that was already well established in the Grand Rapids area. In fact a PRC consistory member was
on the board of one of the Christian schools and had a working knowledge of the Grand Rapids
Christian schools educational philosophy.

One respondent stated that Rev. De Wolf “preached the gospel and not the PRC School.” This
would have clearly rankled some in the church. The then PRC leadership seemed to believe that if
you were not PRC you could not be saved. I recall being told that by my own mother. Dating
outside the PRC was strongly discouraged. This included those young people who attended either
the Christian Reformed or Reformed denominations. One respondent went so far as to say that the
conflict in starting a Protestant Reformed School could have played a part in the tension and
conflicts leading up to the split.

Another respondent tells the story of requesting a Baptismal Certificate to have his newborn
baptized. The Elder in charge asked if he intended to send his child to the Adams Street PRC
School. The respondent told the Elder that “he could not promise that as there might not even be a
school five years from then.” He was denied baptismal permission and he threatened to leave the
church. This story had a successful ending in that appealing this matter to pastoral staff, a decision
was made that having a child baptized should not be related to the PRC School. I share this story
only to emphasize how important Adams Street PRC School was to the PRC in the early fifties.
Thus anyone who did not actively support and preach it would have been in serious disfavor with

7
Hoeksema and his minions. I might add that once the Adams Street Protestant Reformed School
was operational, the pastors and consistory members who were initially opposed to the school did
support it and sent their children there.

I am told that there are still some in the PRC Denomination who believe that the only route to
salvation is through the PRC. This is related, in part, to the feelings about the Adams St. PR
School as being the only source of a true Christian education and the notion that salvation comes
through PRC membership. As part of the controversial April 15, 1951 sermon Hanko states that
Rev. De Wolf “In the course of the sermon … accused some of the members of the congregation
of being proud of being Protestant Reformed. He said that wearing Protestant Reformed on their
coat lapel would not bring them into heaven.” What Rev. De Wolf actually said was that “don’t
think that just because you wear a PRC pin on your lapel you will be saved.” While this statement
was made in conjunction with the controversial “if you believe, you will be saved” statement, it
was intended to admonish those who believed that being a member of the PRC was their ticket into
heaven. One person I talked to remembered that sermon and said he “almost laughed in his pew
when he heard it because Rev. De Wolf hit it right on the spot.” “It was sure to upset those who
did in fact hold that view.” I have been informed that there are members of the PRC who still
believe that the PRC is the only chosen and true church.

The importance of the PRC School remains to this day. One respondent stated that, currently, if a
church member did not send his children to the PRC School the family would be asked to leave the
church. A number of parents are choosing to home school which has helped to fuel the Christian
School conflict within the church. Another respondent stated that only if the person was a pastor
and didn’t send his children to the PRC school would they be asked to leave the church. What the
exact policy is I don’t know but what I do know is that it continues to be a source of emphasis and
a source of ongoing conflict within the PRC.

6. Hanko claimed a minister (unnamed) was going through and “destroying

our churches.” Any idea who that was supposed to be?

While I have for the most part intentionally left names out of this document, in this instance I have
included them to give clarity to the response. I was told that Rev. Bernard Kok and Rev. John De
Jong went on a trip to the Netherlands and there met with a number of churches with the intent of
selling the PRC denomination. I really don’t know what happened while they were there but they
were later charged with “selling our churches down the river” by Herman Hoeksema and others.
My responders emphatically stated that was “not true”. It just gives further evidence to the
attempts to discredit those pastors who were not fully in the Hoeksema camp. Again these rants by
Hanko were irrelevant to the real issues involved in the split.

7. Regarding Hoeksema and Hanko, if one did not follow their (PRC) doctrine
exactly, that person was accused of being “unwilling to support the truth
of God’s sovereign grace.” Truth seemed to be reserved for Hoeksema

8
 et.al. In fact, I recall being told that if you were not PRC you could not
be saved and go to heaven? Comments?

One respondent stated that Hoeksema as the “big man” and originator of the PRC and other PRC
theologians were quite insistent on adhering very rigidly to its doctrines. Many church leaders
were very “judgmental regarding members of other churches, but it would be going too far to limit
the residents of heaven as only Prot. Ref.” This pastor went on to say, “Wow, what a small heaven
that would be.”

Other respondents indicated that what I heard was right. One added that he “heard that many times
…in the PR seminary.” He and others stated that it was not officially taught but many believed
that. As I stated earlier, I recall that being a pretty strong belief in my home as I was growing up.

8. Hanko claims Rev. De Wolf wanted to live in the parsonage next to the first
PR church. Jim Kok and Gerald Koster were asked, I assume, to assess
the feasibility of such a move. We never heard any of that at our house.
Yes or No?

Mr. Jim Kok and Gerald Koster were Elders in the First Protestant Reformed Church during the
years leading up to the split. It was confirmed by a respondent that, in fact, there was
consideration to have Rev. De Wolf and his family take over the main parsonage. One respondent
stated that this idea had originally been raised by Jim Kok. The respondent went on to say that this
proposal “caused no end of hard feelings against him- later he regretted even bring it up.”

My siblings and I never heard that moving to the main parsonage was being evaluated or
considered.
Since Jim Kok was a De Wolf supporter, I have to believe that Rev. De Wolf was aware that
moving his family to the main parsonage was on the table for discussion. But to say Rev. De Wolf
thought his family should live in the official parsonage and was actively pushing it I cannot say.
What I can say is the family does not recall it being a consideration.

9. Did Hoeksema and Hanko have another “agenda” at the time? Was it more
than “the personalities of those involved?”

I want to begin the answer to this question by recalling what I did hear growing up which was that
it was mostly personalities involved that caused the split. Sadly, the split greatly impacted many
people and families of the church. Frankly, the facts do not support the argument that the schism
was caused by theological and philosophical differences. Yes it ended up being “resolved” by the
courts with respect to the buildings which necessitated developing legal arguments for the action.
Also much has been written trying to justify that the split was in fact theologically based.
However, if one examines the circumstances of the time and the charges of “heretical” behavior on

9
the part of Rev. De Wolf, it becomes quite clear that the facts do not support the charges. History
also bears out the fact that Rev. De Wolf was very Reformed in his preaching through out his
preaching career.

The fight was carried out to its final conclusion, win or lose irrespective of the casualties along the
way. Information was controlled and charges trumped up to justify the rift. When the De Wolf
group moved to meet with and ultimately join the Christian Reformed Church, they found that the
differences between the two denominations were not nearly as great as they were led to believe by
Hoeksema. This is another example of how Rev. Hoeksema controlled information to serve a
personal mission.

Those who responded and whom I personally talked to were of similar mind that the split had
more to do with the growing popularity of Rev. De Wolf. One man states “he was drawing in the
crowds.” Another stated quite emphatically his feelings regarding a personality conflict between
the Rev.’s Hoeksema/Hanko and Rev. De Wolf. “O was it ever! Hanko knew he was not loved
or respected as much as De Wolf.” He continues, saying, “Hoeksema never got over De Wolf
being appreciated more than he - and your dad was by far the better preacher in a day when that
was the key to success. As in 1924, personalities really clashed and Hoeksema looked for a way to
nail your Dad. Sadly, but true!”

Others talked about Rev. De Wolf getting a greater number of requests for baptisms,
weddings, and funerals. The general sense is that his popularity triggered the efforts to sanction
him and suspend him from the pulpit. Rev. De Wolf fought back against the injustice of the
moment. The integrity of his preaching the gospel prevailed. Of course he was never “deposed”.
Not only was he not suspended and deposed, the majority of the consistory and the congregation
supported De Wolf.

Biographical descriptions characterize Rev Hoeksema as a street fighter and brawler while
growing up in the Netherlands. He never backed down from a fight and often started them. His
biography reflects that pretty much through out his life time there was controversy and conflict.
Given his earlier youthful and adult historical experiences, the 1953 “split” could be
characterized as Hoeksema and his thugs looking for a fight, as he was losing control of “his”
church. As is true of most, if not all, street fighters they fight to win no matter what. That appears
to be the case here.

The August 1954 copy of the Reformed Guardian includes an article written by J. Blankenspoor
regarding the cause for the “split.” It states “First of all, we must realize that our churches did not
“split” on any doctrinal issues, but solely on church political issues.” More importantly, the
issues, whatever they were made out to be, were the result of a young pastor who was gaining in
popularity, being favored over the “father” of the PRC.

Rev. Hubert De Wolf preached hundreds of sermons over his lifetime, both in the PRC, where he
was trained in Reformed theology, and the CRC. He conducted hundreds of weddings, funerals
and baptisms. He taught catechism classes to young and old. He preached and served his
congregations for over 47 years. Out of all this experience, he was accused of heretical teaching in
two sermons. For that his accusers wanted to suspend him. As was stated by Rev. Petter in the

10
Reformed Guardian Vol. II February 12, 1954 No.1, regarding a Pre-advisory Committee of
Classis East, “the majority of the committee found that the matter ‘is not one of heresy but lack of
clarity on the part of Rev. De Wolf, and the misunderstanding on the part of the protestants.’”
Rev. Petter goes on to say, “Now we may certainly add to this the fact that the Rev. De Wolf has
been above reproach throughout all his years in the ministry, also doctrinally.”

Conclusion

Rev. Hubert De Wolf was steadfast in his preaching of the Word and Reformed theology
throughout his life. After the split and the short-lived Orthodox Protestant Reformed Church stint,
he went on to preach and serve the lord for 16 years as pastor of the First Christian Reformed
Church of Byron Center. He once told me that he believed a pastor should limit the time spent in
one place for no more than 6 or 7 years. He saw what a lifelong pastor in one church can become
and he wanted to guard against that. When he went to Byron Center, however, he found that
congregation to be loving, supportive and most of all appreciative of the message he preached
every Sunday. Having gone through the split of 1953, he enjoyed this relatively conflict-free
church and the people enjoyed him, so he stayed.

He retired in 1978 and died two years later in 1980 from a heart attack. The two years after he
retired he continued to preach twice every Sunday as a guest minister at churches in the area. He
was looking forward to 6 weeks of being a guest pastor in a church in Florida. He died doing what
he enjoyed most which was preaching the Word. He was still dynamic in his preaching and in
demand as a guest preacher and teacher. His popularity as a minister never waned. Rev. De
Wolfs’ preaching ability that led to his getting in “hot water” as an associate pastor in the PRC,
served him well in the years to come in sharing the gospel with so many.
One final note is that Rev. De Wolf frequently concluded his prayers with “Lord come quickly”
While we believed that he was referring to the second coming of our Lord and Savior, for him,
personally, his prayer was answered.

In Memorial

Two weeks after I had the honor and privilege to meet several hours with Henry DeZeeuw, one of
my sources for information, he passed away at the age of 86. I first knew Henry when I was a
college student and working for him during the summers. He was a faithful supporter of Rev. De
Wolf and he had tremendous recall of events that happened almost 60 years ago. He offered
insights into the politics and personalities of those involved in the split. I regret that he will not
have the opportunity to provide input into the finalization of this document. I regret as well that I
didn’t do more to keep up our relationship over the years. He was a WWII Navy Veteran. His
Landing Ship Tank (LST) landed Gen. Patton on Omaha Beach. He was self-taught in many areas
and a loving and devoted family man. He was a warrior and mentor to many. Most of all he had a
passion for the Lord. He will be missed.

11
Theodore (Ted) J. deWolf
January 8, 2011 (revised)

12