Preservings $20 No. 25, December, 2005 - Plett Foundation

J. G. de Hoop Scheffer (1819-1893) (Mennonite Encyclopedia
IV, photo section p. 14, No. 2.)
Old-Flemish congregations follows. As can
be seen, especially the Haarlem congregation
played an active role in expressing the faith.
V[incent] D[e] H[ont], Korte bekentenisse
des geloofs (Haarlem, 1626).
Louwerens Willems, Kakebeen (Rotterdam,
1636), pages 1-111.
J[an] D[e] B[uyser], Christelijck Huysboeck
(Haarlem, 1643).
Roelof Agge Joncker, Mennoniste Vrageboeck,
Behelsende de twaelf Artijckelen des
Geloofs / in sodanigen order als deselve in de
Vergaderinge der Doops-gesinden: genaemt de
Huys-kopers geleert word: ’t Samen gestelt in
Vragen / en Antwoorden (Steenwijk, 1708).
Pieter Boudewijns, Onderwyzinge des
Christelyken Geloofs, Volgens de Belydenis
der Christenen die men de Oude Vlaamsche
Mennoniten noemt. Waar in derzelver Lleere
en Gemeentelyke Huishoudinge, Schriftmatig
voorgestelt en bewezen word: Opgestelt by
Vragen en Antwoorden (Haarlem, 1743; reprint
Sneek, 1825).
Pieter Boudewijns, Korte schets van de
onderwyzinge des Christelyken Geloofs, voor
de Jeugd (Haarlem, 1744).
The Frisian-Flemish conflict
To understand how the Old-Flemish branch
began, it is necessary to explain the different
factions preceding the Old-Flemish. Within the
scope of this article it is of course impossible to
deal with the Frisian-Flemish conflict in detail,
but it is important to have a general overview
of the dynamics of the events and of the values
at stake.
The Dutch Mennonites had broken in two
parts in 1557 over the usage of the ban. This
conflict first arose in the big congregation of
Franeker, in the province of Friesland, the native
province of Menno Simons. Those in favor of
30 - Preservings No. 25, December 2005
a more strict practice of the ban and shunning
were named Flemish. The more lenient party
was named Waterlanders or Franekeraars. Their
name was derived from a region in the province
of Holland, where they had a considerable number
of followers. 16
More important for our story is the second
breakup, namely, between the Flemish and the
Frisians. When the persecution in the southern
provinces (present Belgium) of the Netherlands
became fierce, many refugees fled to the northern
provinces. They settled at Amsterdam, Haarlem,
Leiden, but also in the province of Friesland. 17
The refugees from the south were different from
the locals in clothing, habits and what they considered
proper or not. Soon frictions arose.
Four towns – Leeuwarden, Harlingen,
Franeker and Dokkum – had made a secret
covenant (het Verbond van de Vier Steden), a
sort of regional church council. This gave them
the possibility to intervene in each of the towns.
When a Flemish refugee, Jeroen Tinnemaker of
Henegouwen, was called to office at Franeker,
this election was opposed by Ebbe Pieters, elder
of the Harlingen congregation. Jeroen acted
thereupon by withdrawing the congregation of
Franeker from the covenant in 1566. He gained
support from other Flemish congregations.
The conflict, based on cultural, ideological
and personal differences, soon ran out of hand.
At first a compromise (Compromis) was reached
in December 1566, but this failed because the
Flemish thought they were treated unfairly in
being blamed for the greatest role in the conflict.
One of those agreeing with the compromise was
elder Hans Busschaert. When the compromise
fell apart, Busschaert, among others, was temporarily
asked to step down from office. We will
meet him again in the next paragraph. 18
Eventually Dirk Philips, at that time elder
at Danzig, was invited, to come to the Netherlands
to mediate and help solve the differences.
Philips was biased in his actions, because he felt
overlooked as senior elder. He sided with the
Flemish and condemned the Frisians. Although
he initially had agreed with the covenant, he later
called it a human institution, not backed up by
Scripture. Soon after he had played his part, Dirk
died in East-Friesland, Germany. He was later,
posthumously banned by the Frisian.
Jan Willems and Lubbert Gerrits, elders
from the province of Holland, asked to mediate,
acted unwisely, and blamed the Flemish more
than the Frisians. It is not possible to describe
all the events, but eventually both parties banned
each other, starting with the Flemish. A group
of congregations in the province of Overijssel
had kept out of the dispute, but were asked for
their opinion. In 1569 they decided during the
so-called Stichtse Presentatie that the Frisians
were the most to blame, and sided with the
Flemish party.
At first Frisians and Flemish differed little
in their opinion and practice of the church, its
boundaries and its government. Later on, when
both factions divided again, more diversity was
created. The Frisian branch split in 1581 into
“Young or Soft” and “Old or Hard-Frisians.”
The points of conflict between Young and Old
were marital avoidance, outside marriages
(buitentrouw), the prohibiting of business with
the Flemish and the re-baptizing of Flemish
members. Some years later the Hard Frisians had
another split; the so-called Jan Jacobsgezinden
named after their leading elder. It was a very
strict branch. This group was especially strong
in the province of Friesland. 19
The genesis of the Old-Flemish branch
The occasion of the schism later known as
the Huiskopertwist was that elder Thomas Byntgens
20 of Franeker bought a house in 1586. 21 A
few months after the purchase, he was accused of
irregularities by the Diener Jacob Keest and two
other Diener. 22 According to Keest, the irregularities
were that Byntgens had paid a lower amount
of money than he had stated in the bill, and that
by doing so had diminished the opportunities
of his fellowman. Keest was of the opinion that
Byntgens should confess his wrong deed, but the
latter was unwilling. The first act was considered
a lie by Keest and his adherents, and the second
was seen as theft and deceit. Both were thought
of as conduct unbecoming for a Christian.
After dealing with the matter several times
in the Franeker congregation, it eventually remained
unsolved. It has to be said that Byntgens
had confessed his wrong deed, but was kept on
by the brethren to serve anyway. Keest was set
on bringing Byntgens down. He tried to do so by
bringing up a complaint against Byntgens’ wife.
Keest also looked for help from the neighbouring
congregation at Harlingen. Apparently some
members of Harlingen held a grudge against
Byntgens.
The row was still a local church matter,
but when the Franeker congregation failed to
settle the quarrel, other congregations became
involved. At first Jan Abels and neighbouring
congregations were asked to solve the dispute.
Abels was elder of the Flemish congregation of
nearby Dokkum. He dared not do it on his own,
so decided to wait for the expected delegates
from Holland. Both Byntgens and the three
Diener were asked to continue in their service.
Letters were written to invite delegates from
other congregations and probably delivered by
Byntgens himself.
During Byntgens’ absence, the three Diener
laid down their service. By doing so, they
harmed the poor of the congregation, for they
were no longer taken care of. With Byntgens
still absent, the three Diener picked up their
service again, and tried to get Byntgens’ wife,
Sasken, convicted. But the brethren refused to
treat her case. They replied to the Diener that she
had not been properly admonished. Angry, the
three laid down their service for a second time.
When Byntgens returned and saw the agony of
the poor and the congregation, he asked that their
dispute be brought before the brethren again. It
was judged that the three should confess their ill
intent towards Byntgens, and that Sasken should
ask forgiveness for the wrong words she had
spoken of the three Diener. Subsequently the
peace was restored with a handshake and the
brotherly kiss (hand en mond). All these events
took place in the year 1586.