The Van Rhijn report had dismantled everything that Antirevolutionary leaders (such as Kuyper) had constructed, and did so "in a manner so revolutionary as we never before thought possible." For him it was obvious: the CBTB had to "respond with every means at its disposal against these proposals that in every respect were mistaken." He found support among fellow board members who found every form of social state support an affront to human responsibility that could lead only to recklessness.
As the advocates of the breakthrough continued agitating so vigorously, the desire for the congress dwindled among the CBTB, but people did not want to cancel it.
A number of CBTB board members agreed with him in principle, but a more positive approach for taking the wind out of the sails of "threatening state socialism" was more desirable if only out of tactical considerations.
The CBTB let it be known through Van den Heuvel that the congress would have to give "a clear, lucid testimony" that included "explicitly positive guidelines" regarding the direction of social-economic politics.
Among the board of the CBTB, people were less positive about the composition of the committee.
With him, the issue essentially involved the question: "Must we exclude a member of the Labor Party from participating in the Congress?" (50) After intense resistance, the CBTB backed down and agreed.
The outrage among the CNV, CBTB, and the Antirevolutionary press was intense.