I’ve been mulling over what happened in London last month. Of course, in the meantime, some CanRC colleagues have weighed in with their opinions. I think the approach that I find most agreeable is that of Dr. Jerry Visscher. Unlike my colleague Bill DeJong, I appreciate the work that our brothers in the URCNA have done to expose and refute the grievous errors of Federal Vision theology and the like. I don’t view FV, NTW, NS,or NPP as innocuous. But at the same time, I’m deeply disappointed by the response of the URCNA to the CanRC further efforts towards ecumenicity. Not surprised, but disappointed. For instance, our Synod wrote a substantial letter to the URCNA Synod. In the press releases and blog reports, I didn’t see any evidence that this letter was really taken seriously. As another example, our Synod appointed men to various ecumenical committees with mandates to continue working with the URCNA. From what I can tell, they didn’t reciprocate. In the CanRC, we now have men marking time on basically useless committees. All in all, when I consider the way the URCNA Synod dealt with the relationship with the CanRC, I don’t sense much respect. Sure, they said that we are a “true church” etc., but that’s nothing new. We’ve been saying that about one another for close to a decade already. It’s difficult not to be cynical.
Where to go from here? As I said, I appreciate Dr. Visscher’s suggestions. I suppose we’ll have to be satisfied with the status quo. I don’t see federational unity happening in my lifetime — and that breaks my heart. It really does. We belong together.