Tag Archives: Ecumenicity

International Conference of Reformed Churches

The CanRC and URC (along with the OPC and many others) belong to the International Conference of Reformed Churches, a confessionally Reformed ecumenical organization.  The seventh meeting was recently held in New Zealand and a press release can be found here.

Inerrancy — Lessons from History (10)

At one time, the CRC had held to inerrancy.  But through the 1960s and 1970s, this position was eclipsed by the import of higher critical views from the Netherlands.  After Report 44 and Synod 1972, the direction of the CRC became increasingly latitudinarian.  Before long, the CRC had adopted a heterodox position on women in office – a position which conservatives linked to the drift away from inerrancy and Report 44.

All along the way there were protests, overtures, and appeals.  The CRC didn’t deteriorate without a fight.  Men who loved the CRC fought valiantly for her.  Louis Praamsma, Peter Y. De Jong, Jelle Tuininga, Henry Van der Kam, and many others did everything they could to turn the tide.  But ultimately they were not able to.

The debates over the authority of Scripture and the inevitable consequences led to the formation of the first Orthodox Christian Reformed Church (OCRC) in 1979.  Others would soon follow.    Eventually, as CRC conservatives realized that the hegemony of Calvin Seminary played a crucial role in the deterioration of the church, Mid-America Reformed Seminary (MARS) was established as an alternative.  Conservative CRC members aspiring to the ministry would study at MARS for three years, but then would still have to do the “year of penance” at Calvin.  Throughout the 1990s, many of these concerned CRC members and ministers would leave the CRC and form independent Reformed churches.  Eventually, many of these independent churches would federate into the United Reformed Churches of North America (URCNA).  In 2008, the OCRC merged with the URCNA.

It is fair to say that the URCNA owes its existence to the fact that the CRC turned its back on biblical inerrancy and adopted higher critical views in its stead.  Therefore, it’s no surprise that the website of Mid-America states that the seminary is committed to the “Holy Scriptures as the infallible and inerrant Word of God.”  Westminster Seminary California is another institution that supplies many of the candidates for the URCNA and it also boldly affirms biblical inerrancy.  Given the history of the CRC, it should also not be surprising that the existing URC Church Order also states, “We as a federation of churches declare complete subjection and obedience to the Word of God delivered to us in the inspired, infallible and inerrant book of Holy Scripture.”

Thus it should be expected that the introduction to the Proposed Joint Church Order (PJCO) going to the URC and CanRC synods in 2010 would use similar language:  “We Reformed believers maintain that the standard for personal, public, and ecclesiastical life is God’s Word, the inspired, infallible, and inerrant book of Holy Scripture.”  Because of their history, inerrancy is naturally a point of concern for our brothers and sisters in the URCNA.

Now there are those who say that this introduction brings in a kind of “extra-confessional binding” to the CanRC.  However, as I argue in a forthcoming article in Clarion, the notion of “no extra-confessional binding” in the CanRC is a convenient myth.   The reality is that we do have extra-confessional binding.  As an example, there is nothing explicit in the Three Forms of Unity to prevent me from saying from the pulpit tomorrow that committed homosexual relationships are within the will of God.  However, both our liturgical forms and our Church Order (after revision at Synod 2007) state that marriage is a relationship between one woman and one man.  That is extra-confessional binding and there is nothing inappropriate about that.  More examples could be given.  In fact, as my colleague R.C. Janssen argues in his recent dissertation, we have layers of confessing in our churches and that includes things like the Church Order and our liturgical forms.  Moreover, we are bound first of all to Scripture – “no extra-confessional binding” can easily become a sort of confessionalism where the authority of Scripture itself is undermined.

In the nature of the case, the Canadian Reformed Churches have already committed themselves to inerrancy by applying for and being received into membership in the North American and Presbyterian Reformed Council (NAPARC).  NAPARC’s constitution includes a commitment on the part of all its members to Scripture being “without error in all its parts,” which is another way of saying “inerrant.”  I would argue that this is simply the contemporary and necessary outworking of the incipient inerrancy found in the Belgic Confession.  Since we have already affirmed inerrancy at NAPARC, why should we balk at affirming inerrancy in the PJCO introduction?

In conclusion, the history of the CRC instructs us on what happens when inerrancy is questioned and then abandoned.  The URCNA exists because of this struggle.  As I’ve indicated before, I have my questions about the possibility of a merger anywhere in the near future.  But if we Canadian Reformed Churches want to make ourselves more attractive to the URCNA, drawing inerrancy into question is certainly not a way to do it.  Moreover, if the CanRCs do not stand for inerrancy, NAPARC will eventually say the same to us as it said to the CRC:  out!

NAPARC and Inerrancy

From the North American Presbyterian and Reformed Council (NAPARC) website:

Confessing Jesus Christ as only Savior and Sovereign Lord over all of life, we affirm the basis of the fellowship of Presbyterian and Reformed Churches to be full commitment to the Bible in its entirety as the Word of God written, without error in all its parts and to its teaching as set forth in the Heidelberg Catechism, the Belgic Confession, the Canons of Dordt, the Westminster Confession of Faith, and the Westminster Larger and Shorter Catechisms.

The Canadian Reformed Churches now have full membership in NAPARC, so of course we have expressed our official agreement with this doctrinal basis.

She’s Just Not That Into You

Some guys have had the unfortunate experience of unrequited attraction/love.  You know how it happens:  you’re a young single man and you spy an attractive young lady and hope for the best.  However, despite your best efforts (and despite trying to convince yourself that she still might be interested), after a while it finally becomes apparent that hell is going to resemble the Arctic before this interest ever develops into something remotely resembling a meaningful relationship.  It took a while, but you finally got a clue and moved on.

Early in the process, it was common to use relational metaphors to describe the relationship between the churches that separated from the CRC in the 1990s and the Canadian Reformed Churches (CanRC).  Eventually, those churches that separated federated and became known as the United Reformed Churches of North America (URCNA).  I can remember articles in Christian Renewal and elsewhere that spoke of our relationship as an engagement, with the idea that we were pledged to be married to one another.  Then some alleged that table fellowship, exchanging pulpits, etc. was akin to having inappropriate relations before marriage.  That took the metaphor a little too far and may have contributed to its demise.  However, as we approach another synod year for both the URCNA and CanRC, I think it’s worth reconsidering.  In particular, I believe that we can describe the relationship in terms similar to those I outlined in the introductory paragraph:  unrequited attraction/love.

My observation is that the relationship between the CanRC and URCNA is stalled.  A merger, should it ever happen, is many years down the road.  It’s not even anywhere near a possibility within ten years.  I would argue that some of this is to be attributed to the URCNA’s lack of ecumenical motivation when it comes to the CanRC.  The CanRC has been the eager suitor and the URCNA the girl with a lot going for her, but not a lot of interest in her eager suitor.

This has been evidenced in three areas in the last five years.  First, while there are important exceptions (think: Church Order), recent URC synods have made less than satisfactory appointments to some of their ecumenical committees.  Some committee members have been appointed who are either unwilling or unable to meet with their CanRC counterparts.  Why, one committee’s members were even appointed with the proviso that they would not have to travel for meetings.  Whatever happened to crossing oceans for the sake of ecumenicity?  Now we can’t be bothered.  It’s shameful.

Second, there has been a lack of reciprocity in the unity process.  The key example here is the Theological Education sub-committees.  At the CanRC Synod in 2007, our seminary professors were taken off this committee so that there would be no conflict of interest.  Our hope was that the URC Synod would reciprocate.  Instead, the URC Synod continued the appointments of Mid-America and Westminster Seminary California professors to their Theological Education committee.  As much as I respect these brothers, it has to be said that this gives the impression that protecting seminary turf is more important than ecumenicity.  If this unity process is really a matter of good faith, there should be conscious reciprocity at the synodical level and the avoidance of any perception of a conflict of interest.

Finally, URC ecumenical committees have sometimes been saddled with ambiguous mandates vis-a-vis the CanRC.  Remember the songbook committee?  Was it mandated to work on a joint songbook or develop something just for the URCNA?  Eventually, the last URC synod decided for the latter, but not until a lot of work had been put into a joint songbook.  And what about the Liturgical Forms and Confessions committee?  Is it mandated to create joint forms, prayers and confessions with the CanRC or develop something just for the URCNA?  I would not say that it has been deliberate (I don’t believe it has), but there is no better way to sabotage the unity process than come up with ambiguous mandates for your ecumenical committees.

So, to my CanRC brothers and sisters, I say: it’s time to get a clue.  The URCNA is not that into you.  Yes, I know, there are locales where things are going tickety-boo.  But I’m speaking about the big picture here.  In the big picture, the vast majority of the URCNA is not really that interested in a merger with the CanRC.

But there’s another side to this story.  Going back to the introductory metaphor, imagine the same young man with unwashed hair, talking with his mouth full and otherwise lacking in decorum.  He doesn’t have a clue that he’s a bit of a chump.  It’s no wonder that she’s not into him.  Anyone can see that he needs to pull up his socks if he’s going to find a girl.

There are concerns in some URC circles about the theology that lives in the CanRC.  Efforts have been made to discuss this in a meaningful way so as to allay those concerns.  Some years ago already, Classis Southwest approached the CanRC ecumenical committee with a set of questions.  The questions have never been answered.  Because of our claims to just be bound to the confessions, there is an unwillingness in the CanRC to talk theology in an official way.  But this is what has to be done if we’re to win the girl!  There have also been several private initiatives to discuss covenant theology.  They have all failed to produce any meetings of our theologians.  Sometimes the fault for that has been at the feet of the CanRC, sometimes at the feet of the URC.  But the only public and official initiatives have come from the side of the URC and went nowhere because of CanRC foot-dragging.

I believe I can make a claim to be one of the most favourable CanRC ministers to the URC.  I love the United Reformed Churches.  I have many close friends in the URC.  I value these relationships and I wish they could go deeper.  We belong together in one federation.  Our witness to the world could be much stronger for it.  Our love for the gospel could grow for it.  But for many reasons, including the ones listed above, I don’t think that it’s realistic in the near future.  It may lay a generation or more off.  Maybe we need a sabbatical from this process.  Then perhaps in ten years we can revisit this matter.  In the meantime, there are are more productive things that we could be doing as Canadian Reformed Churches.