5. How is admission to the Holy Supper handled in congregations of the Canadian Reformed Churches (CanRC)?
For almost all local churches who have accepted the decision of Neerlandia 2001, confessing members from the OPC can participate in the Lord’s Supper without being bound to any creed, not even their Westminster Confession; they may even hold Baptist or other false doctrinal views. Since the OPCs do not issue attestations, self-testimony regarding doctrine and life is considered sufficient in many CanRC’s for these visitors.
Therefore, for guests from the OPC, the same objections apply against the admission practice within the CanRC as they do within Presbyterian churches.
Perhaps this development is why the step towards a joint service between CanRC Blessing Church Hamilton and a Baptist church in 2017 was not considered significant. In this service the Holy Supper was celebrated together.
Nowadays, several congregations allow guests who are confessing members from NAPARC and ICRC non-sister churches (Acts DGK Synod Lansingerland 2017, p.170).
Moreover some CanRC congregations practice a non-closed celebration of the Holy Supper with guests even from non-sister churches outside NAPARC and ICRC. They are admitted by consistory on the basis of self-testimony, and, apart from a general verbal warning from the pulpit, a possible conversation or the possible completion of a questionnaire, there is no other requirement from consistory.
6. How do the Reformed Churches (restored) assess a non-closed Lord’s Supper?
Reformanda
Since 1991, many articles have appeared in the Reformanda magazine over time, discussing foreign churches by Dr. P. van Gurp and Ir. J. Eikelboom from Australia. The practice of the Lord’s Supper in the OPC and the PCEA (Presbyterian Churches of Eastern Australia) has been discussed repeatedly.
In 1998, the CanRC Synod Fergus made a decision regarding the OPC, about which Dr. Van Gurp wrote the following:
In addition to general matters of the church federation, this synod also had to judge whether the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) could finally be recognized as a sister church after so many years of discussions. There were still some reservations about this church, and discussions had been ongoing with the OPC for years. The synod decided to finally conclude the matter by making it clear: this is how we want to continue with the OPC as a sister church.
This concerned the issue of admission to the Holy Supper. Contrary to the practice in some churches within the OPC, which contented themselves with an oral warning from the pulpit against unworthy participation in the Lord’s Supper and then left it to the people, the synod stated that it is the task of the elders (and not just the pastor alone) to keep the Lord’s table holy by admitting only church members and guests who are sure to confess the Reformed faith and whose conduct is blameless.
A second objection to the OPC concerns whether church members who make a confession are thereby bound to the church’s confession. The synod states that anyone who answers the confession questions in the church agrees with the twelve articles and the confessions of the church and is therefore bound by them.
The synod now says to the OPC: we would like to accept you as a sister church, but under these two conditions. You must agree to this. And if the OPC does not? The synod made it clear: then we cannot continue with you, and our relationship will come to an end. We cannot always keep talking. A bold decision.
Unfortunately, the Synod Neerlandia 2001 dropped the requirement of Synod Fergus 1998. The Agreement was adjusted so that a sister church relationship with the OPC was established without any change in the OPC policy regarding Lord’s Supper admission and adherence to the confession.
See the 10th article of this series (Non-closed Lord’s Supper (7)) for more information.
Liberation 2003
The Liberation of 2003 also involved the decision of the General Synod Leusden 1999 to recognize the Presbyterian Church of Eastern Australia (PCEA) as sister churches (see A.P. Bezemer et al.: “Let Us Repent,” pages 64-66, LWVKO, brochure no.2, 2003).
Synod Mariënberg 2005 of DGK stated the following in the rejection of the decision to establish a sister church relationship with the PCEA regarding communion practice, Acta art. 25 J.4.3 – J.4.6.
J.4.3. Scripture teaches us that Gods wrath will come to the congregation when discipline is neglected (1 Cor. 11:17-34). With regard to the unsubstantial participation account of their own testimony, see John 5:31.
J.4.4. The church confesses that Lords Table must be kept holy. Also the administering of the sacraments is a mark of the church of Christ (art. 29 BG). J.4.5. An appeal to art. 50 CO with regard to minor cases is not under discussion: in this case it is not a matter of minor importance.
J 4.6. It does not concern differences which in the past did not stop a sister-church relationship with Presbyterian churches. Entering a sister-church relationship ought to occur on the basis of current information and the testing in subordination to Gods Word, and not only on the basis of decisions made by synods in the past about status of a denomination.
Our churches are still bound by this statement in accordance with Article 31 of the Church Order.
Synod Groningen 2014 referred to this decision of Synod GS Mariënberg on the PCEA dealing with a revision request regarding the decision of Synod Emmen 2009 to establish a sister church relationship with LRC Abbotsford. Synod Groningen explicitly agreed with its committee report 3 (Acts GS Groningen pages 331-342), condemning the ecclesiastical practices of the OPC regarding binding to confession and admission to Lord’s Supper, and the associated doctrine of pluriformity as unscriptural. These practices have been identified by the synod as a legitimate reason for the Liberation of LRCA.
As long as this decision of this synod is not revoked, it is still binding in accordance with Article 31 of the Church Order.
Open Lord’s Supper in GKv as a ground for Liberation in Dalfsen 2010
Finally, the rejection of the Lord’s Supper practice introduced in the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands (GKv) from 2005 also holds significance in this matter. Similar to the policy of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC), self-testimony suffices, and one does not need to be a member of their own churches or sister churches. In a sense, the GKv decision of 2005 contrasts favorably with the OPC policy because it still required a confession of “the Reformed doctrine.”
I present here, with substantive agreement, the objection from the “Declaration of Ecclesiastical Steps to Remain Reformed,” which was formulated by Dalfsen in 2010 during their liberation from the GKv:
The consistory is called to guard the sanctity of the Lord’s Supper (Lord’s Day 31 of the Heidelberg Catechism; Article 68* of the Church Order). However, the decision of Synod of Amersfoort-C, confirmed by Synod Zwolle-Zuid, wrongly creates the possibility of admitting people based on their own testimony about their doctrine and life. (italics SdM) This goes against Christ’s command to be vigilant in maintaining the sanctity of God’s covenant and His covenant table.
Article 61* of the Church Order states that only those who have confessed their faith according to the Reformed doctrine and lead a godly life can be admitted to the Lord’s Supper. This applies even to those who can provide a “good attestation” from a sister church.
Article 61* of the Church Order restricts access to the table of Lord’s Supper to confessing members of the Reformed churches. (…)
We reject the synod decisions that stem from the unscriptural idea that for participating in the Lord’s Supper, it is sufficient if someone confesses their faith in Christ while there is no church unity.
This idea is not separate from the currently vigorously defended and applied doctrine of the pluriformity of the church. (italics SdM) This doctrine has been explicitly rejected in the history of the church as contrary to the Word of God and the Reformed confession (Article 28 of the Belgic Confession, among others). This doctrine is based on the factual ecclesiastical condition, justifies ‘church sin,’ and paralyzes ecclesiastical discipline.
* The number of article of CO is adjusted according to the numbering in the Book of Praise (SdM)
I hope that this language of confession is still guiding for our judgment on the practice of Lord’s Supper in our own congregations and those of other churches with whom we come into contact. Speaking with two voices on this matter would be a very serious issue that touches the foundation of the church.
I plan to discuss the pronouncement of Synod Lutten 2021 on the grounds of the liberation of LRC Abbotsford later.
(to be continued)