In addition to the issues of the lack of binding to the confession and the practice of an non-closed communion, the doctrine and practice of pluriformity were also grounds for the liberation of LRC Abbotsford. In a series of articles, we focus on this subject.
Pluriformity accepted by sister churches (EF) of CanRC
To the best of our knowledge, all Presbyterian churches teach that a certain church federation is like a branch of a tree, while multiple branches can exist side by side in the same area. This refers to “evangelical denominations” that vary in purity of doctrine. They base this on the Westminster Confession, which in article 25 speaks of an invisible church alongside a visible church and of pure and less pure churches next to each other. The OPC does so in the Book of Church Order.
Confessing members of various “evangelical denominations” are therefore welcome at the Lord’s Supper table in Presbyterian churches with a good self-testimony.
The well-known Presbyterian G.I. Williamson (author of a commentary on the Westminster Confession) spoke on behalf of the OPC at the CanRC synod of Neerlandia in 2001 (Acts page 123). During this synod, CanRC established an ecclesiastical fellowship (EF) with OPC.
In his speech, Williamson referred to article 29 of the Belgic Confession regarding the true church and its marks as an “absolute” norm that no church can meet. Neither the OPC nor the CanRC can fulfill it. He is glad to have the Westminster Confession, which recognizes both more and less pure churches for the “actual” church situation.
Thus, article 29 of the Belgic Confession is presented here as normative idealism, opening the way for the pluriformity of many church federations alongside each other, as branches which are more or less pure. Articles 27 and 28 of the Belgic Confession are then no longer considered.
The Presbyterian J.G. Vos also wrote critically about article 29 of the Belgic Confession in his commentary on the Larger Westminster Catechism (Edited of G.I. Williamson), page 136, 137: ”When any one denomination claims to be the true visible church, this necessary implies that others are false. Such a claim is presumptuous and sinful. (…) We should freely recognize that the visible church includes many branches that show a greater or lesser degree of consistency”.
In this book any urgency to unite when recognizing another true church in the same area is lacking. This lack of urgency probably originates from the absence of mentioning the ordinance of God to unite with the church in the Westminster Confession. By providing the ideas of an invisible church and the more and less pure churches, pluriformity is justified without Scriptural basis.
Even the Reformed Church of the United States (RCUS), which, as a reformed sister-church (EF) of the CanRC, adheres to the Three Forms of Unity (!), openly defends pluriformity (“multiformity”) of the church. They do this by referring to the Westminster Confession, similar to how the Presbyterians do (see “RCUS-Principles of Church Unity, 1999”).
Ordinance of God
This view of pluriformity of denominations denies the true unity of the church of Christ and promotes tolerance regarding false doctrine. It also serves as the Presbyterian justification for their practice of a non-closed Lord’s Supper.
It denies the recognition of the true church and is in conflict with the Scriptural teaching, which identifies the marks of pure proclamation of God’s Word, pure administration of the sacraments, and the pure exercise of discipline. We confess this in article 29 of the Belgic Confession of the same one universal church that is mentioned art. 27 and 28 BC.
This view is also directly in conflict with article 27 of the Belgic Confession (“Nevertheless, it is joined and united with heart and will in one and the same Spirit, by the power of faith”) and with article 28 of the Belgic Confession, which elaborates on this unity from article 27 as “the ordinance of God”: “Everyone is obligated to join it and unite with it.”
Does this mean that all true believers in a certain area should be members of the same true church federation? Yes, because article 28 of the Belgic Confession continues: “Thus the unity of the church is preserved; they submit themselves to its instruction and discipline, bend their necks under the yoke of Christ, and serve the edification of the brothers according to the gifts God has granted to all, as members of the same body.”
In this passage, Scripture is faithfully echoed (see Eph. 4:1-16, 1 Cor. 12:12-28). Therefore, our confession in article 28 speaks of the ordinance of God with a reference to the second and fourth commandments of God’s Covenant. This underscores the seriousness of ignoring faith obedience regarding the unity in truth as described in articles 27-29 of the Belgic Confession.
Pluriformity in the CanRC
The sister church relationship (EF) with churches in the same region
The acceptance of pluriformity within the CanRC itself is evident in the way they maintain a sister church relationship (EF) within the same area with other denominations.
The letter from the BBK deputies to the Synod of Carman 2013 pointed this out (Acts GS Groningen pages 225-233). Synod Carman did not provide a response to this letter. Also, during mutual discussions between the CanRC deputies and BBK deputies, the objections raised in that letter were not honored.
The letter to Synod Carman 2013 first emphasizes the richness of participating in a church federation that is faithful to its confession, particularly in matters of church doctrine. According to Article 28 of the Belgic Confession, this entails bearing the yoke of Christ together.
As to the local church, that yoke of Christ includes — in addition to the richness of God’s Word in preaching, doctrine, the administration of the sacraments and the exercise of discipline- simultaneous subjection to the supervision of the offices, mutual brotherly edification, admonishment and comforting. As to the federation, this yoke of Christ includes the benefits of church government according to the adopted Church Order. In such a Scriptural union, the members really are of one faith, one Spirit and so together really one Body (Eph. 4)
The letter acknowledges the lengthy process required to reach satisfactory agreements on various aspects when dealing with individual churches with their own traditions. It recognizes that this demands a high degree of self-denial. However, it asserts that what Article 28 of the Belgic Confession requests from all churches is obedience to our Lord.
Since 1977, CanRC has declared that the OPC is a true church. Since Synod Neerlandia 2001, there has been an EF relationship with this church. Yet, there is still no prospect of complete ecclesiastical unification. In this design, the CanRC is thus left with a static situation where multiple churches of Christ co-exist. But is Christ divided ( 1 Cor.1:13)?
Prior to the unification of the federations of churches from the Secession and the Doleantie in the Netherlands in 1892, no interchurch fellowship was practiced. First, matters of divergence were resolved as much as necessary in the opinion of both churches, and only then were the pulpit exchanges and the sharing of the Lord’s Table allowed within one federation.
There may be criticism regarding the adequacy of the preparation in 1892, but that is left aside here. Our forefathers first tried to have one true foundation and then progress to one united church.
The question arises as to why the CanRC did not likewise resolve the divergences they had encountered with the OPC and only then start the process of unification into one church federation.
According to the opinion of DGK deputies (2013), the form of cooperation and co-existence by EF (ecclesiastical fellowship) within the same country or area does not really meet the Scriptural model of the one Household of Ephesians 2 and 4, which is summarized in Art. 28 BC in which all true believers hold to the one truth and grow together in mutual love to the one Head, Christ (Eph. 4:16).
EF is a model that is valid for use in cases of geographical or linguistic barriers, but how is its use defensible in the light of Art. 28 BC when the concerned churches share the same geographic areas?
Of course, it should be realized that in vast countries like Canada and America far more problems have to be overcome than will be encountered in the Netherlands. The distances are enormous, the overlapping areas may differ from church to church. But even the CanRC church federation itself has already to cope with enormous distances.
Differences in tradition or ethnic background, may also form problems. But in the light of Eph. 2:11-22 and 1 Cor. 1:13, they should not be insurmountable obstacles in North America. The perspective from which all these matters have to be resolved must come from the standpoint of the Lord and not from one’s own human traditional standpoints.
(to be continued)