No grounds for Liberation LRCA?
In the previous 14 articles extensive attention has been paid to the grounds for the Liberation of the Liberated Reformed Church Abbotsford (LRCA). These concern the tolerance and maintenance of practices and teachings that are contrary to the Holy Scripture, the Reformed Confession, and/or the Church Order.These matters include:
- The lack of confessional membership in the OPC, accepted as a sister church, where even people who do not subscribe to the Reformed confession can be members, such as Baptists, Arminians, Anglicans, and Pentecostal adherents (articles 2-3 of this series).
- The lack of proper supervision of the Holy Communion in an open communion where the aforementioned non-Reformed individuals are also welcome (articles 4-11 of this series).
- The associated idea of pluriformity (articles 12-14 of this series).
In these matters, the hallmarks of the true church are at stake (art. 29 Belgic Confession). The acceptance of these practices by the CanRC and the practice of the Lord’s Supper within the CanRC where OPC members without attestation are welcome, make the CanRC complicit in the aforementioned three matters. This also regards allowing CanRC members to partake in the Lord’s Supper in OPC worship services.
Furthermore, the sister-church relationships that the CanRC has established with other church federations on the same territory are in violation of art. 28 Belgic Confession. Therefore, the CanRC also act in contradiction to what art. 29 Belgic Confession states: “In short, it governs itself according to the pure Word of God, rejecting all things contrary to it and regarding Jesus Christ as the only Head”.
The General Synod of Lutten 2021 “observed” that “there was and is no ground for LRCA to separate from the CanRC” (Acta GS Lutten 2021, art. 6.01). The synod states this without interacting with the substantiation provided by LRCA and other materials submitted in different letters of objections.Subsequently, the synod formulated her unsupported “observation” as the ground or five decisions, including decision (4) “to call upon LRCA to return to the CanRC without conditions.” This ground (3) reads in the decision: “The church members had no basis for separating from the CanRC.”How can an unsupported observation serve as the ground for such a significant judgment? This is particularly reprehensible because it concerns the legitimacy of the existence of a sister church.
The failure to judge or even mention the grounds of liberation that were accepted by earlier synods of DGK is incomprehensible, especially since LRCA itself identified these grounds, which were then accepted as legitimate by GS Emmen 2009 and GS Groningen 2014 (during the handling of a request for revision).
These grounds are clearly and extensively articulated in the Acts of these synods and are therefore binding in accordance with Article 31 of the Church Order.
Based on these facts, the decision of GS Lutten 2021 regarding LRCA cannot be considered in any way as a careful and just verdict.
In addition to the aforementioned grounds regarding the necessity of the Liberation of LRCA, there is also the experience of disciplinary measures by the CanRC Abbotsford council against the brothers who continued to appeal against the aforementioned matters (Acts of Synod Groningen 2014, page 334).
Churchorderly Way
One issue not yet discussed in this series is the churchorderly way concerning the handling of the objections raised by the brothers of LRCA. These objections concern the main grounds for their liberation.Although the BBK report discussed LRCA’s churchorderly way, there is no mention of it in the Acts of Synod Lutten 2021. Deputies BBK were of the opinion that this churchorderly way had not yet concluded and therefore LRCA had no right to separate from the CanRC. Neither the BBK report nor the Acts of Synod Lutten show any indication of having examined the churchorderly way as followed by LRCA.
It seems appropriate to address this in this series of articles. I will discuss the main articles from the Acts of the CanRC synods, which relate to the grounds for the liberation of LRCA from the moment CanRC decided in 1977 to recognize the OPC as a true church, initially without a formal sister church relationship (for all relevant articles of the CanRC synods between 1980 and 2004, see Acts of Synod Groningen page 337).
CanRC Synod 1977, art. 91 decides to recognize the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) as a true church.
CanRC Synod 1980, art. 97. Objections are raised against insufficient evidence of actual binding to the confession in the OPC. Objections are also raised against an open (non-closed) Lord’s Supper and therefore against insufficient functioning of ecclesiastical discipline in the OPC. These objections are rejected.
CanRC Synod 1983, art. 55 observes that an OPC congregation (Tri-County Church, Laurel, USA) hopes to join the Classis Ontario-South of the CanRC because of a dispute over fencing of the Lord’s Supper in the OPC. At the same time, this synod has no objection to maintaining recognition of the OPC despite their practice of lack of supervising the Lord’s Supper.
CanRC Synod 1986, art. 132 decides that in contacts with the OPC, the supervision of the Lord’s Supper must be discussed as a serious confessional divergency. Art. 136 denies all appeals to terminate official contact with the OPC. At the same time, it is expressed that there may perhaps be reason to review the official ecclesiastical contact with the OPC.
CanRC Synod 1992 (art. 72) states that in contacts, agreement should be reached that all who confess their faith in the CanRC and the OPC accept the doctrine of the Word of God as summarized in the confessional documents (standards) of the churches, so that all members are bound to the Word of God in the unity of faith as confessed in the accepted confessional documents.
Important matters necessary for ecclesiastical relationship include: (a) the matter of confessional membership; (b) the matter of supervision of the Lord’s table; and (c) the matter of the relationship with the Christian Reformed Church (synodal churches).
CanRC Synod 1995 (art. 106) again expresses the intention to continue the contact to work towards formalizing a relationship of ecclesiastical fellowship with the OPC and to arrive at an agreement with the OPC on the matters of the fencing of the Lord’s Table and confessional membership.
CanRC Synod 1998 (art. 130) presented the following policy to reach agreement:
Concerning Fencing the Lord’s Table:
The churches of the Reformation confess that the Lord’s supper should not be profaned (1 Cor. 11:27, see Heid. Cat. Lord’s Day 30, Q & A 82; Westminster Confession ch. 29,8). This implies that the celebration of the Lord’s Supper is to be supervised. In this supervision the Church exercises discipline and manifests itself as true church. This supervision is to be applied to the members of the local church as well as to the guests. This means that a general verbal warning by the officiating minister alone is not sufficient and that a profession of the Reformed faith and confirmation of a godly life is required. The eldership has a responsibility in supervising the admission to the Lord’s Supper.
Concerning Confessional Membership:
The churches of the Reformation believe that they have to contend for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3) and are called to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned (Rom. 16:17). Anyone who answers the membership vows in the affirmative is bound to receive and adhere to the doctrine of the Bible as the patristic church has summarized this teaching in the Apostles Creed and the churches of the Reformation have elaborated on this in their confessions. Every confessing member is bound to this doctrine and must be willing to be instructed in it.
However, CanRC Synod 2001 (art. 45) amends the aforementioned agreement of synod 1998. The highlighted passages emphasized above (bold) from synod 1998 are deleted. This approves the unchanged practice of the OPC of lacking confessional membership and insufficient supervision of the Lord’s Table.
For the first time, the synod refers to the divergencies regarding confessional membership and the supervision of the Lord’s Supper as “difference in practice” whereas in previous synods they were consistently referred to as “major divergencies” which do not fall under Church Order article 50 “minor points of church order and ecclesiastical practice.”
It is also no longer deemed necessary to reach agreement on the relevant practices (confessional membership and supervision of the Lord’s Supper) as synod 1995 had still expressed. All this without substantiation. Based on this amended agreement, CanRC entered into a sister church relationship (Ecclesiastical fellowship, EF) with the OPC.
CanRC Synod 2004 (art. 86). At this synod, objections from the CanRC churches at Attercliff, Abbotsford, Grand Rapids, Owen Sound, and Blue Bell are addressed, directed against the decision to enter into a sister church relationship with the OPC based on the agreement formulated by synod 2001. These objections are all rejected.
CanRC Synod 2004 (art. 97) This synod also denies the objection of CanRC Grand Rapids that guests at the Lord’s Supper can also participate in the URCNA (United Reformed Churches North America) without attestation based on self-testimony.
End of the Churchorderly Way in the CanRCThis marked the end of the churchorderly way, as all objections regarding the establishment of a sister church relationship with the OPC had been rejected, implicitly accepting the current practices within the OPC that:
- Members of this church do not have a confessional membership, and that
- Supervision of the Lord’s Supper can suffice with a general warning from the pulpit.
In the previous installments, we extensively discussed these practices and noted that they are clearly in conflict with the church’s confession.
Even after 2004, objections against the mentioned practices were raised by other CanRC churches up to and including CanRC Synod 2016, but there has been no change in CanRC’s stance regarding the OPC, the sister church relationship between CanRC and OPC, and the unscriptural practices within the OPC. This applies in part to the URCNA as well.
As mentioned above, the brothers of LRCA were faced with disciplinary measures in their own CanRC congregation when they continued to appeal against incorrect decisions. In 2007, they liberated themselves.
Closing ConclusionsWith the present article this series comes to an end.The sad closing conclusions are:
- The matters at stake with the liberation of LRCA concern all three marks of the true church (art. 29 Belgic Confession). Tolerating these matters in official ecclesiastical contacts with other churches makes the churches complicit.
- If a church federation lacks adherence of its members to the confession of the church (confessional membership), this federation is not Reformed, and there can be no fellowship with such a church federation.
- Accepting self-testimony about life and explicitly accepting unscriptural doctrine among partakers of the Lord’s Supper risks bringing God’s wrath upon the entire congregation (1 Cor. 11:7-34, Synod Mariënberg 2005, art. 25, J.4.3, page 85). This applies to both OPC and CanRC.
- Accepting pluriformity in ecclesiastical contacts is in conflict with art. 28 Belgic Confession and undermines the authority of Christ as the one head of His church and denies His one body (1 Cor. 12, Eph. 4).
- The current communion practices within the CanRC and the pluriform contacts within NAPARC and ICRC show that tolerance towards others affects one’s own churches.
- Synod Lutten 2021 failed to justify its handling of the LRCA case in relation to the pronouncements of Synod Groningen 2014. This puts it in conflict with art. 31 and 33 of the Church Order.
- The pronouncement of Synod Lutten 2021 that the liberation of LRCA was unfounded is not based on any fact or assumption. Synod Lutten 2021 thus failed to maintain justice in its pronouncement regarding the grounds and legality of the liberation of LRCA.
- Contrary to what the report of deputees BBK (Acts of Synod 2021) claimed, according to art. 31 Church Order, the pronouncement of Synod Groningen 2014, that the churchorderly way had been fully completed at the time of the liberation of LRCA in 2007, must be upheld. The deputees BBK did not present any valid evidence against this in their report to Synod Lutten 2021.