The Reformed Churches as assembled in the joint General Synod of Groningen/Kornhorn 2024 have decided, with respect to the Canadian Reformed Churches (CanRC), to enter into a sister-church relationship. This is briefly indicated in Article 6 of the Instruction for the Deputation for Foreign Church Relations (BBK) (Acts p. 58). Meanwhile, the most recent synod of the CanRC (Synod Aldergrove 2025) has, on its part, confirmed this sister-church relationship. The decision of Groningen/Korhorn is not accompanied by any further principial substantiation. What do we know of these churches?
Contacts with the CanRC
Shortly after the establishment of the first deputation for foreign relations (BBK) of DGK following the Liberation from the GKv in 2003, meetings took place with deputies of the Canadian Reformed Churches, at that time sister churches of the GKv. The instructions of GS Mariënberg 2005–2006 for this deputation included, among other things:
They shall maintain contacts with the sister churches of the GKv and for that purpose, among other things, make use of an explanatory English-language document in which the grounds for the Liberation are set out, of which the “Deed of Liberation or Return” dated September 2003, the brochure “Let us repent,” and the “Call to reformation,” the latter two drawn up in February 2003, shall form components. In this document it must become clear that the Reformed Churches as assembled in Mariënberg 2006 desire to maintain unity with the above-mentioned sister churches.
They shall also draw up a defence document in the Dutch and English languages that refutes the unfounded criticism from the side of the Reformed Churches (Liberated) directed against the legitimacy of the recent Liberation and the right of existence of the Reformed Churches as continuation of the Church of Christ in the Netherlands. This concerns responses to, among other things, “Not beyond what is written” and the Appeal of the Reformed Churches (Liberated). This defence document shall be sent to all sister churches, where applicable as an addition to the documents mentioned under 3.
The above-mentioned defence document of DGK in response to the GKv brochure “Not beyond what is written” was already drawn up in September 2006. It was given the title “Do not take words away from this book of prophecy; Answer to the brochure ‘Not beyond what is written’” and was sent to the Canadian (CanRC), Australian (FRCA), and South African sister churches (VGKSA) of the GKv. Initially, there was hardly any understanding among these foreign churches for our Liberation from the GKv. The CanRC synods of 2007 and 2010 called DGK a schismatic church because of their Liberation from the GKv; this was later not withdrawn. Nevertheless, meetings continued to take place every three years with mutual deputies.
Over the years, more understanding gradually arose for the position of DGK when it became clear that within the GKv, with the acceptance of a new hermeneutic, the way was also opened for women in office. FRCA and CanRC did not break their ties with the GKv until 2018 and 2019 respectively.
In the contacts with the CanRC throughout all those years, not only the GKv and the necessity of our Liberation of 2003 were discussed, but also the situation within the CanRC itself. The reason for this arose from the contacts that we developed from 2010 with LRC Abbotsford in the form of a sister-church relationship. That relationship gave us much insight into what was taking place in the CanRC.
In 2013, deputies BBK of DGK decided to submit their view of the situation in the CanRC by letter to the next Canadian synod, namely that of Carman 2013. The reason was that the report of the delegates of CanRC insufficiently reflected our position that we had explained to them (both the English and Dutch versions of the letter are in Acts GS Groningen 2014, https://www.geref-kerken.nl/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Acta_generale_synode_groningen_2014.pdf, pp. 225–242).
True unity tolerates no pluriformity
No response from the CanRC synod came to the letter of deputies BBK from 2013. Nor were the submitted objections honoured by CanRC deputies.
Making use also of the contents of this letter, I wish to make clear how in the CanRC pluriformity further took shape (pp. 225–242). In this regard I also refer to an earlier series of articles by Bouwen-en Bewaren (in particular three articles starting from https://www.bouwen-en-bewaren.nl/2024/02/03/waarheid-en-recht-als-grond-voor-eenheid-12-pluriformiteit-1/).
In the letter, deputies first pointed to the richness of a federation of churches that is faithful to its confession, also with respect to the doctrine of the church. According to Article 28 of the Belgic Confession, this includes that together we take upon ourselves the yoke of Christ. For the local church this means, alongside the richness of God’s Word in preaching, doctrine, and administration of the sacraments, that one jointly submits to ecclesiastical supervision and exercise of discipline and to mutual brotherly edification, admonition, and comfort.
With respect to the federation of churches, this yoke of Christ includes the benefits of church government according to the established church order, whereby the churches also watch over one another and help one another. In such a scriptural federation of churches, the members are truly one in faith, one in Spirit, and together truly form one Body as the Body of Christ (Eph. 4; 1 Cor. 12).
It may further be noted that locally, regionally, and nationally only in this way does true unity in the truth take shape, as the Lord Jesus intended it in His high-priestly prayer (John 17). The unity He intends in His prayer to the Father is therefore also a command for the church, as a complete unity that is more than a few meetings. The Lord Jesus says (John 17:21): “that they all may be one, just as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be one in Us … that they may be one as We are one; I in them and You in Me, that they may be perfectly one.” This perfect unity is a very special unity, a reflection of the unity of Christ with His Father. It is therefore a unity in the truth.
That is the secret of true catholicity, in which full truth and full unity go together. This catholicity stands over against pluriformity, in which the unity is not perfect as the Lord intended it, and where room is left for deviation in doctrine (impurity) and the required oversight and discipline at the celebration of the Lord’s Supper are neglected.
OPC, URCNA, ERQ, RCUS
Since 1977 the CanRC has declared the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) to be a true church. Since 2001 there has even been an official “Ecclesiastical Fellowship” (EF, a kind of sister-church relationship) with this church. Yet there is still no prospect of ecclesiastical union. One remains stuck in a static situation, in which multiple congregations of Christ exist alongside one another.
But — so the letter asked — is Christ divided (1 Cor. 1:13)? Where is the obedience to God’s Word confessed in Article 28 of the Belgic Confession and underscored in the second commandment?
Prior to the unification of the church federations of the churches of the Secession and of the Doleantie in the Netherlands in 1892, no interchurch communion was practiced.
First, all matters over which differences of opinion existed were resolved as far as both churches judged necessary. Only after that did one proceed to one federation of churches with pulpit exchange and sharing of the table of the Lord.
There may be criticism concerning the adequacy of the preparation in 1892, but we shall leave that aside here. Our forefathers first attempted to have one true foundation, in order thereafter to proceed to a united church.
Why did the CanRC not in the same way first seek a solution for the existing major differences (“outstanding divergencies”) with the OPC and only then set in motion the process of unification in one federation of churches?
In the opinion of DGK deputies (2013), the form of cooperation (EF) in which federations of churches continue to exist alongside one another within the same country or region does not accord with the scriptural model of the one Household of Ephesians 2 and 4, as summarized in Article 28 of the Belgic Confession.
Naturally, account must be taken of the fact that in large countries such as Canada and the United States far more problems must be overcome than in the Netherlands. Distances are enormous, overlapping areas differ from church to church.
But within the federation of churches of the CanRC itself there are also enormous distances. Differences in tradition or ethnic background can possibly pose problems. But in the light of Eph. 2:11–22 and 1 Cor. 1:13 they ought not to be insurmountable obstacles in North America.
The same applies to the EF relationships that the CanRC has entered into since 2001 with other federations of churches: the United Reformed Churches of North America (URCNA), l’Église Réformée du Québec (ERQ), and the Reformed Churches of the United States (RCUS).
The manner in which practical and principial matters concerning the required ecclesiastical unity ought to be resolved must accord with what Scripture itself indicates and not with human or traditional viewpoints.
(to be continued)