It has now been some time since the Abbotsford case was discussed on this website.
In a fifteen-part series entitled “Truth and Justice as the Basis for Unity”, underlying matters have already been discussed extensively (https://www.bouwen-en-bewaren.nl/en/?s=truth+justice+foundation+unity ).
I have also already addressed the decision of GS Dalfsen 2024 od DGK to terminate the sister-church relationship with Abbotsford after the rejection of several appeals. We discussed this in installments 5–7 of the series “Zijn onze kerken veranderd?” (https://www.bouwen-en-bewaren.nl/category/artikel-van-de-week/zijn-onze-kerken-veranderd/).
There was sufficient reason to appeal this decision to the next synod: GS Groningen 2024. However, not all appeals submitted to this “extraordinary synod,” at which the union of DGK and GKN was being prepared, were dealt with. Thus this synod decided to declare appeals against the decisions of GS Dalfsen 2024 regarding the sister-church relationship with LRC Abbotsford inadmissible, because they “would not affect the union.” Appeals against the decision of Dalfsen regarding the Training for the Ministry of the Word were, however, dealt with.
Was that justified? The appeals concerned, among other things, the judgment of GS Dalfsen on the grounds for the liberation of Abbotsford (including open celebration of the Lord’s Supper and lack of binding to the confession). Precisely these matters relate to the OPC (Orthodox Presbyterian Church) and CanRC (Canadian Reformed Churches), churches that were considered for a church relationship with GK (Gereformeerde Kerken) at the joint Synod of Groningen–Korhorn 2024–2025. There it was even decided for GK to establish a sister-church relationship with CanRC (see: https://www.bouwen-en-bewaren.nl/en/2026/01/30/the-canrc-and-25-years-of-pluriformity-1/ and following artciels) and a correspondence relationship (precursor to a definitive sister-church relationship) with OPC (Acts, pages 58–59).
These relationships entail that members of these foreign churches may henceforth, in principle, partake at the table of the Lord’s Supper in the GK (Appendix to the Instruction of the Deputation for Relations with Foreign Churches, BBK, GS Groningen–Korhorn 2024, Acts, pages 61–62). Ministers of these churches may also, in principle, lead our worship services. On these latter two matters, however, the local consistory still decides (Acts, page 62).
All things considered, declaring inadmissible the appeals against the termination of the sister-church relationship with LRC Abbotsford, in the context of the DGK–GKN union, is indefensible. After all, the matters at issue in this sister-church relationship largely concern our judgment about whether or not to enter into relationships with multiple foreign churches.
At the synod of Groningen/Korhorn it also became apparent that there was sufficient lack of clarity at the synod table regarding matters of binding to the confession and the celebration of the Holy Supper. It was therefore decided to instruct the deputies to obtain clarity on these matters (Instruction of the Deputation for Relations with Foreign Churches, BBK, art. 10, Acts, page 60).
Yet the matter becomes even more grievous. GS Dalfsen 2024 described the grounds for the liberation of LRC Abbotsford as “improper” (Acts GS Dalfsen, page 52). “Improper” here will mean invalid, not legitimate. Thus the most weighty grounds for the liberation of LRCA Abbotsford — the holiness of the Supper and binding to the confession, matters that touch the marks of the true church (!) — were, in the judgment of GS Dalfsen, invalid.
As we saw earlier, preceding synods (GS Emmen 2009, GS Groningen 2014) spoke very differently about this (https://www.bouwen-en-bewaren.nl/2024/08/31/zijn-onze-kerken-veranderd-5/). They concluded that these grounds were scriptural and confessional, and therefore proper, valid. What, then, was the standard at GS Dalfsen 2024? Yet precisely these same rejected grounds are now again the subject of investigation, but now apart from LRC Abbotsford.
Is this walking the right path? First rejecting our sister church LRC Abbotsford with condemnation of their principled grounds as invalid, and then conducting investigation into precisely the same matters that for Abbotsford formed grounds for their liberation?
This development might have been prevented by declaring the appeals against GS Dalfsen admissible and dealing with them. What the GS 2024–2025 now leave the churches with is an indefensible bitter situation in which they have not only done injustice to LRC Abbotsford but also to their own churches.
It strongly appears that LRC Abbotsford had to be set aside in any case in order to make connections with other foreign churches possible (see also: Acts GS Groningen 2014, art. C.03.1). Meanwhile these connections have become active while fundamental questions still need to be answered. Is that the right order? Is that just?
Since local churches also bear responsibility for synodical decisions, and church members who have the ability to write a responsible appeal may know themselves called to do so, I gladly refer readers once again to the above-mentioned articles on this website, in which the principled background of the Abbotsford case is discussed much more broadly.
There attention is also given to the situation within the CanRC itself (https://www.bouwen-en-bewaren.nl/2024/08/31/zijn-onze-kerken-veranderd-5/), and to the unjustified accusation of GS Dalfsen 2024 that LRC Abbotsford is in conflict with the doctrine of the catholicity of the church (https://www.bouwen-en-bewaren.nl/2024/09/07/zijn-onze-kerken-veranderd-6/).
The closing date for submitting appeals to Synod Zwolle of GK has been set as: 28 February 2026.