Inadmissible!
(Part 2)
by John Vantil
In my previous installment I held out the possibility that someone has stolen a very valuable painting from you. I asked how you would react if you know who did it, you have all the evidence at your disposal to prove it, but the police force and the courts will not hear or consider your case. But now imagine that even after you have pressed the matter the authorities tell you that the painting was worthless, that it was all your fault it was stolen, that you have such little credibility that you probably never even had a painting to start with, and that all you are doing is simply wasting their time.
As a result you have no hope, humanly speaking, of getting your valuable painting back, and, even more unsettling, you have no confidence that you will obtain justice should you suffer any further loss or injury through the actions of others.
With this in mind, Iet us now pay some attention to the treatment of the Liberated Reformed Church at Abbotsford by CanRC deputies, the ecclesiastical press, and by the Free Reformed Churches of Australia. Due to the fact that the Liberated Reformed Church has a sister church relationship with De Gereformeerde Kerken hersteld in the Netherlands (DGK), and that other churches are also looking at a possible relationship with these churches in the Netherlands, the existence of this relationship is being given some attention.
Canadian deputies
After a lengthy period of time Canadian deputies finally came to acknowledge that the DGK had legitimate grounds for separating itself from the Gereformeerde Kerken vrijgemaakte (GKV), the CanRC’s sister churches in the Netherlands. Two successive General Synods of the CanRC, Synod Smithers 2007 and Synod Burlington 2010, had called the separation that had taken place in the Netherlands “a schism” and decided to “admonish the RCR [the DGK] for its unlawful separation.” In their Report to General Synod Carman 2013 deputies wrote:
Synod Smithers made these pronouncements based on information and recommendations provided by the CRCA in its report to the churches and Synod. The report relied heavily on the information received from the RCN [the GKV] and the brochure ‘Not beyond what is written’. This brochure was prepared by deputies BBK of the RCN for the benefit of the sister churches.
In a supplement to their report, deputies CRCA acknowledged receipt of the brochure ‘Do not take words away from this book of prophecy’ an official response from the RCR to the BBK brochure. The deputies CRCA closed their observations regarding the RCR response with the words “In other words, we readily admit that we have not investigated some of the matters which the GKH [RCR] raises as grounds for their so-called liberation, for the reason that no such specific mandate was given to the CRCA.” (p. 95). This is unfortunate because the brochure does spell out in more detail where, in their opinion, the RCN has started to deviate from Scripture and the confessions. The brochure further outlines the concerns regarding the path of inter-church relations the RCN is taking in regards to the discussions with the Nederlands Gereformeerde Kerken. These are the same concerns we, the newly-appointed sub-committee, have addressed in our interim report in 2011 and in this report to Synod Carman (see Report of the CRCA Sub Committee Netherlands to Synod Carmen 2013 regarding Relations with the Reformed Churches – Restored, page 4).
It is encouraging that the CanRC deputies now appear to be waking up to the fact that there are serious problems with the GKV and therefore the members of the DGK had justification for their liberation. At the same time neither the CanRC deputies nor the CanRC General Synods since 2007 have shown any remorse for General Synod 2007’s decisions to call the separation that had taken place “a schism” and to “admonish the RCR [the DGK] for its unlawful separation.”
This same Report contained an extensive discussion about the DGK’s extension of a sister church relationship with the Liberated Reformed Church at Abbotsford. In the end the objections that were raised by the CanRC deputies were not about the fundamental issues surrounding the liberation in Abbotsford, but instead:
Observations reported by deputies as recorded in the Acts of Synod Emmen are questionable at best and lacking substantiation. Never during any of the visits was a CanRC church or deputy of the CRCA contacted, not even the CanRC of Abbotsford. Also when an opportunity presented itself for the two RCR men in 2010 to meet with us, there was no interest in doing so.
The deputies of the RCR only relied on information provided by the LRCA and selected Acts of recent CanRC synods. The fact that disagreements with the CanRC and local consistories about totally different matters existed well before 2001 by some now within the LRCA is not evident [in] the RCR reports (see Report of the CRCA Sub Committee Netherlands to Synod Carmen 2013 regarding Relations with the Reformed Churches – Restored, page 4).
It is to be lamented that the CanRC deputies do not show where observations in the Acts of Synod Emmen are questionable at best and lacking substantiation. Does it not therefore appear that the CanRC deputies’ objections themselves “lack substantiation”?
The statement that there was “an opportunity … for the two RCR men in 2010 to meet with us,” is especially deceptive, since there was no such opportunity for the deputies who visited Abbotsford in April 2010. As explained in the letter of the Liberated Reformed Church at Abbotsford to General Synod Carman 2013 (which was also declared inadmissible – see Acts, Article 190), one of the two brothers who visited Ontario in October 2010 was not a deputy. Considering that Synod Emmen had made the decision to enter into a sister church relationship with the Liberated Reformed Church at Abbotsford in June 2010, is it not deceptive to imply that DGK deputies refused to meet prior to entering into this relationship?
Further, if DGK deputies and the DGK Synod based its decisions on official correspondence from the CanRC at Abbotsford and the official Acts of CanRC General Synods, how can this be objectionable? How can anyone suggest that the CanRC at Abbotsford was judged rashly and unheard?
Finally, the statement that there were “disagreements with the CanRC and local consistories about totally different matters” is most perplexing. Rather than making unsubstantiated allegations would it not be incumbent on the CanRC deputies to document what these matters are? Then, after documenting these matters, should it not be easy for the deputies to show how they form a basis for the liberation in Abbotsford?
The ecclesiastical press
For the most part there is very little public comment on the part of CanRC ministers or professors on the liberation which took place in Abbotsford. When comment is made it is to decry the fact that the DGK has a sister church relationship with the Liberated Reformed Church at Abbotsford.
In a recent issue of Clarion Prof. C. Van Dam writes concerning the DGK that they, “have unfortunately accepted a sister relationship with an assembly of former Canadian Reformed members that meets in the Fraser Valley around Abbotsford. It is to be hoped that they take a second look at this relationship. As Canadian Reformed Churches we are unable to accept such a sister relationship” (Clarion, Vol. 64, No. 13, July 3, 2015 issue, page 361).
Why not? What is so unfortunate about this relationship? If this relationship is such a problem why didn’t General Synod Carman 2013 deal with the letters of the Liberated Reformed Church at Abbotsford and the Deputies for Foreign Relations of the DGK, as I questioned at the conclusion of my previous editorial?
In a recent blog posting of Rev. W. Bredenhof we read, “One of the complicating factors with the DGK is their official relationship with a group of schismatics calling themselves the Liberated Reformed Church at Abbotsford. This group broke away from the Canadian Reformed Churches some years ago over concerns of ‘increasing corruption’” (see Rev. W. Bredenhof’s blog posting dated July 1, 2015 titled “Synod Baldivis 2015 (6)).
What basis does Rev. Bredenhof have for calling a church “a group of schismatics,” even embedding a link to their website, but not interacting with any of their concerns or the reasons they had to liberate? Has he not judged the membership of the Liberated Reformed Church at Abbotsford rashly and unheard, contrary to Lord’s Day 43 of the Heidelberg Catechism?
Rather than issuing blanket condemnations, would it not have been more edifying to clearly explain on the basis of Scripture, the confessions, and the Church Order, to the membership of the Liberated Reformed Church at Abbotsford where they may have erred?
The Free Reformed Churches of Australia
Deputies for sister church relations of the Free Reformed Churches of Australia as well as Synod Armadale 2012 of the Free Reformed Churches of Australia also received correspondence from the Liberated Reformed Church at Abbotsford (see letters dated February 3, 2011 and May 3, 2012 http://www.lrcabbotsford.com/Officialdocs.html)
Deputies for sister church relations received a mandate from Synod Legana 2009 to “monitor developments within the CanRC for mutual benefit according to the established rules and keep the churches informed” (see Acts, Article 40). Would it not therefore seem reasonable for a request “to determine whether or not [those who seceded from the CanRC and are now members of the Liberated Reformed Church at Abbotsford] have acted in faithfulness to the reformed confessions and to the accepted Church Order, as we have agreed to do” receive serious consideration?
In their responses both deputies and Synod received this correspondence for information purposes only. On the ground of their Synod Rule 7.3, “The admissibility of an agenda item shall be decided at the time the item is scheduled for consideration. Submissions not from the churches, except those allowed by the Church Order, shall be received for information only and require no acknowledgement” (Acts, Synod Armadale 2012, Article 58).
Three churches also requested this same Synod to investigate the Liberated Reformed Church at Abbotsford. Synod did not agree with these requests on the following grounds (Acts, Synod Armadale 2012, Article 59):
The LRCA have requested deputies to make a judgment as to whether the CanRC are faithful or not. However, the FRCA continues to recognize the CanRC as true and faithful churches.
The points of contention raised by the LRCA regarding the CanRC entering sister-church relations with the OPC (and other churches) are appeals against decisions of various General Synods of the CanRC (2001, 2004, 2007 and 2010). The FRCA has not objected to these sister-church relationships.
It is not appropriate to delve into a local church matter which belongs within the jurisdiction of the CanRC federation of churches.
In their discussions with the Australian deputies the deputies of De Gereformeerde Kerken hersteld have also defended their sister church relationship with the Liberated Reformed Church at Abbotsford. In the Report of Deputies for Sister Church Relations of the Free Reformed Churches of Australia to Synod Baldivis 2015 we read the following summary of their response to the deputies of De Gereformeerde Kerken hersteld:
In practice the FRCA have avoided sister-church relations with more than one church bond in a certain place and therefore, seeing that as sister churches the CanRC are recognised for their faithfulness, the DGK recognition of the LRCA may be an obstacle.
Further, noting that
the CanRC are discussing the differences as appropriate within the context of their sister-church relations
the FRCA also have sister-church relations with a bond which holds to the WCF
while understanding that there may be questions and even objections to certain teachings and practices in sister-churches, this does not necessarily require the breaking of these relations
thus, while FRCA has made no direct judgment regarding the LRCA its legitimacy is at best questionable.
As a consequence of the above report and as a result of requests made by some churches to investigate De Gereformeerde Kerken hersteld, a proposal “to investigate the decision of the DGK to enter into sister church relations with the LRC (Abbotsford)” was defeated (see Acts, Synod Baldivis 2015, Article 115). Synod does not give grounds for defeated proposals and neither does it give grounds for not acceding to requests made by the churches.
A preliminary evaluation
How are we to evaluate these responses from Australia?
As stated earlier, their Deputies for Sister Church Relations clearly had the mandate to ““monitor developments within the CanRC for mutual benefit according to the established rules and keep the churches informed.” Did not the correspondence received from the Liberated Reformed Church at Abbotsford, as well as the discussions with deputies for foreign relations of De Gereformeerde Kerken hersteld, clearly indicate to the Australian deputies and Synods that there are developments in the Canadian Reformed Churches that merit investigation?
Neither the Australian deputies nor the Australian Synods admit to having judged or investigated the legitimacy of the Liberated Reformed Church at Abbotsford. In fact they appear to be taking great pains to explain why they cannot do so.
At the same time they claim that “the DGK recognition of the LRCA may be an obstacle” and “while FRCA has made no direct judgment regarding the LRCA its legitimacy is at best questionable.” How could they make such claims without a conscientious and serious investigation of the circumstances surrounding the liberation in Abbotsford?
Is not the matter of doing justice to an appeal a “weightier matter of the law”? As our Lord Jesus expressed it in Matthew 23:23-24: Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone. Blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel!
What should the membership of the Liberated Reformed Church at Abbotsford do now? Give up? Is there no more hope? Must the owner of the treasured painting referred to in our introduction now give up and say “All is lost!”?
By no means! This is a struggle which must proceed in faith.
Through the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ we may be assured that this is not the end of the story. We are speaking about a treasure that is much more valuable than any painting and which we know will be used to preserve us in the knowledge of the truth if we live in obedience to His Word. Our confession states that when it comes to the existence of the church of Christ that, “This church has existed from the beginning of the world and will be to the end, for Christ is an eternal King who cannot be without subjects. This holy church is preserved by God against the fury of the whole world, although for a while it may look very small and as extinct in the eyes of man. Thus during the perilous reign of Ahab, the Lord kept for Himself seven thousand persons who had not bowed their knees to Baal” (Article 27 of the Belgic Confession).
Did not the church fathers at Dort also see this when they crafted Article 31 of the Church Order as an escape clause for all those who are oppressed by unscriptural teachings? Does not this article legitimize steps taken to preserve the true church in obedience to the Word of God (see for example Jeremiah 51:45 and Revelation 18:4)?
In our next installment, the Lord willing, we shall look into this issue further. We hope to do a more in-depth evaluation of some of the reasons given for the inadmissibility of the letters and appeals that were discussed in this and in the first part of this editorial.