The Cost of Doing Nothing at Synod 2010

My URCNA ministerial colleague, Steve Swets, has weighed in on the “Nampa Critique” of the URCNA study committee report. You can read his comments here. His chief concern seems to be that if we adopt this report the costs will be too high. My response is that the costs are too high to do nothing.

He worries about the effect of this report on ecumenical relations with the CanRCs. Of course ecumenical relations are important but the gospel is even more important and the FV movement is clear and present danger to the church and to the ministry of the gospel. The CanRCs have done or said nothing relative to the FV and one of their ministers (a former URCNA minister) has been highly critical of our attempts to deal with the issue. To his credit, Wes Bredenhof (a CanRC minister) has engaged the issues and responded to DeJong. At least one blogging CanRC minister regularly cites FV authors with approval and another endorsed Norm Shepherd’s most recent book, long after the URCs had publicly rejected Shepherd’s theology. When some of her representatives were at a recent Classis SWUS meeting, graciously answering questions, they indicated that the FV isn’t really an issue in their federation. Really? That’s not how it seems to me but even if I’m wrong and the CanRCs are utterly and hermetically isolated from the FV so what? Why haven’t more of them looked into this? If the FV is a matter of concern to us and if they believe we have a duty to be united then why isn’t it a matter of concern to them?

Around what are the URCs and the CanRCs to unite except a common confession of the gospel? Yes, we confess the Three Forms, but what do those Three Forms confess? If mere formal affirmation of the Three Forms is all we want then why did we separate from the CRC and why don’t we merge with the RCA? If we don’t agree as to what the gospel is, how can we unite? We cannot unite around ethnicity. We cannot unite around a common immigrant experience. We cannot unite around a shared Afscheiding heritage. We must unite around the gospel but the URCs have formally expressed grave concern about the NPP and FV movements and our brothers in the CanRCs, seem largely MIA on this issue. This does not mean that we cannot unite but it does mean that our serious discussions about these issues have only begun.

My brother worries that the committee report is not perfect. No ecclesiastical report is ever perfect. Whatever minor imperfections there may be can be repaired as needed. The report has been available for quite a long time (which raises another question about the flurry of responses nearly a year after it was released but I digress). The report is fundamentally sound on the most essential questions. I am worried by an attitude that seems to what to prevent closing the book on the FV controversy and moving on. The Nine Points of Pastoral Advice laid out of framework within which to address the FV and the report drives the stake through the heart of the FV. If we dither, for whatever reason, the vampire will continue to live and to afflict the churches. Can we afford to wait another three years to finish this matter and move on with our ministry of the gospel or will the critics spend those three years finding even more reasons why we can’t move on?

We cannot afford as churches to send a mixed message. We took a good, strong, positive step at Synod in 2007. We re-adopted the three points on justification sola fide and the imputation of Christ’s active obedience and justification without the works of the law. All these points are either corrupted or denied explicitly by the FV. We need to send an unequivocal signal within the URCs and to all those united to us by ecumenical relations and to everyone everywhere that the URCs stand clearly, uncompromisedly for the gospel of Jesus Christ, for historic and confessional Reformed theology, including the distinction between the “commandment of life” (we confess this language in the Belgic Confession!) given to Adam before the fall, which commandment our Lord Jesus fulfilled as our substitute, and the good news that Jesus the Mediator has obeyed, died, and been raised up for our justification. The FV confuses these two principles and these two covenants. Whatever we call these covenants, they represent two distinct principles. The covenant of grace is not a “commandment of life.”

Further, under this head, the doctrine of the commandment of life as clearly distinct from the covenant of grace (even if they are said to be expressions of “the covenant”) is not solely a “British” doctrine or solely expressed in the Westminster Standards. Yes, it’s true that we do not confess the words “covenant of works,” but we do confess the words “commandment of life” which is not substantially different. As has been shown many times (e.g., here, here,and here), Reformed covenant theology (including Dutch Reformed theology), prior to the modern period, consistently distinguished between a law principle and a grace principle. The covenant made before the fall was an expression of the law principle. The covenant of grace made after the fall was an expression of a principle of free acceptance of sinners with God on the basis of the imputed righteousness of Christ received through faith (trusting) alone. This is THE historic view of covenant theology in the Netherlands, in the British Isles, in Germany, in France, and Belgium, and elsewhere in the 16th and 17th centuries. I’m sure that, after all the discussion of these issues for the last decade, after all the published research showing the the unity of classic Reformed theology, Rev Swets knows these things and just had a momentary lapse. It happens to all of us.

My friend expresses concern about the use of metaphorical billy clubs. He’s chosen the wrong metaphor. When Synod overwhelmingly approved (with no audible dissent at the vote) the Three Points on Sola Fide etc in 2004, 2007, or the Nine Points (2007) were they using a billy club or a barbed-wire fence? On the rationale stated in the post we could never confess our faith about anything for fear it could be abused. The catechism, the confession, and the canons may be abused—even God’s Holy Word may be abused—but that hasn’t stopped us from confessing them nor should the theoretical abuse of the Nine Points prevent us from adopting them. Has such abuse happened in the last three years since Synod Schereville? Someone show me where. shouldn’t prevent the churches from fulfilling their duty to explain to the people what our confessions teach relative to contemporary errors. Theoretical dangers should not prevent us from addressing real, live, practical, church-wrecking errors such as the FV movement.

What has fundamentally changed since Synod 2007? Nothing. What have we learned about or from the FV movement since Synod Schereville that would cause us to re-think the real, practical, damaging effects of the FV movement upon the Reformed churches? Nothing. If anything the picture has become clearer. The FV is still a corruption of the gospel. We know what it is and we know what to do about it. We have the tools to hand. We simply have to have the will to use those tools and faith to trust that our Lord will use us to preserve his church. We can and should do so with complete confidence in the grace and goodness of our Savior.

FV Resources

Resource page

Nine Points Resource Page

Heidelcast Discussions of the FV

Subscribe to the Heidelblog today!


66 comments

  1. I think Steve is right that this will harm the relationship with the CanRefs, but that is good. The Canadian Reformed theologians are major contributors to the FV theology. I don’t want to go so far as to say that there would be no FV without the CanRef theology, but it certainly has aided and abetted it.

    When I was pro-FV, I found most of what I thought about the covenant of works, the law/Gospel distinction, and the covenant of grace to be present in Liberated theologians like Klaas Schilder and C. Vanderwaal. I know for a fact that this was true of a lot of FV proponents.

    The similarities are numerous. Many Liberated theologians deny the visible/invisible church distinction, the covenant of works, and the law/Gospel distinction. They also are skeptical and even deny the syllogismus practicus for assurance.

    • Brothers:

      Statements like the following (of johannesweslianus) are really very unfortunate and unfair – and in fact, ought to be withdrawn.
      “The Canadian Reformed theologians are major contributors to the FV theology. I don’t want to go so far as to say that there would be no FV without the CanRef theology, but it certainly has aided and abetted it.”

      The men about whom you write are no longer living on this side of the grave, but yet you give the impression that there is an ongoing contribution on the part of the Can Reformed to FV theology.

      Please tell me (offlist if you like): which Can Reformed minister would you consider to be guilty of any of the heresies which you identify in the FV movement? How are we today contributing to it?

      Has it occurred to anyone that there may be a very simple and obvious reason why the Can Reformed ecclesiastical assemblies are not doing anything about the FV movement: because there is no one who is holding to any of the FV views which we or you would consider to be heretical (unless of course you consider things like the denial of the invisible/visible, and the cov of works to be heretical – if you do, please do tell us). The Gospel is alive and well among us, brothers. We have never felt obliged to condemn persons or movements which are beyond our own ecclesiastical boundaries. And the same goes for the FV movement.

      All that blogs like this are doing is creating such a climate of suspicion that, frankly, any hope of federational unity is pretty much as good as dead. If that has been your objective, congratulations. You’ve pretty much accomplished it. But I, for one, am not convinced that our Lord is pleased.

      • Gerhard,

        When you say “blogs like this” do you refer to the entire enterprise (i.e., everything written on the Heidelblog) or to this particular post or to that particular comment?

        Have you been reading Rev Bill DeJong’s blog or the Rev Jim Wittveen’s blog? Can you comment on them?

          • Gerhard,

            “Heresy” as I understand that term, defined narrowly, refers to denial of the holy catholic faith as summarized in the ecumenical creeds. By that definition Arminianism is not “heresy.”

            Heresy, so defined, is a very low barrier. If that’s the test then why are separated from the CRC or the RCA? Have they committed heresy?

            Perhaps you’re using the word “heresy” more loosely?

            Isn’t the real issue before us whether there are advocates of the FV theology in the CanRCs.

            • Scott,

              By “heresy,” I would be referring to anything that is in conflict with the Three Forms of Unity to which you and I subscribe.

              I hold to most of the positions of K. Schilder. Does that make me an advocate of FV theology?

              I hold to all the views that my colleague and I have defended in “CanRC Answers to URC Questions” (found here: http://www.pupilsofchrist.com/doctrinal/answers-to-urc-questions). Does that make me “an advocate of FV theology”?

              I believe that the issue between us is whether there is room for all of us in a new federation. Or will we just be entering into a room in which we will always be treated with suspicion because we after all are the ones who supposedly started the stuff that put those FV guys in the other room?

              • Gerhard,

                I think you and I both know that things are more complicated than you indicate.

                1) It has been claimed in public that there is no interest in the CanRCs in the FV theology. This does not seem to be true. It should discussed. I wouldn’t put things the way Wes did. I assume that he has some reason to speak as he does but I don’t know what his reasons are.

                I’ve given my reasons for concern. Most recently I read a post by Rev DeJong, a CanRC minister, where he seemed to go back to affirming what he has previously denied, namely, that baptism creates a “union with Christ.” To be sure, his post is a little ambiguous but I think mine is a fair reading of what he wrote.

                This, it seems to me, is the central error of the FV theology. There are others, however.

                I’ve been quite disturbed by some of the things I’ve read on Rev Wittveen’s blog as well. He seems quite enamored of some prominent FV writers.

                So, the question is not so much whether there is room “for us” but rather who and what ideas are included in that pronoun “us””?

                If the “us” refers to “some who hold FV doctrines” then the answer is no!

                I don’t think that you meant to suggest that Schilder really was a proto-FV writer, did you? I remain concerned with some expressions and ideas that I’ve read in Schilder but I’m willing to be taught.

                What I’ve been calling for is dialogue. We made a good beginning this year but, to quote the Carpenters, “we’ve only just begun.” I hope that no one is suggesting that since we’ve had a couple of preliminary theological Q &A sessions that we’re all “talked out” and that there’s nothing left to discuss.

            • But there we go again, Scott. It’s all innuendo. Liking a point that Barth made, or even quoting him here or there, does not make a person a Barthian. If one believes that FV people have a point here and there, does that make one an FV advocate?

              Bill deJong was summarizing the Baptism Form which you and I have read a thousand times in church quite well when he wrote: “The union with Christ (with accompanying privileges and obligations) which is accessed by faith belongs by covenantal promise to baptized infants.”

              Is it an offense to quote an FV author? Is it an offense to like a point they made, or refer to a book they wrote? Where…oh…where…has a Canadian Reformed author said anything that is contrary to the Three Forms of Unity? Until you (or better johannesweslianus) answer that question (on or offline) you are just slandering Can Reformed authors and creating a climate of suspicion which negates the hours and hours spent by well-meaning brothers on church-unifying work.

              By the way, it was not me who suggested that KS was proto-FV. That was johannesweslianus . . . I was just asking the question whether those who today hold to Schilderian positions are considered to be in the FV camp.

              • Gerhard,

                With all due respect and affection, you cannot demand that the URCs and the CanRCs get married and then refuse to discuss substantive issues or deny that there are any issues.

                It’s plain to me that there are have been (e.g., Jelle Faber) and are at least a few CanRC ministers who are sympathetic to the Shepherdite/FV theology. That’s worth discussing. If you think there’s nothing to discuss or that what these fellows have written means nothing well I guess we have a very different view of things.

                I go back to my earlier point. If the URCs think the FV is a problem (and clearly we do!) then why doesn’t the CanRC think it’s a problem? Could our CanRC brothers be in denial?

                As to Schilder, in our context, there’s enough in his theology to raise genuine concern. Certainly the FV folks think that they are following Schilder. It would be helpful to know, from primary sources, exactly how they’ve misunderstood him. I’ve heard some interesting explanations but I should like to read a lot more in detail before I make up my mind.

  2. From one Wes to another:

    Please don’t paint us all with the same brush. I’m not speaking for all CanRC ministers, but I find the FV as dangerous as you do. And there are other CanRC ministers with similar sentiments.

    • Rev. Bredenhof:

      I understand your point about not painting all the Canadian Reformed with the same brush. I’ve known enough Canadian Reformed people over the years to know that your federation has much more diversity internally than it appears to have on the outside.

      But on the other hand, please understand that south of the border, the Canadian Reformed are not well-known, and what little is known about them tends to be the covenant views of Schilder which Rev. Norman Shepherd has been saying for many years are close to his own, and are an acceptable variant within the Dutch Reformed world.

      When both Dutch Reformed and Presbyterian supporters of Norman Shepherd cite the Canadian Reformed as an example of a solidly orthodox Reformed denomination where such views are tolerated, and when Shepherd supporters in the OPC have been telling me for years that they “love the Canadian Reformed view of the covenant but abhor their ecclesiology,” it does not help convince people south of the border that the Canadian Reformed are not at least sympathetic to Federal Vision views.

      I am well aware that the ecclesiastical machinery of the Canadian Reformed works extremely slowly. It’s not fair to blame the Canadian Reformed for not issuing a quick statement in response to some issue or other — that’s just not the way you work. And I’m also **VERY** much aware of the extreme consequences of setting a church outside the federation of the CanRC; leaving the Canadian Reformed is nothing like leaving the PCA for the OPC, and outsiders need to give you time to work through the confessional implications of Rev. Shepherd’s writings.

      But after years of people in Presbyterianism saying things about the Canadian Reformed which may or may not be true, please understand that those of us south of the border who do not understand the way the Canadian Reformed work can easily mistake slowness of process for deliberate lack of action. When the PCA or the CRC want to ignore something, they do things very slowly and with many delays, or they say “we stand by the confessions and don’t want to add to them” — not unlike the way the Canadian Reformed do things routinely but with a very different motive of care, caution, and confessional integrity.

      • Darrell,

        Thanks for that. Where to begin?

        I am under no illusions as to what lives in the CanRC. We have our foibles and blemishes. Some of our professors and pastors have said and written things and done things that I wish they hadn’t. Some of them feel the same about me, no doubt. I can see some of them wincing right now.

        However, we should remember that when it comes covenant theology, there is diversity in the CanRC AND the URC. Wasn’t it Henry VanderKam, a “founding father” of the URC, who wrote a biography of Schilder? Hasn’t a URC minister been defending Schilder against the accusation that he is an FV forerunner in at least some respects? Didn’t the same URC minister/professor translate works by Trimp and Douma? Didn’t another URC minister translate the Heidelberg Catechism commentary of S. G. De Graaf? I think a careful survey of URC ministers would reveal not only sympathies for what has often been identified as CanRC covenant theology, but also those who actually hold it. Be careful from whence you cast your stones… {that last comment is not really directed at you, Darrell}

        I was born and raised CanRC, so was my wife. What we’ve seen and heard has not always been edifying and helpful for our growth in Christ. Especially some of the confusion of law and gospel has sometimes resulted in a distraction from Christ and an anemic spirituality. I don’t like saying it and some of my colleagues will no doubt take offense at it. I think it’s true and needs to be said. But it also needs to be said that there is a growing desire to hear solid gospel preaching in the CanRC. Preachers and aspiring preachers have a growing zeal to proclaim a beautiful gospel of free grace in Jesus Christ. There was a recent Gospel Coalition conference here in Hamilton and many of our local CanRC ministers, professors and seminary students were there and they spoke positively about it. I doubt that would have happened 20 or 30 years ago.

        I am a Canadian Reformed minister and am thankful and glad to be. I’m glad to be in a federation that takes the confessions seriously, and that wants to be faithful to the Word of God. We have our problems, I know. But show me a church or a federation on this side of eternity that doesn’t. I know what my calling is in this church and in this federation: preach Christ for the salvation of sinners. That I’ll do and I know my colleagues are committed to the same. Along the way, we’ll no doubt challenge and sharpen one another about how to do that better and in greater faithfulness to our God.

        • Thank you for your note, Rev. Bredenhof.

          For whatever it’s worth, I was at Rev. VanderKam’s home many times when he was still alive and heard his views firsthand regarding Schilder (which are public) and about Norman Shepherd and a number of people now associated with the Federal Vision movement (which I don’t think he ever made public and may not be what he would say if he were still alive today). I asked him point-blank why he didn’t go straight into the Canadian Reformed Churches and not stop part-way in what were then independent Reformed churches and later the URCNA, and his answer was one based on churchmanship and a desire to bring people along slowly through ecclesiastical process rather than acting unilaterally.

          Rev. Vander Kam was up-front and honest from day one about his goals and desires, and he understood as a pastor that many of his members needed a lot of doctrinal education before being able to make the step from being a conservative in the CRC to being a leader of a confessionally Reformed church.

          I can respect that.

          I’ve also had extended discussions about the covenant with some of the other founders of the URC whose history goes back to the days when the CRC was still strong, and who were adamant opponents of what they see as “Westminster Presbyterian” views of the covenant. Names probably aren’t relevant here since unlike Rev. VanderKam most of them were no longer in active pastoral ministry and didn’t take public stances on such issues, realizing that getting people out of the CRC was the first priority and cleaning up the confessional issues had to be a secondary priority.

          Furthermore, I attend a church that was in the URC until a year ago, and the previous minister of the sponsoring church is now in the Canadian Reformed Churches and is one of the people advocating views that you don’t like at all.

          So yes, I’m very much aware that the URCNA has its own issues … there are people in the URCNA who are strong supporters of a Schilderian position on a number of issues who are not convinced that Norman Shepherd is wrong when he says he’s in line with Schilder.

          I’ve never claimed to understand what “lives” in the Canadian Reformed Churches. It took me many years to understand the CRC and URCNA, and that’s coming from someone like me who grew up in Grand Rapids!

          What I do understand is that the Canadian Reformed work very, very, very slowly, and have a lot of concern about extraconfessional binding as well as confessional integrity. It’s not fair to demand that you adopt position papers as quickly as would be done in the PCA or OPC.

          But if and when you do adopt a stance on the Federal Vision, it will be very detailed in its exegesis of Scripture and the confessions, and will have been adopted only after a rock-solid consensus has developed on what can and cannot be tolerated in the churches. You may be the last of the Reformed denominations (or federations, in your parlance) to adopt a stance on Federal Vision, but if you do, I think it’s fair to predict that it will be followed by some of the strongest steps seen anywhere on church discipline because your churches will have become convinced that Federal Vision is damnable heresy and must be treated accordingly.

          Personally, I’m still not at that position myself. I detest the fruits I see of Federal Vision (especially paedocommunion) and some of the sectarianism and bitterness it produces, and its total rejection of public schooling in terms much worse than what the CRC ever did (perhaps because of the RCA example). I’m convinced that a bad tree does not produce good fruits, and if the fruits of federal vision are as bad as what I see, there are problems in the tree’s roots.

          But I need to leave it to men like Dr. Clark to work through those details. Now that the church I attend is no longer in the URC, I no longer have to deal with Federal Vision stuff directly. It simply is not an issue around here, except that we need to distinguish ourselves from a local Federal Vision church which makes homeschooling one of its key distinctives.

          • Darrell, I’m a little puzzled as to why you think paedocommunion is the worst thing about FVism. I find it of little consequence, since one can easily adopt paedocommunion and reject FVism.

            Second, I personally believe in a separation of education and the state, and I think public schools are nowadays the worst place you can send your kids for an education. So one can reject public schools for both principial and practical reasons without adopting FVism or its justifications.

            Wouldn’t you agree that the main danger with FVism is that by its objectivism, it undermines sovereign grace? All the other issues are minor in comparison to this.

  3. Thankful that this has been proposed at Synod. Dr. Clark, you are right is desiring that the FV be finally and clearly rejected, so we can finally move on.

  4. Thanks, Wes. I appreciate that. I would encourage you to get the denomination as a whole to join with the URC in condemning these errors. I would also suggest that you consider how the writings of the “Liberated” Reformed writers have aided and abetted the FV. I am truly thankful that you are opposing it, Wes. Keep up the good work.

  5. I pray the URC will take Dr. Clark’s very good advice.

    If you want a take on Schilder and the FV, check out Carl Robbins’s fine work published in the Auburn Avenue: Pros and Cons book that came out of the Knox Colloquium. Schilder’s position on the objectivity of the covenant is a definite linch pin in FV thought. But, then again, Kuyper’s presumptive regenerationalism is, too.

  6. Dr. Clark:

    I’m sure you’re aware of the strong objections in many Dutch Reformed circles to extraconfessional binding. Rev. Swets cites, as I was sure he would, the examples of the Synod of Kalamazoo in the CRC in 1924, the GKN actions against Schilder in 1944, and the Protestant Reformed 1951 Declaration of Principles that led to the split of their federation between Hoekesma and a group that eventually rejoined the Christian Reformed Church — some of whose ministers were later among the founders of the URC.

    What are your thoughts on the appropriateness of synodical statements beyond the confessions, and whether such statements have any binding authority? You may have written on this issue before but I’m not aware of writings that address this specific issue of extraconfessional binding.

    • Darrell,

      On the rationale advocated by some Schilderites we could never have held the Synod of Dort, which was, in large part, about the correct interpretation of the Heidelberg and the Belgic. The Remonstrants had either called portions of the Belgic into question or twisted the HC and BC. At Dort, the whole Reformed church (Dutch and non-Dutch alike) agreed and confessed their faith in “rules” of the Christian faith.

      So too, synods have always adopted rules or interpretations of Scripture and of the faith. Mere nominal subscription is not confession, not when there are substantial underlying disagreements. Conditional, temporary baptismal election, union, and justification (etc) are not good news yet that is what the FV teaches. It is a moral duty of the Reformed churches to gather and to interpret their confessions, esp. when some are claiming to adhere to the confession of the church whilst contradicting it.

    • Dr. Clark, are you able to edit the blog spelling? Most of my typos are obviously just that, but misspelling Hoeksema as “Hoekesma” makes me look like a stupid idiot rather than like a bad typist. I most certainly do know how to spell his name, and a screwup like that could earn me some well-deserved nastygrams from PRs reminding me of the right spelling.

  7. In the course of reading Dr. Kloosterman’s suggestion of caution in the days and months leading up to Synod 2001 on the Creation days controversy, (here: http://auxesis.net/kloosterman/creation_days.pdf), I was struck by the many parallels between the two situations (FV and formerly Creation Days) albeit with one major difference: the question of justification IS dealt with extensively in the confessions and the FV teachings are contradicting or undermining the correct doctrine of the Reformed Churches.

    Thus for URCNA synodical delegates,

    “The broader assemblies are not essential to your church’s existence as church of Jesus Christ; they merely serve the well-being of your church. Is your church being led astray by the figurative exegesis of Genesis 1-2? No? Then why would your church—protected by faithful officebearers—need Synod Escondido to issue a declaration against it? You do have confidence in your church’s officebearers, don’t you? If you reply that this issue is disrupting the churches in the URCNA, why aren’t these disrupted churches presenting an appeal through their respective classes to Synod Escondido?

    Substitute the clearly articulated FV positions as described in the URCNA Report on Justification and you can see that, yes, there are churches being led astray. So we must do something.

  8. Rev. Crisler:

    You ask why I cite paedocommunion and an extremist view of Christian education as some of the key problems of the Federal Vision movement. That’s a fair question; I gave a few comments without explaining them. I owe both the Federal Visionists and Dr. Clark a better explanation than I gave in my brief comment that elicited your response.

    First, some background: I have been confused about the Federal Vision and its preceding theological developments for a long time, ever since I was first introduced to it back in the late 1980s by a minister who is now in the URC. I don’t know whether it is a good or a bad thing that despite having the opportunity to take a seminary class from Rev. Shepherd, who was then doing some fill-in teaching at Calvin Seminary, I instead took the class from a more typical liberal Calvin Seminary professor. (My reasons were due only to course scheduling, not anything theological in character, and at the time I regretted my decision. Today, I think the class scheduling may have been providential in keeping me out of the Federal Vision stuff.)

    President DeJong of Calvin Seminary used to say — and I believe he was correct in this — that in the history of the church, aberrant and heretical theology does not develop and grow in a vacuum. Doctrines have consequences, and whenever serious heresy developed in the church, an attack on one doctrine led to a wholesale collapse in numerous other core doctrines of the church.

    I’m well aware that Dr. DeJong used that argument to explain why he believed women in office was at most an error and not heresy, but that’s not my point; women in office in the Christian Reformed Church was a symptom of the underlying heretical denial of inerrancy, and that denial **IS** creating chaos throughout the CRC.

    However, Dr. DeJong’s core principle is, I believe, correct. We can know people and doctrines and churches by their fruits. When in doubt about the biblical legitimacy of a doctrine, we can quite correctly ask what its consequences are, in other words, what its fruits are or will be when the doctrine is fully developed.

    What fruit has the Federal Vision produced?

    There’s no question that Rev. Shepherd’s doctrines have been creating major problems for many years, first at Westminster-East and in the OPC, then later throughout much of the rest of the Reformed world.

    There’s nothing wrong with standing firm for the truth. But nobody has yet been able to show me why, even if Rev. Shepherd’s views are right, it is so important to maintain them that it’s worth tearing up seminary faculities and entire denominations.

    I can at least understand the reason the advocates of women’s ordination are so passionate about their views and willing to disrupt denominations. They sincerely believe their cause is a matter of justice and “righting the wrong” of centuries of abuse of women. They’re dead wrong about that, but I see their rationale.

    Why are the followers of Rev. Shepherd so insistent on advocating their views? I have never yet gotten an answer to that question. Apart from an answer, I believe it can be fairly said that one key fruit of the Federal Vision has been ecclesiastical chaos without a clear justification as to why the chaos is crucial to the church.

    A second fruit is a lack of humble submission to the consensus of Reformed brethren, apart from clear evidence that the assemblies are requiring people to sin or somehow damaging the witness of churches by barring the propagation of a certain type of preaching. I’m not some sort of synodocrat — I am a Congregationalist by conviction, after all — but the verdicts are clearly coming in, one after another, that the conservative Reformed church world believes that Rev. Shepherd’s views and the Federal Vision are not correct.

    It goes to far to say there is a spirit of refusal to listen to the counsel of the broader church at work in Rev. Shepherd and some of his key followers, but schism and sectarianism are not absent from the ecclesiastical culture of the Federal Vision movement. That’s not an issue with all Federal Visionists, but it is an issue with far too many. There seems to be a refusal to listen to the counsel of the brethren, and the attitude of too many Federal Visionists indicates that their advocacy of an aberrant doctrine is just one small part of a broader attitude of antagonism toward everyone and everybody. That’s a pretty serious case of bad fruit.

    Third, the view of the covenant being advocated by the Federal Visionists often though not always leads to presumptive regeneration or baptismal regeneration, and has the effect of causing people to place too much emphasis on baptism and not enough on regeneration. That doesn’t always lead to paedocommunion, but it does lead to a huge emphasis on covenant nurture as opposed to personal conversion. The long-term result of that is that unconverted people end up in church leadership based on their status as sons of the covenant rather than following a clear testimony of Christian conversion.

    I’ve seen the results of Kuyperian presumptive regeneration in the Christian Reformed Church, and it’s not pretty. The Federal Visionists are still a rapidly expanding movement, and the Confederation of Reformed Evangelical Churches, as a denomination, are still mostly composed of people who are new to the Reformed faith. Give them a generation or two, and it’s safe to predict that hypercovenantalism will have no less damaging effect for them than it had for the Dutch Reformed — or for that matter, on the Jewish nation trusting in being sons of Abraham rather than being personally converted. I may be wrong about that type of bad fruit, but given prior history of similar hypercovenantal doctrines, I fail to see how they can escape it.

    That third point gives rise to two related additional points.

    Fourth, hypercovenantalism is leading to paedocommunion or admission of very young children to the Lord’s Supper. If we believe that unconverted people and those in sinful lives are eating and drinking damnation to themselves — as God’s Word says we must — can somebody give me any good reason why we should trust a child to examine himself before coming to the Lord’s Table when the state doesn’t believe he’s yet ready to drive and his parents probably don’t believe he’s yet ready to date (or court, using a term FV’ers would probably prefer)?

    Now I fully grant here that I am a classical Puritan when it comes to the Lord’s Table. There are going to be people who disagree with me and believe I am far too strict on qualifications for communion. That’s fine. But can anybody in their right mind argue that any infant, or even an eight-year-old apart from extraordinary circumstances, has any ability to examine himself? If not, that child has no business at the Lord’s Table, and a church which encourages children to come (as opposed to making a few very rare exceptions) might as well be giving battery acid in the communion cup. God’s Word is clear about the consequences of eating and drinking damnation upon oneself, and why a church would encourage young and immature people to come to communion is utterly beyond me.

    Fifth, the hypercovenantalism inherent in the Federal Vision movement is leading to a view of Christian education which goes beyond even the old views of the Christian Reformed Church — views with which I quietly disagreed for many years, but didn’t raise a fuss about.

    You will get no disagreement from me that under the doctrine of sphere sovereignty, children belong to the parents, not to the state, and that in an ideal Christian commonwealth, education would be parent-led, not run by the government. Furthermore, you’ll get no disagreement from me that if parents live in a school district where atheism rules and the gospel is mocked, they’re required by God to educate their children at home or in a Christian school.

    Where I have a problem with the Federal Visionists is that the CREC and similar groups make Christian education, which is a good idea, into a near-obligation. I realize that home schooling has made it financially possible for people to provide a Christian education to their children without the financial resources which were once essential, so I can’t blame the CRECers for laying heavy burdens on people without being willing to lift a finger to help (which **WAS** an issue in the old Christian Reformed Church).

    However, by elevating Christian education to a near-requirement while not quite making it mandatory for church membership, they’ve come very close to violating the regulative principle by adding to the biblical qualifications for church membership.

    Why the CREC does that becomes clearer when one looks at the role of classical Christian education in growing their denomination. Now don’t misunderstand me — almost two decades ago, I was on a committee of my denomination that brought Doug Wilson out to New England to speak on his views of Christian education and the role of the trivium and quadrivium in forming generations of New England Congregational pastors and laypeople, and I was extremely impressed. He had clearly done his research, and I wasn’t the only person who was really pleased with what I heard.

    However, the classical Christian education movement has become the “engine” driving much of the growth of the CREC. People are being attracted to the CREC not so much by its core doctrines but rather by a view of education which, despite its merits, has no specific mandate in the Bible. The result has been that the hypercovenantalism of the CREC is being reinforced by an emphasis not only on Christian schooling but on a very specific type of Christian schooling, and others who do not have that advantage are often looked down upon.

    Adding to the biblical requirements for church membership is not only a violation of the regulative principle but also a very seriously bad fruit in that it promotes elitism and makes effective evangelism and outreach extremely difficult beyond the home-schooling community. I live and work in an environment where education is devalued and disrespected, and in which most ministers have no education beyond college and many didn’t even go beyond high school. How can a CRECer possibly even hope to reach a culture like the Missouri Ozarks? Have they not created barriers that the Apostle Paul did not labor under?

    That fifth point leads to a sixth item which is not so much a criticism but a concern.

    I’m fully aware that the Reformers used the methods of scholasticism which we now call classical Christian education. I’m also fully aware that the role of Latin was presumed throughout the academies of Reformed and Lutheran Europe, not just Rome. But is it a pure coincidence that the Federal Visionists are re-thinking classical medieval scholasticism and coming up with ideas that sound more like Anselm and Aquinas than like Calvin and Knox? Creating an ecclesiastical culture in the next generation in which most of the pastors and many of the elders read Latin will have some major effects on the CREC. Some will undoubtably be good, but the Reformation’s break with Rome was significantly helped by the fact that the medieval theologians wrote in Latin and their works were not translated into the vernacular languages of Europe for a very long time after the Reformation. If the CREC doesn’t work very hard to educate its people on why Rome is wrong, the recovery of both the language and the methodology of medieval scholasticism may have extremely damaging effects.

    I hope that expansion of my objections to and concerns about the Federal Vision helps understand where I’m coming from.

  9. Drs. Clark and Visscher:

    Listening to the two of you debate is helpful. Please continue, both here for laymen and in more formal academic papers for the theologians. If it is possible to solve this difficult dilemma of whether Schilderian theology was in some way responsible for creating a proto-FV theology, it will be discussions such as yours that do it.

    There is no polite way to say this, but it must be said: Many of the most vocal Federal Visionists are men of lesser academic gifts than either of you, and also of considerably lesser competence than either Shepherd or Schilder. That has led to serious confusion in the churches, with some of the Federal Visionists claiming to be a legitimate variation within the Dutch Reformed spectrum of theology and citing Schilder as a model. There are many, myself included, who for a very long time looked at what is now called the Federal Vision and said, “I don’t think I like it, but I’m not sure I understand it, and if these people say they look to Klaas Schilder as a theological model, they can’t be all bad.”

    I certainly put myself in the category of someone of far lesser education and theological competence than Shepherd, Clark or Visscher, let alone Schilder. There is much to like about Schilder; he was a brilliant man, and his bravery in standing up against the Nazi tormenters of the Gereformeerde Kerken cannot be underestimated. He took stands for Christ that few if any of us have been called to take, and deserves credit for being tested and found worthy in the fire of outright persecution. But is it not at least theoretically possible that there were latent problems in his theology that caused some of his followers to deviate into wrong paths, just as some of Jonathan Edwards’ followers went into very serious error following his death?

    While it is true that a student is not above his teacher, it is also true that students often never attain the talents of their teachers, especially when the teachers are long since dead and are “teaching” through their books rather than in person.

    I do not believe the theological confusion caused by Federal Visionists is entirely the fault of the Federal Visionists; while some know exactly what they are doing and deserve condemnation, many if not most of them are very busy pastors of what (at least by American Presbyterian standards) are large and growing churches who think they are trying very hard to be Reformed in a theological wasteland of Arminianism and outright unbelief. Their theology has been developed in the context of pastoring churches and running schools, and in many cases not just serving but actually organizing those institutions from scratch, using people who are brand-new to the Reformed faith and not uncommonly new to Christianity itself.

    The result has been that for far too many of the Federal Visionists, their churches and schools are filled with elders, teachers, and lay leaders who simply do not have an extensive prior background in the Reformed faith and don’t have the generations upon generations of background in Reformed theology that are present in nearly all Canadian Reformed consistories and most United Reformed consistories to identify and correct problems in the pastor’s preaching, if those problems are present.

    That’s not intended to be insulting to the Federal Visionists; the same could be said of nearly all United Reformed, Orthodox Presbyterian or PCA church plants. It’s simply a fact of life that people who are relatively new to the Reformed faith, or even first-generation Reformed men who were not raised in the Reformed faith, will look with great appreciation to the models they see in their pulpits and the pastors will look to models of living and dead “great theologians” in crafting their theology, their preaching and their pastoral methods. Without being surrounded by a consistory of men who were also raised in the Reformed faith, the possibility of looking to limited human models instead of the breadth and depth of Reformed theology and history is always present, and can lead to some pretty serious consequences.

    When Dr. Clark says this, he’s asking exactly the rght questions: “Certainly the FV folks think that they are following Schilder. It would be helpful to know, from primary sources, exactly how they’ve misunderstood him. I’ve heard some interesting explanations but I should like to read a lot more in detail before I make up my mind.”

    I sincerely hope that the Canadian Reformed professors take up Dr. Clark’s challenge. I’m not saying the assemblies should necessarily address this; in your context, perhaps the Federal Visionists are irrelevant and it’s not a matter for your churches to consider. It’s pretty obvious that many of the practices in their churches would be totally unacceptable in the Canadian Reformed federation and you may have very good reasons for thinking it is laughable that anyone would blame the Canadian Reformed for what the Federal Visionists are teaching.

    But down here, south of the border, you **ARE** being tarred with that brush. If you are being wrongly cited as a precedent for Federal Vision theology, it would be extremely helpful if the Canadian Reformed professors, using the power of the pen if this is not considered significant enough for the synods, could make very clear to everyone why Klaas Schilder would have rejected the Federal Visionists as false brethren who were distorting him rather than following him.

    • Thanks for your post, Darrell, and for your encouragement to continue just when I am ready to call it quits.

      Let me make a few comments.

      First of all, it should be noted that Dr. Van Vliet and myself (both professors here at the Canadian Reformed Theological Seminary) have publicly said that we do not believe that K. Schilder would support several present FV positions. Scott referred to the issue of “union with Christ” in reference to newborn covenant children as the central error of the FV folks. We travelled to California to say (among other things) that KS and FV are not synonymous on this point. Frankly, I do not believe that either KS or Jelle Faber would ever have done what John Barach does in his article “Covenant and Election” where he first affirms the traditional meaning of election as posited in the Canons and then suggests that Paul means some temporal election from which you can fall away.

      In response to the question “12. Some followers of the so-called “Federal Vision” reject the above internal/external distinction, and are preaching that every baptized person is “united to Christ,” as K. Schilder said, “head for head.” Is this view held or taught in the CanRC? If so, to what degree?” we answered (as you can also find here –www.pupilsofchrist.com/doctrinal/answers-to-urc-questions)

      “First of all, we believe it is erroneous to maintain that K. Schilder saw every baptized person as, head for head, “united to Christ” and therefore regenerate. Certainly he saw all covenant children as “sanctified in Christ”, as the Baptism Form which is used both in the CanRCs and in the URCs says. Covenant children are “set apart” and distinguished from the children of unbelievers. The “head for head” language, however, applies to their position in the covenant. Here we (and, we believe, Schilder) would maintain that all children of believers, head for head, are truly in the covenant. They all receive the same promises. If they later err in unbelief, that is not because God did not really offer them life and salvation.
      “In the FV statement, it is maintained however that “baptism unites a person to Christ” and that is often maintained in a “head for head” manner. One writer, for instance, after maintaining that he fully adheres to the doctrines of the Canons of Dort, goes on to speak about how Paul addresses his congregations and suggests that Paul sees each member of the church as “head for head” “elect” (Eph.1:4). Later he suggests that one can fall away from this election. That is unfortunately confusing and problematic. We would prefer to think that Paul speaks covenantally and corporately. Paul addresses those who are faithful in Christ (Eph.1:1) and refers to his readers as “chosen in Christ”(1:4). As he speaks to the body, he goes on in Eph 6:1-4 to address also the children in a covenantal and corporate way urging them to obey and honor their parents. One does not need to redefine the classical definitions of election to understand things that way. I believe that what I wrote back in 2007 (G. H. Visscher, ”How Should the Pulpit Address the Pew? Some Lessons fom Paul” Clarion, 42, no 55 (2006). (Cf. Lux Mundi 26 March 2007. See here.) reflects the approach followed in the CanRCs – an approach which is faithful to both Scripture and confession.
      “On this point, it is also good to note that the position of men like K. Schilder is not the same as the present positions of some of the FV leaders. We need to remember too that in the 1940s Schilder was opposing baptism on the basis of presumptive regeneration. If he so opposed the presumption of a regeneration in children, is it not clear that he would be even more opposed to the suggestion that the reality was already present with newborn children? ”Promise” was a big word in Schilder’s approach. To suggest that Schilder replaced Kuyper’s “presumptive regeneration” with a construction in which all are head for head regenerate and united to Christ is simply wrong. All are in the covenant, head for head; all receive the same promises; but not all respond in with faith and obedience.
      “While the exact formulations may vary, Canadian Reformed ministers generally see it and preach it in that way.”

      So does that not answer the central concern about the FV approach? Certainly, because KS had other distinctives (e.g., criticism of invisible/visible) which Can Ref and FV adherents are drawn towards, there’s going to be some similarity in sounds. That’s hardly preventable, nor should it be considered a problem. Just because one agrees with someone on one point does not mean there is agreement on all points. Scott writes “It has been claimed in public that there is no interest in the CanRCs in the FV theology. This does not seem to be true.” I don’t know to whom he is referring here, but Dr van Vliet and I have acknowledged that on other points “there’s a certain amount of familiarity and sympathy towards some of the sounds of the Federal Vision.”

      On another note, I also believe that a great deal of confusion has originated because men like Norman Shepherd have argued out of the letter of James. Whereas the church has defined its confessional terminology in Pauline terms, Shepherd has attempted to push to the fore the terminology of James and only produced more problems and less clarity. But these are ideas that I am still working out (when I am not blogging!); in fact, I will, D.V. be presenting them at the annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society in November 2010 in Atlanta, Georgia. As the theme of the whole conference is “Justification by Faith” it would be appropriate for many readers of this blog to attend.

      Anyway, my point is that we need to distinguish between less significant points on which CanRC folks might echo similar sounds as FV folks, and the more significant points on which they continue to differ. So what if a CanRC person happens to think that an FV person has hit upon a particular good exegetical point? So what if a CanRC person happens to believe and say that a certain FV book is worthwhile reading? So what if a professor who is now with the Lord in a much earlier context happened to write in support of someone whom later was determined to be suspect? In a climate of trust, I can refer to Barth without being considered Barthian; in a climate of suspicion, I can’t refer to Wilson without being considered FV. In the Canadian Reformed Churches, we work in a wonderful climate of trust. I have no desire to enter into a climate of suspicion. That’s one reason among others, why I have my doubts about merger talks between CanRC and URC ever being successful in my lifetime.

      • Thank you as well for your response, Dr. Visscher. I think it is helpful, and I will be especially interested to see how Dr. Clark responds.

        A few tangential comments on secondary items while I digest the more significant meat of your post, which will take several days:

        1. I commend you strongly for your participation in the Evangelical Theological Society. Speaking as a Grand Rapids native who is not Dutch and came to the Reformed faith as an adult — ironically, my barber was in the Dutton American Reformed Church, one of my high school teachers was in the RPCES before it merged with the PCA, and some of my friends were in conservative RCAs such as Seventh Reformed — I have a twenty-year history of saying that the Dutch Reformed have tremendous theological resources that have been, as it were, “hidden under a bushel” for far too long. It is a crying shame that men like G.C. Berkouwer gained tremendous influence through their participation in ecumenical and broadly evangelical organizations while more orthodox men among the Dutch Reformed are little-known outside the narrow confines of the “colonie.” Of course I do not believe Berkouwer’s ecclesiastical ecumenicity was good or that others should have followed suit into the World Council of Churches, but I do believe that participation in non-ecclesiastical organizations that are evangelical can be tremendously helpful in promoting the Reformed faith outside the strict orthodox Reformed churches.

        2. Related to that, I urge you to continue to publish, when possible, in Christian periodicals which are widely read among Reformed laymen outside as well as inside the Canadian Reformed Churches. Massive confusion and misunderstanding exist among many people about what the Federal Vision is. I count myself among the confused, and that’s after decades of watching the Norman Shepherd controversy develop. Until it becomes very clear to laymen as well as theologians that the Canadian Reformed and Klaas Schilder cannot be claimed as progenitors of the Federal Vision theology, the Federal Visionists will continue to be viewed by a lot of people as holding a strange or aberrant or erroneous theology rather than a heretical theology. It’s no secret that I am a follower of the theology of the Puritans and have a very different answer from what the Canadian Reformed or the Federal Visionists would say, but it has been very difficult for me, when dealing with Federal Vision theology, to tell people they are teaching heresy when I know some very similar doctrines are held by the Canadian Reformed, which probably share with the Netherlands Reformed the distinction of being the two most conservative Reformed denominations in North America of significant size.

        3. This is a problem outside traditional Reformed circles as well. While I have major problems with the fruits of the Federal Vision (especially paedocommunion), I do think I understand why, in a baptistic environment, Reformed people are inclined toward a “pendulum swing opposite” of the Baptists. Many Federal Visionists and paedocommunists I have seen hold those views in reaction against a baptistic denial of the covenant to children, and are seeking ways in which they can give a consistent response to Baptists. I now live in a wildly and utterly baptistic and pentecostal environment and almost never personally see Federal Vision around here, but I am becoming aware that right in my own “back yard,” the homeschool community is being influenced by Federal Vision theology through a CREC church. I know at least two soldiers’ families at Fort Leonard Wood from a PCA background who drove more than an hour to a Federal Vision church because they believed both the local PCA and my own church are not sufficiently Reformed. Stuff that would **NEVER** fly in a typical evangelical environment is being promoted as good Reformed theology and drawing in baptists and pentecostals who have a “family worship” view of child-raising created by homeschooling, and basically nobody around here has a Reformed church strong enough to stop it.

        4. I hear what you’re saying about being able to cite Karl Barth in a “climate of trust.” In the Canadian Reformed, your ordination standards not only for pastors but also for the consistory are so high that you probably **DON’T** have to worry about a Barthian getting into the CanRC ministry. I have personally had to warn a prominent Korean Presbyterian church leader beforehand that when visiting the United States and meeting a certain well-known Dutch Reformed leader, he might hear some positive comments about Karl Barth but should not interpret it as the man being a liberal. I don’t want to name the leader but if I did most younger people in the URC would be shocked because of his fiery conservative stance; older people would remember that that was “just one of his peculiarities” and he was otherwise a soldly Reformed man who just didn’t happen to believe Barth was as bad as Cornelius Van Til said.

        But on the other hand, can you understand that in our ecclesiastical environment, we have to deal with self-identified conservative Reformed men who were ordained and examined by presbyteries and classes and associations which simply do not care about anything beyond the most foundational points of doctrine? I’ve personally been told I could be ordained in the PCA despite exceptions to the Westminster Standards on church government that absolutely **NO** presbyterian should tolerate; when I explained my views, I was told “Oh, we know you’re from a Dutch background, you all talk that way about ‘broader assemblies’ and not ‘higher courts.'” Well, that just simply is not true… I’m not a presbyterian, I know it, and while my views have historically been acceptable in the earliest days of the Dutch Reformed churches following Dort and (arguably) were compatible with Kuyper’s views, they’re a clear and obvious violation of the Westminster Standards. But I’ve been told more than once that most people in the PCA wouldn’t care and that I know more about Presbyterian polity than most PCA elders and many PCA ministers. Unfortunately, that’s probably a true statement.

        In a context like that, conservative Reformed men can and **MUST** exercise suspicion toward people even if they call themselves conservative Calvinists. You may very well be able to trust the assemblies of the churches to do their jobs in the CanRC. That simply cannot be done in a lot of the Reformed church world, and because of that, when people have questions and don’t get answers, hair rises on a lot of people’s backs.

        Finally, let me say I’m glad to see the Canadian Reformed, who are a bastion of conservatism, blogging and using the Internet.

        If somebody could have told me twenty or thirty years ago that print newspapers would be dying and we’d be in an online environment where I could discuss theology with professors from Westmister-West and the Canadian Reformed Seminary at the same time that I’m arranging an interview with a United States Army officer commanding troops in Afghanistan, I would have told them they need to lay off the hallucinogenic drugs. The internet has allowed tremendously more access to both good and bad theology, and if solid theologicans don’t take advantage of it, we can be sure that bad theologians will do far more damage in an internet age than Berkouwer ever could do in his day. One thing you can’t deny about the Federal Visionists — they are **DEFINITELY** techo-savvy and propagate their view of the Reformed faith quite effectively online, as well as through the classical Christian school movement and curriculum for homeschoolers.

  10. What about the Committee on Level of Doctrinal Commitment and its report? I would argue that would be at least as important as this issue. In denominations that do not require confessional membership, you could potentially have officers who agree with the Nine Points, with a congregation that to a man believes in the Federal Vision, Shepherdism, etc. For whom would they be voting, when it comes time to elect new officers?

    My denomination abandoned the position of confessional church membership only a little more than thirty years ago; and just last year, I met a communicant member in one of our congregations who, before we discussed it, had never heard of the Shorter Catechism. For the continuing life of the URCNA, I would implore you to be as vigorous in defending that principle, as you are in defending the gospel of free justification. If you retain justification but lose confessional membership, you could very well win the battle but lose the war.

  11. Brothers,

    A little while back, my neighbor, who is a Mennonite, said to me, “So, you are a Calvinist? Why do you even pray?” He said it somewhat as a joke, but it got me thinking.

    My neighbor had in his mind hyper-Calvinists, and an overemphasis on the sovereignty of God. But, it is John Calvin, whom hyper-Calvinists trace their theological lineage through, is it not. However, to speak anachronistically, Calvin was no hyper-Calvinist! So, we have Calvin as a blessing to the church of Jesus Christ, and his spiritual grandchildren are the URC, CanRC, etc. But also, his spiritual grandchildren are hyper-Calvinists. Sure, they read Calvin wrongly, and apply him wrongly, etc., but he is the common anscestor.

    Could this not also be the case with the FV and CanRC both have as a spiritual forebearer K. Schilder? They are both walking down different roads after latching onto different theological formulations, just as “true” Calvinists and hyper-Calvinists are doing.

    If the CanRC and FV are that close, why don’t FVers join the CanRC? At least try to explain to the CanRC why they should end up with similar conclusions as they FV have.

    Dr. Visscher gave a lecture here in Southern British Columbia on the FV, and went through their joint statement and highlighted things that we could appreciate and also highlighted things that we, as both CanRC and URC would disagree with. That was a wonderfully unifying/edifying time with both CanRC and URC brothers and sisters.

    I have said before, that I think the FV is a great error and when confronted should be shown biblically why it is dangerous, but I do have concerns when I see my CanRC brothers and sisters thrown under the bus. I strongly disagree with Wes White’s assessment of the situation. I frankly think that we, in the URC, need the CanRC and could learn much from them, and that we could be a tremendous blessing to them.

    To seek to work together, in charity and understanding, I believe would be pleasing to the prayer of our Lord in John 17.

    • Steve,

      I agree that a writer may certainly be abused by followers. I appreciate that some (but not all) followers of Schilder want to separate him from the FV. The analogy, with Calvin, doesn’t really hold, however. The mainstream of Calvin’s followers weren’t hyper-Calvinists. We’ve had hundreds of years to analyze Calvin’s theology to see that. We haven’t had the same time to analyze Schilder. Further, even if we grant the premise there are significant problems created by the writing of well-accepted, mainstream Schilderite writers.

      Once more, it is a fact that Jelle Faber, surely a mainstream recent Schilderite theologian, defended Norm Shepherd in the pages of the Clarion. He understood Shepherd to be an heir of Schilder. It is a fact that, despite the fairly unanimous rejection of Shepherd’s theology by the NAPARC world, by three or four confessional seminary faculties, and by the URCs a faculty member at the CanRC seminary thought it was okay to commend Norm Shepherd’s latest book. As I documented in CJPM, there are problems in the formulation of other mainstream Schilderite writers, whom I’ve already mentioned. I could mention others. S G DeGraaf’s comments on the HC come to mind. Some of Schilder’s own comments (about the nature of the prelapsarian covenant) come to mind and his apparent rejection of the internal/external distinction, both of which I’ve discussed at length on the co-URC list in years past).

      It may be that there are two-streams flowing out of Schilder’s work but that fact is itself problematic. I don’t accept the premise that the hyper-Calvinists are legitimate heirs of Calvin or of Reformed theology generally. They are, after all, “hyper.” Are the FVists “hyper-Schilderites”? Possibly, but that has to be shown.

      I very much appreciate Gerhard’s engagement of this issue with us and elsewhere. I would be much comforted if our bothers in the CanRCs would stipulate EXACTLY what they understand by the FV and what EXACTLY which FV doctrines they reject and why. The URCs have done so but language about certain “sounds” of the FV resonating in the CanRCs is too vague to be helpful. Thus, I look forward to the eventual publication of his comments on the FV.

      Steve, I don’t know where you were in ’99-01 but the rhetoric of the URCs “needing” the CanRCs is of the same class of rhetoric that we were hearing from our CERCU back then (where was the concern about Synodical tyranny when it comes to ecumenical relations?) and on the floor of Synod Escondido. We also “need” the OPC do we not? Do we not “need” all our confessional brothers and sisters to be united?

      I understand that those who identify with Domine Schilder’s theology feel a strong desire to unite with the CanRCs (that was made clear by CERCU way back when) but those of us who identify with the older, classical, pre-Schilder Reformed tradition seem more willing to take a more patient approach to this proposed marriage. One way to relieve the pressure felt by those who identify particularly with the CanRCs is simply to go ahead and unite with them. That would relieve the pressure for those who feel it. That would give the rest of us weaker brethren time to get to know the CanRCs without the rhetorical and moral gun pointed at our heads: “Unite with the CanRCs or face charges of violating John 17—again why doesn’t John 17 ever come up in discussions with any other federation? Why do our CanRC brothers and sisters have such a privileged status? The CRCs, from whom most of the URCs came, did not identify with the Schilderite movement nor with Schilder v Kuyper (in saying this I’m not identifying with the Kuyperians necessarily just making a historical observation). My background is in the RCUS. Those brothers might justly feel as if they’ve been overlooked and the OPC, who has a track record of ecumenical interest in the URCs has also been overlooked.

      Let’s say Steve that you identify with Schilder and I identify with Machen. Now where are we? Well, we’re not in the NL. We’re in N. America. Machen (wasn’t Dutch but in Christ there is no Hollander, no Frisian, no Groninger) was arguably among the most formative confessional Reformed writers/teachers/scholars in the early 20th century here in our setting. No one has detected any idiosyncratic tendencies in his covenant theology. I don’t see a movement of “Machen’s Warrior Children” demanding “merger with the OPC or else.” Why not? Well, in reality, there are some significant obstacles — mostly polity. Now, on my scale of priorities, polity is a lot less problematic than issues in soteriology or covenant theology! I might say that if our priorities were right we should have started 10 years ago (or more) to work on union with the OPCs and then taken a look at the CanRCs but if I’m willing to be patient regarding merge with the OPCs or the RCUS, despite our evidence connections (which the CanRCs should understand since they’ve been in dialogue with the OPC and RCUS for decades) then shouldn’t our Schilderite contingent in the URCs also be patient (and stop hitting us with John 17&speaking of “billy clubs”?

      • Dr. Clark, when you wrote “Machen wasn’t Dutch but in Christ there is no Hollander, no Frisian, no Groninger” I think you hit the nail on the head of why there is a massive and persistent push by some people in the URC for merger with the Canadian Reformed.

        Shared ethnicity and culture is a big part of it, but I don’t mean by that ethnic bigotry. After all, the Netherlands Reformed, Heritage Netherlands Reformed, and Free Reformed are also Dutch, but nobody is suggesting that a merger of all the Dutch denominations is going to happen or would even be a good idea.

        Rather, I believe that especially in Canada, the OPC, the RCUS, and almost everybody else with the sole exception of the former OCRC are “outsiders” in comparison to the CanRC. (And, of course, the OCRC merger happened already.) How many URC members in Canada have even met an OPC or RCUS member or pastor? By contrast, the Canadian Reformed have been brothers in the battle for at least a generation, in many cases encouraging, praying for and supporting the men who eventually seceded from the Christian Reformed Church.

        Add in the Canadian Reformed Churches’ distinctive emphasis on a certain view of ecclesiastical unity, and merger becomes a hot-button priority.

        If the California CRC congregtions had not seceded from the CRC and had created their own nongeographical classis as Dr. Godfrey originally proposed, or if Dr. Gilchrist of the PCA had been successful in his efforts to convince Escondido to join the PCA rather than the URC (as the PCA did convince Dr. Sittema of Dallas to do), I doubt very much that the URC would still exist; it probably would already have merged with the CanRC, with some of the United States churches and maybe a few of the Canadian churches refusing to join the merger.

        For better or for worse, it’s the California churches which are the “odd men out” when it comes to the vast majority of the churches that originally made up the URC — it simply cannot be denied that you have a very different ecclesiastical culture from most of the rest of the URCs. But since you’re rapidly growing in California and your seminary is sending ministers all over the URC, your influence is putting the brakes on a merger than otherwise probably would have happened long ago.

        • Darrell,

          One counter example to your claim about “the California churches:” If you’ll check the record, you’ll see that as much or more resistance to a quick merger with the CanRCs has come from Grand Rapids than from California. Further, note that the old Classis SW has been broken up into two classes now, Classis SWUS and Classic PacNW. There’s been a lot more integration between the classes since ’99-01 too.

          Most of the impetus for the merger seems to come from those URCs in Canada. It’s not coming from GR or the E. Coast and not much from the lower midwest.

  12. With respect to the request here that I write about the CanRC and FV relation, readers will be interested to know that I wrote a response to John Barach on the co-urc list. As it’s a cut and paste kind of post it does not work (nor is it allowed) to copy the whole thing here. Perhaps at some other time I can post something here too, but all of this is “taking me a way from my day job.” Is it a problem if this discussion moves over to the co-urc email group?

    Thanks.

    • Gerhard,

      You’re welcome to hang out at the co-URC group (though the Christian Observer hasn’t been involved with it for years so I don’t know why it’s still the co-URC group) but that’s not a terribly positive place to try to discuss Reformed theology, piety, and practice.

      Any list that is more or less dominated by federal visionists (or those willing to tolerate them) has almost no connection to the URCs.

      What hath John Barach to do with the URCs? He left the URCs for the greener FV pastures, namely the de facto home of the FV: the CREC.

      Why, after Synod ’07 (or Synod ’04) for that matter are there still Federal Visionists on ANY URC list? Haven’t we rejected the FV root and branch?

      I don’t know many URC pastors who think that much of what occurs on that list has anything to do with the URCs.

      • I have no agenda whatsoever to defend CO-URC. However, I do think I have a basis for my comments, considering that I was one of the very first people who Rev. Edwin Elliott put on CO-URC back when it was started by Christian Observer. That means I’ve been watching and reading for something in the neighborhood of 15 years, probably more.

        I simply do not see that the list “is more or less dominated by federal visionists.” It certainly has not been that way in the past, and I don’t see that today.

        But yes, there are obviously Federal Visionists on the list. Does that mean CO-URC is dominated by people willing to tolerate Federal Visionists? Well, considering that the list moderator is the son-in-law of one of the more important men in founding the United Reformed Churches, and is the stated clerk of one of the URC classes, and is pretty well thought of within the stricter groups in the URC, I think it would be fair to say the moderation methods that he practices reflect at least one major stream of the URC. Perhaps that does not reflect California, however, and if so, it simply shows how much difference there is from region to region within the URC.

        The CO-URC list **IS** skewed toward people who are more computer-savvy who choose to use their free time for internet discussions the way pastors in an older era might have corresponded with each other, and that means the people on it tend to be younger and serve smaller churches. But that’s the case with nearly all religious or secular discussion lists; while there are some older people involved, the list is skewed toward a younger demographic.

        So yes, it is correct that CO-URC does not have a lot of participation by older ministers or pastors of larger churches. But can someone show me another internet discussion list for URC-specific matters that has more participation by URC people? There are reasons I read a number of blogs by URC pastors (though Dr. Clark is probably the only one on which I post with any level of frequency), so I can get a broader perspective of what lives in the churches, but I don’t see that any of the individual blogs have anywhere close to the participation level of CO-URC.

  13. Or why are there any Canadian Reformed folk on the URC list? 😉

    The electronic ecclesiastical world is so divided!

    I will try to post the gist of it here too but it may take a bit of time before I can get to it.

    • Gerhard,

      I know you’re kidding, but it’s important to say that the CanRCs are NOT the CREC . We have no ecumenical relations with them nor should we ever—unless and until the reject their Baptist confession (they confess both infant baptism and its denial), paedocommunion, and the FV. We DO have ecumenical relations with the CanRCs.

      That’s just the point. The co-URC list seems largely populated by those who have no proper relation to the URCs or who do not represent the mainstream of the URCs (e.g., those seeking toleration in the URCs for the FV).

      Having our friends on a URC discussion list is one thing but having CREC and FV representatives is quite another.

      • Just to be clear: as the moderator of the co-URC list, I know of NO men who serve within the URCs on the co-URC list who “are seeking toleration in the URCs for the FV.” There are some URC men on co-URC who have concerns with the URC’s report on the FV; but the only ones arguing for the FV itself are speaking from within that movement.

        For myself, I find it helpful to interact with those with whom I disagree. I find that it can be helpful in more fully understanding what they are saying.

        As to whether the matters discussed on co-URC have anything to do with the URC … well, the same can and is said of certain blogs written by URC men. But I find it helpful to read those blogs anyway, even though it occasionally causes me to pull my hair and yell at my poor, defenseless computer monitor.

        • Has any moderator from the co-URC list ever argued directly against the FV doctrines being promoted on the list?

          From above, “For myself, I find it helpful to interact with those with whom I disagree.”

          When this interaction occurs, then it is easier to discern if the FV doctrines being promoted there are being tolerated or opposed.

  14. I think that there is a deep historical reason for the greater affinity among the Canadian churches than the American churches. First of all, there are but four congregations affiliated with the CanRC in the USA. The other 50 or so are in Canada. But there is a stronger reason. In 1945 at the close of WW II there were 14 CRCs in Canada: 7 in Alberta. (I’m citing this from memory and forget where I learned this, so my number might be off a bit). There was a great influx of immigration over the next decades. By the 1980’s there were nearly 40 CanRCs and 250 CRCs in Canada; almost all were established by Dutch immigrants. Many family ties bridged the two federations. We lived side by side in various degrees of peace and hostility. In several places CanRC families sent children to interdenominational (CRC mostly) schools. In other places cooperation bordered on impossible.

    Because of this shared history, during the last half century there has been a keen interest among the CanRCs in developments in the CRC. When the first churches seceded from the CRC the CanRC members were ready and willing to help (with some bumps along the way). These first independent churches became the OCRCs and CanRC ministers provided “pulpit supply” in places like Ripon CA and Listowel ON. Over time, as more and more congregations left the CRC, the “Alliance” was formed. One of our congregations dispatched a delegation to the early “Alliance” meetings and in various ways urged the newly independent churches to federate under a “Dort” church order.

    The seminary (recently renamed the Canadian Reformed Theological Seminary – CRTS) profs continued to assist in various ways. Dr. De Jong and Dr. Van Dam urged CanRC churches to build bridges to the various independent congregations (and later to the URCNA).

    We see then that in Canada, there has been a “parallel” history from 1944 in the Netherlands, to today. For 60 years we have lived “shoulder to shoulder” in various provinces, especially BC, Alberta, Manitoba, and Ontario. Because of our shared history, there is a strong feeling of solidarity and a strong desire to be one not just in faith and confession, but also as a federation.

    I think that because of our shared history there is also a greater appreciation among the Canadian URC’s that the CanRCs are nowhere near the FV in the development of our covenant theology. I think it anachronistic to say that we would be. Perhaps, the FVists read and study Schilder, Holwerda et al, in an ahistorical way. They don’t understand the early 20th century backdrop of the controversies that developed in the Netherlands concerning the doctrines of covenant, baptism, conversion, the two natures of Christ, and the work of the Holy Spirit, nor of the discussions about preaching. They don’t understand the infiltration of Nazism into the Reformed church and Schilder’s principled stand against it in the Church. The FVists don’t understand how all these things led to the Vrijmaking of 1944, not just one.

    The CanRCs have taken and worked with Schilder’s doctrine of the covenant along with the various nuances of other 19th century Secession Theologians and are now well into the 21st century living as a vibrant healthy orthodox confessing Reformed Community of more than 50 congregations.

    Instead of suspicion and innuendo and guilt by association we should all strive more and more, when we write of each-other’s positions, to “judge and speak in the most favourable way, according the the example of the apostles” (Canons of Dort 3/4 15).

    • John,

      I appreciate the common history that the CanRCs and Canadian URCs have but you must appreciate, as has been noted, that the URCs are rather more diverse (both ethnically and theologically) than the CanRCs.

      Asking for further discussion and clarification is NOT suspicion. Frankly, i get a little peeved about being accused of being suspicious of the CanRCs when all I’ve done is try to hold open and honest discussions with CanRC folks. Do you people regard open and honest questions as signs of suspicion? If I ask you “what time is it?” or “What time do you think it is?” am I being suspicious of you? Not in any reasonable universe. Jelle Faber wrote what he wrote. Prof. Van Dam has written what he has written. Jim Wittveen and Bill DeJong writes what they write. These are all CanRC voices and each of them gives me and others in the URC reason to be cautious. Being aware of those things hardly makes me (or anyone else) “suspicious” of the CanRCs. In my business I have to follow facts. The URCs have decided by overwhelming majorities at two synods that Shepherd’s distinctive views are contrary to the Reformed confession.
      We have decided by an overwhelming majority that the FV is outside the pale and a real and present danger to the Christian faith. From what I can see many of my CanRC brothers don’t see what the big deal is. That gives me reason to be cautious.

      I’ve given concrete examples here of why we should be patient and talk and explain and get to know one another. I’ve given concrete examples of Liberated authors who seem to present a challenge to those of us who are more wedded to classical Reformed theology than to the 1940s. These problems may not be insuperable but they will take some time.

      Yes, you have a shared history with the Canadian congregations in the URCs but you don’t have a shared history with many of our congregations “south of the border.” This is why I suggested that, if there are URC congregations that believe that they have a duty before God to unite with the CanRCs immediately that they are free to do so. As a practical matter, perhaps that would relieve the pressure to act immediately.

    • That there is a shared history (of sorts) among the post-war Dutch immigrants to Canada appears plausible. That there is virtually no such commonality in the U.S. between the CanRC and CRC (or descendents thereof) is not accidental.

      Having been through its own major eruptions in the 1920s (e.g., the Janssen case, Hoeksema, et al) as well as some smaller “aftershocks” following, the CRC was loathe to take sides in the GKN controversy during the 1940s. The common wisdom at that time seemed to be “the issue(s) disturbing our sister churches is not disturbing our churches — so don’t get involved.”

      This “neutrality” of sorts seemed to work during WWII, as contact was obviously limited between the two federations. Once post-war immigrants began arriving en masse, however, neutrality became more difficult. Families from both sides of the Dutch (ecclesiastical) conflict were determined that “their” side needed a “fair hearing” here — the object being recognition by the CRC of “their” church in the Netherlands.

      For better or worse, the CRC chose what amounted to a course of non-action with respect to the GKN turmoil. With respect to Dutch immigrants, they were routinely welcomed (regardless of their GKN affiliation) — on the condition that they would _never_ speak of the GKN conflict . . . upon pain of church discipline. The documents I have seen were unambiguous about the consequences of breaking silence on this matter. Consistories were advised by Synod that under no circumstances would discussion of the “Dutch troubles” be tolerated in the CRC. Indeed, it was commonly understood that entire consistories might be deposed for allowing K. Schilder to speak from a CRC pulpit. So high was the level of suspicion.

      Because of these extreme (yet effective) measures, you could today track down (in the U.S.) thousands within the CRC/URC who, though descendents of Vrijgemaakt GKN-ers, have never heard the word “vrijgemaakt”. Their families were so thoroughly integrated into the CRC (and also now the URC) that there is no memory among them of their ancestors’ church struggles in Holland. I should be surprised if 1 in 100 CRC (U.S.) members could identify K. Schilder — as he was considered persona non grata in the CRC after WWII. Indeed, I doubt that 15% of the URC-U.S. membership is even modestly acquainted with the Canadian Reformed Churches.

      I’m not sure if any of this is helpful in understanding why members of the URC-U.S. might have reservations about a continent-wide merger of the URC and CanRC, but it seems to me a relevant bit of (U.S. church) history about which Canadians especially seem to be either ignorant or dismissive of.

      • Thank you very much for these details.

        I understand threats to depose a consistory for admitting an allegedly heretical preacher to the pulpit. (No, I’m not saying Schilder is a heretic; I’m saying I understand the principle.)

        But to order people in writing never to discuss a church controversy on pain of church discipline — that is Romanist, not Reformed.

        We have no way to know if a theological view is right or wrong without examining it. Attacking heresy is entirely appropriate, as is disciplining heretics and their advocates, but banning discussion? That’s crazy. All it does is create a “forbidden fruit” mentality and cause people to wonder why their elders fear something so much that they won’t fight it but rather forbid discussion.

        • Darrell:

          I am certainly not countenancing the actions of 1940s CRC consistories (or classes or synods for that matter) as they pertained to controversies abroad — nor the means by which decisions (with respect to post-war immigrants) were enforced. What I was attempting was to fill in what seems to me are very large holes in the historical tapestry which serves as something of a backdrop to the current merger discussions.

          You and I agree that the methodology (and underlying ecclesiology) employed by the CRC back then was wrong-headed. But it seemed to suit their purpose at the time, which was to keep Dutch controversy from infecting the CRC — at least in the U.S. In this respect, their actions proved effective. Unfortunately, the unintended consequences proved disastrous to the CRC.

          It has been my observation that Americans tend to be woefully ignorant of most Canadian (church) history. Conversely, I have also observed a tendency among Canadians (particularly those in the CanRC) to be somewhat dismissive of American (church) history. Anecdotally (but true): we attended the funeral of a long-time CanRC member. In the eulogy, it was mentioned that the deceased had been one of the founding members of the church in North America. Now most folks would realize that this recently-departed brother could not have been present when Boston, New Amsterdam, or Jamestown were being settled — but language like this is indicative of a mindset that considers (relevant) religious life in North America to have begun with the establishment of the first Canadian Reformed congregations in the 1950s.

          Rev. Van Popta (see above) has painted what appears to be a rather flattering picture of CanRC involvement in the early days of OCRC/URC development. I do not consider it helpful (or even honest) to minimize or ignore the fact that while some in the CanRC may have provided encouragement to those leaving the CRC, there were others (CanRC members/leaders) who made it their mission to publicly excoriate CRC expats for “doing the devil’s work” by establishing OCRCs/URCs when these expats “should be joining the true church” (namely, the Canadian Reformed Church). Such statements (and the underlying attitudes) cast long, long shadows. And while such attitudes might no longer be considered mainstream among CanRC members/leaders, it is not useful to pretend they never existed. It is precisely these long shadows cast by earlier arrogance and bullying that cloud merger talks today.

          You and I agree that the methodology (and underlying ecclesiology) employed by the CRC back then was wrong-headed. But it seemed to suit their purpose at the time, which was to keep Dutch controversy from infecting the CRC — at least in the U.S. In this respect, their actions proved effective. Unfortunately, the unintended consequences proved disastrous to the CRC.

          • svandyken wrote:

            “Rev. Van Popta (see above) has painted what appears to be a rather flattering picture of CanRC involvement in the early days of OCRC/URC development. ….” He suggests that he thinks that I’m not really being “honest.” (ouch)

            I don’t deny that there is a darker side to CanRC life, but I also tire of only that side being trotted out and a caricature made of our federation. For nearly twenty years now, our synods have extended an olive branch to the OCRC and URCNA. We could trot out all the garbage said about us, the “dirty 31ers” (the Vrijegemakte who claimed to up hold article 31 of the CO) and all the bad blood from the CRC side since the 1950’s, but to what end brothers, to what end? Should we from our side recount all the false charges and silliness laid against the CanRC brothers by bitter people in the CRC? I could tell some stories too about ecclesiastical arrogance in the CRC / URCNA too. Would that advance the cause of Christ and his church? I doubt it.

            As early as 1992 our synod appointed a committee with the mandate

            … to promote the unity of Reformed believers who have left the CRC;
            to make their (the committee) presence known for the purpose of information and consultation; to represent the churches, whenever invited, at assemblies or meetings held for the purpose of coming to ecclesiastical unity.

            This does not sound like ecclesiastical imperialism to me, or of an attempt to simply receive and merge the CRC seceders into the CanRC , but to promote unity among those who had left the CRC (ie OCRC & Alliance). The overture that came to that synod had has a stated suggestion that a committee should be established

            “to represent the CanRCs when invited to meetings of the Alliance of Reformed Churches and / or other meetings of Reformed churches / assemblies, held for the purpose of strengthening and developing the unity of faith among Reformed Churches and believers.” That overture was initially sponsored by a CanRC church that had been sending a delegation to the Alliance meetings.

            I was a member of Langley CanRC when a group of Reformed confessors established a church in Ripon CA. That’s nearly 30 years ago (if I remember correctly). The late Rev. D. Vanderboom asked for and received permission from Langley consistory to preach there and administer the sacraments.

            I suppose we can all trot out the ugly side, the dark memory, the arrogant ecclesiastical attitudes of some in the CanRC (AND in the CRC/URCNA/OCRC.) But there is also a very broad ecumenical and brotherly side to CanRC church life. One that I believe was and is a fruit of the Holy Spirit of God. One that has been in evidence for 18 years in our synod decisions with respect to the URCNA.

            jvp

            • Rev. Van Popta:

              My comments were intended to provide some balance, not to “trot out” old grievances. If we are going to whine about “suspicion” amongst URC brethren toward the CanRC, then we (yes, I am Canadian Reformed) need to be brutally honest with ourselves that we were responsible for at least a good amount of that suspicion. Whether each one personally was directly responsible is not the issue. That bullies were given free rein by their consistories (and broader assemblies) is beyond dispute — I am willing to recount several concrete instances for you, but would prefer not to do so in this forum.

              Bitterness about past injuries is one matter. Recounting a rather sanitized history of events is another. If we are going to “trot out” the historical context in the interest of removing suspicion, then we have to be willing and ready to say more about our own culpabilitythan merely mentioning “some bumps along the way”.

              You mention the example of the Langley (B.C.) CanRC granting her minister permission to preach and administer sacraments in Ripon, CA. The germane question would be: did such CanRC generosity extend to nascent OCRC/IRC/URCs seeking to establish within an existing CanRC “catchment basin”?

  15. Since my name (with a missing “e”) has come up here several times, I feel compelled to respond. What exactly have I written that has been unorthodox, or in conflict with the Three Forms of Unity, to which I subscribe? I’m really not sure why there should be any concerns over what I’ve written on my blog. Is it because I like Ralph Smith’s book on the Trinity? Is it because I like James Jordan’s book on the six real days of creation? Is it because I recommend Jeff Meyers’ little commentary on Ecclesiastes? Or perhaps because of my appreciation for Peter Leithart’s book on Scripture? I also like Richard Baxter’s book, “The Reformed Pastor.” Does that make me an Amyraldian? I’ve also recommended James White’s books on Roman Catholicism and Arminianism. Does that make me a Baptist?

    Honestly, Dr. Clark. You claim to be upset when people say that you are creating a “climate of suspicion.” Yet that is exactly what you’re doing! One of your previous blog posts is entitled, “The Inquisition Isn’t Over – It Just Changed Clothes.” You’re right. It seems to be wearing a Westminster seminary robe.

    • Jim,

      I apologize for misspelling your. It was unintentional. I just didn’t see it.

      Ralph Smith’s book on the Trinity is not helpful nor should it be commended by or to Reformed audiences.

      Peter Leithart is likely and rightly to be found guilty, by the PCA, of corrupting the gospel. His presbytery has been rebuked for failing to see what is right before them.

      Your endorsement of them is hardly heart-warming for us Reformed confessionalists.

      I may have misread your name but I your post here seems to confirm that I have not misunderstood the direction and Tendenz of your theology. It seems to support my contention that the direction of your theology, as reflected in your public writing, should give us reason for pause.

      We need not be ashamed of worrying about the theology of one who identifies with Jordan, Leithart, and Smith.

  16. Scott

    R. Scott Clark, on June 30, 2010 at 9:18 am said::

    ” This is why I suggested that, if there are URC congregations that believe that they have a duty before God to unite with the CanRCs immediately that they are free to do so. As a practical matter, perhaps that would relieve the pressure to act immediately. ”

    That’s an interesting suggestion, but that does not get us much further, I think. And I would guess (to the URC’s in Canada that might be amenable to merger with the CanRC) that would seem more like a “take over” and not a “merger.” Moreover, after that there would still be two federations of churches.

    I’ve been thinking of a new model for us all to think about. I call it ”harmonization”, rather than “joining and receiving” or “merger” or “union.”

    Why not work on several fronts? Our synods could seriously commit to future unity and thus to serious efforts to:

    1. harmonize the texts of our confessions, forms and prayers.

    2. adopt similar texts of the church order and subscription forms

    3. work together towards a single collection of hymns (each of us could continue to use our own psalmody even if a common collection of hymns were adopted early on in our “harmonization.”)

    4. continue to work through to an agreement on theological education

    As agreements were concluded on these various points each federation would adopt the harmonized positions or documents as their own. During this time — perhaps several decades — we could come to know each other better as we discuss covenant, ecclesiology and other issues. Over the years, as we “harmonize” our church lives and stand shoulder to shoulder in our secularizing world, we might come to the day when unity is simply a next natural step. In the meanwhile, we would not drift apart, and we would also learn better how to be a blessing to one an other, as we learn from each other’s strengths and over come our own weaknesses.

    To quote brother Scott once again…. “That would give the … brethren time to get to know [each other] without the rhetorical and moral gun pointed at our heads: ‘Unite {…} or face charges of violating John 17…’”

    We could do this in spirit of love, cooperation, and humility seeking to preserve and increase the unity we already experience in Jesus Christ.

    jvp

    • JVP,

      One concern about the process you suggest is that it seems effectively to ask the URCs to become CanRC in substance before we’ve actually merged. Our CERCU had us working along the lines you suggest but the churches seem to have demurred at least for the time being.

      • Scott

        I hate to say this, but that’s completely silly. I’m suggesting that both federations work towards common documents and positions. For example one of our synods even conceded that we might not have a complete Geneven Psalter: one of our most profound distinctives! We are ready to give up our Book of Praise for the sake of unity! Why in the world would my proposal mean that “the URCs [are] to become CanRC in substance before we’ve actually merged. ” Why wouldn’t it mean the reverse? That the CanRC’s become URC in substance before we actually merged? Scott, I just don’t get your point!

        jvp

        • John,

          Didn’t you point out the distinct culture of the CanRCs? That’s been my perception. Some elements are fixed, e. g., federational seminary, are they not? I’m assuming some things are non-negotiable.

          I appreciate the concessions made by the CanRC but the URCs are still discovering their own culture. That’s important. A child can’t marry a grown-up, at least not since Jerry-lee Lewis!

          I agree with those who say that we need to mature before we unite. I doubt very seriously the “born to die narrative” of the history of the URCs.

          FWIW, based on what little I know about the joint song book project, I think my sympathies were with the CanRC fellows.

          re: the CO, I’m not crazy about regional synods, however.

          • But that is exactly my point, Scott! My proposal says, “we are not ready for full unity today.” But why not have a process of harmonization, where we have a long term vision of unity but concede that that might take a few decades? Why not have our best theologians work at having the best translations of our confessions, forms and prayers? What would be wrong with that? Why not have the best possible people of our two federations work on a common hymnal? Why should we be doing that separately? Why not have two federations adopt the same hymnal and confessional texts and forms? Sure there seem to be non-negotiables today, but there is much common ground. Lets find that. Scott, you write as if your synod has already demurred! And it hasn’t even convened yet.

            We can wrestle out the Regional synod stuff. We can find a solution to education, or do you suggest that we should give up? Then we will never get back to it, and that for both federations will be a great loss; we could have learned much from each other. But if we go our sectarian ways, we will become what we live: sectarians.

            Let us unite on the basis of Bible, Confession, Church Order, and work out the rest of the mess as brothers. If that takes two decades and 7 synods so be it, but let us put the shoulder to the wheel and make a united stand for a united orthodox Reformed witness in our countries.

            • John,

              I addressed this comment in my reply to Steve but to reiterate one point:

              You seem to think, if I understand you, that theology can be worked out after or while we’re working out practical issues. This seems backwards to me.

              Before we work out our praxis we need to work out our theology. Praxis follows theology. We need to determine as federations that we really do confess substantially the same faith before we begin working on songbooks, church orders etc. To begin doing that work assumes facts not in evidence.

  17. I continue to believe this discussion between a prominent URC seminary professor and a number of prominent CanRC leaders is useful.

    There is, however, an “elephant in the room” that probably needs to be discussed as well. Not only do the Canadian Reformed have certain theological distinctives, they also have a significantly narrower view of what is and is not acceptable in church life.

    Dr. Clark alluded to the opposition to a Canadian Reformed merger being led by people in Michigan and the Midwest. He didn’t say this specifically, but I will: those are traditional churches which are still heavily Dutch, as opposed to the “newly Reformed and non-Dutch” ethos that predominates in California. If a CanRC merger happened today, I suspect the California churches would decide to just ignore it, continue as a classis, and petition to join the OPC or PCA. The churches in the Midwest would be under much greater pressure to go along with a merger that would substantially narrow their church life.

    I continue to believe that if the Escondido, Chino and Ontario consistories had decided to go Dr. Godfrey’s originally preferred route of a nongeographical classis within the CRC, or perhaps go into the PCA or the OPC rather than joining the URC, the Canadian Reformed merger would have happened long ago. The URC’s interchurch relations committee report, which has been discussed here in this thread, reflects the direction I saw much of the URC moving in the late 1990s.

    I, for one, believe that was a seriously wrong direction, but my objections then and now were based much less on theology than on praxis. And in fair disclosure, it’s no secret that some prominent URC ministers badly wanted me out of Christian Renewal and viewed me as a dangerous impediment toward union with the Canadian Reformed. I had many reasons for leaving Christian Renewal, but one of them was my conviction that the URC was rapidly moving into a very narrow direction in which neither people like me nor the people associated with Westminster-West would have much of a future. It seems obvious now that the URC’s movement in that direction has slowed, and perhaps stalled entirely, and that’s largely if not entirely due to the rising role of Westminster-West.

    Ten to 15 years ago, I got many of the criticisms that Dr. Clark is getting now for asking some of the same questions, the difference being that Dr. Clark has (and legitimately deserves) much more credibility in the churches than I ever did.

    The climate of trust in the CanRC of which Rev. Visscher has spoken presumes a very high degree of unity and agreement within the churches about how things are to be done. That level of agreement simply does not exist within the URC, especially south of the border.

    I do think, considering that the Canadian Reformed Churches have within themselves their own stricter and narrower wings (think of the Dutton American Reformed Church, for example), Canadian Reformed people ought to be able to understand the concern that a significant number of people within the URC have about merging with the CanRC without a great deal of discussion.

    To make this personal, it’s been less than a year since my own URC mission work was shut down by one of the URC’s stricter consistories for a number of reasons including inability by an almost totally non-Dutch church leadership to appreciate a long list of Dutch Reformed distinctives that are not in the confessions but were at one point mandatory within conservative Dutch Reformed churches. The Springfield church, after exploring the OPC and PCA, has decided to seek admission to the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church and that’s probably a much better fit than the PCA.

    I’m fully aware that would not have happened if the URC sponsoring consistory had been from any one of a nunber of churches in California, or were from one of a number of churches in Iowa, Michigan, or elsewhere. I’ve had people all over the URC tell me, “Your sponsoring consistory told you to do WHAT!!!!” and asked, sometimes even begged, me to organize an appeal to classis rather than just leaving quietly for a more amenable denomination.

    But on the other hand, this church really **WAS** an odd duck in the URC and never would have even been considered by most or perhaps nearly all URCs in Canada. I saw no valid reason for an almost totally non-Dutch church to cause problems for the URC when joining a different denomination made much more sense.

    The problem here, and the reason why I’m bringing this up, is that the very distinctives in praxis that created problems with one specific URC consistory for my local church are points on which the Canadian Reformed would likely expect federational unity. There was a long list of such issues; to cite just a few, they ranged from relatively minor things like having only one allowable songbook (our church wanted to keep using the OPC/PCA Trinity Hymnal as well as the Psalter Hymnal) to more serious issues like mandating two services on the Lord’s Day, requiring individual examination of visitors before admission to the Lord’s Table, sending a communion card back to the home church of visitors, requiring wine-only communion with no grape juice even for recovering alcoholics, etc., etc., etc.

    There is currently freedom within the URCs for a wide variety of practice under the authority of local consistories, and I know full well that a lot of what we were told we had to do, especially with regard to communion practices, is not being practiced uniformly within the URC. There’s nothing my local church was doing or wanted to do that would not gave been acceptable in a number of URC congregations, but I can’t imagine the Canadian Reformed tolerating such practices. And to avoid any misunderstandings, both Janie Cheaney from World Magazine and I were in the strange situation for a number of years of trying to explain to Southerners who knew absolutely nothing about the Dutch Reformed world why the church was being required to do things that seemed totally “out of left field” beyond the strictest of the strict in most people’s prior experience.

    When I hear the Canadian Refomed brethren speak of harmonizing their church life and practice with the URC, what I hear — perhaps wrongly — is them saying, “Take the time to learn why we do things the way we do them, let’s discuss, and we hope with time you will either return to the way Dutch Reformed churches have done things for most of their history or clearly convince us why we should change our longstanding practice.”

    Now perhaps that’s not the message the Canadian Reformed want to send. I’m very much aware that there are elements within the Canadian Reformed Churches that might greatly appreciate at least some of the freedoms of practice that now exist in the United Reformed Churches.

    But it does seem to me that if a Canadian Reformed-United Reformed merger were to occur anytime in the near future, the result would be not one but two or perhaps three splinter groups, as the stricter URCs and middle-of-the-road CanRCs find they have a lot in common, while the looser URC people object to a substantial narrowing of church practice and exit out the back door to the PCA or OPC while some of the people in the CanRC would find allowing things that now go on in the URC to be totally unacceptable.

    I do not for a moment doubt Dr. Clark’s sincerity. But I really wonder if all the discussion in the URC about Federal Vision theology in the Canadian Reformed masks an underlying objection not to the perceived theological problems of the CanRC but rather the perceived overstrictness in practice of the CanRC.

  18. Scott,

    You said, “The mainstream of Calvin’s followers weren’t hyper-Calvinists.” Correct. The mainstream of “Schilderites” are not FV. Remember there are 125 “Schilderite” churches in NL, 55 in Canada/U.S. plus the URC ministers who might be called “Schilderite.”

    You said, “I understand that those who identify with Domine Schilder’s theology feel a strong desire to unite with the CanRCs.” But, I don’t identify myself with Schilder. I think he stands within the bounds of liberty, but I have never called myself or ever been called “Schilderian.” (We might agree on more than you think. 🙂

    You asked, “Where were you in ’99-01?” High School and college. I am 28 and graduated from high school in 2000 and Calvin College in 2004. I was in the URC since it started but I was a high schooler. I wasn’t there in those early discussions, but if they used the argument that we need each other, I agree with it. Do we need the OPC? Yes, but there are greater obstacles for us merging with the OPC. The biggest of which is our confessions. I love the OPC and my brothers there, but I am not Presbyterian. I am Reformed. I have never signed my name to the WCF and catechisms. But, I can appreciate their tradition and hold someone like Machen in high regard. However, with the CanRC, we have no fundamental differences. Oh, there are non-essential ones in terms of minor polity issues (reg. synods), theol. education, etc. But, we are unified in doctrine.

    Oh to be sure, you might find a bit of a different emphasis, but I think if I heard you preach and you heard me, we would also have a different emphasis. That’s fine. I have no problem being in a federation with non-Dutch people (I am writing that with a smile on my face…its a joke).

    You said that it seems to be a bigger push from the Canadian URC’s to merge with the CanRC. Why do you think that is? Maybe because we know them better. I am from NW Indiana, grew up 10 mins. from the seminary, went to college in grand rapids. The mindset of the URC’s in the Midwest, IMO, are like those in Canada…they are just a bit more Americanized. I have lived in both places, but not in Southern California, though I have visited WSC, and we need our brothers. Don’t take that to mean we need to join now, or even in 5-10 years, it could take awhile, but we should be growing in that direction, don’t you think? Isn’t that what our churches want?

    Finally, you mentioned that maybe the Canadian URC who want to join the CanRC should. What about the American ones? I think we as a URC in Canada think that if we merge with the CanRC in 15-20 years that our congregation will not change very much. If we joined them now, we would have to change songbooks, etc. There are some old stereotypes that die hard, and I think that is why the URC’s in Michigan might be hesitant (the American RC in Grand Rapids has not had the best relationship with surrounding churches).

    Look forward to your feedback, but tomorrow is a holiday here north of the border. As an American I can celebrate 2 holidays, so Happy Canada Day and have a joyful Independence Day.

    Steve, pastor URC in Abbotsford, B.C.

  19. I continue to believe this discussion between a prominent URC seminary professor and a number of prominent CanRC leaders is useful.

    There is, however, an “elephant in the room” that probably needs to be discussed as well. Not only do the Canadian Reformed have certain theological distinctives, they also have a significantly narrower view of what is and is not acceptable in church life.

    Dr. Clark alluded to the opposition to a Canadian Reformed merger being led by people in Michigan and the Midwest. He didn’t say this specifically, but I will: those are traditional churches which are still heavily Dutch, as opposed to the “newly Reformed and non-Dutch” ethos that predominates in California. If a CanRC merger happened today, I suspect the California churches would decide to just ignore it, continue as a classis, and petition to join the OPC or PCA. The churches in the Midwest would be under much greater pressure to go along with a merger that would substantially narrow their church life.

    I continue to believe that if the Escondido, Chino and Ontario consistories had decided to go Dr. Godfrey’s originally preferred route of a nongeographical classis within the CRC, or perhaps go into the PCA or the OPC rather than joining the URC, the Canadian Reformed merger would have happened long ago. The URC’s interchurch relations committee report, which has been discussed here in this thread, reflects the direction I saw much of the URC moving in the late 1990s.

    I, for one, believe that was a seriously wrong direction, but my objections then and now were based much less on theology than on praxis. And in fair disclosure, it’s no secret that some prominent URC ministers badly wanted me out of Christian Renewal and viewed me as a dangerous impediment toward union with the Canadian Reformed. I had many reasons for leaving Christian Renewal, but one of them was my conviction that the URC was rapidly moving into a very narrow direction in which neither people like me nor the people associated with Westminster-West would have much of a future. It seems obvious now that the URC’s movement in that direction has slowed, and perhaps stalled entirely, and that’s largely if not entirely due to the rising role of Westminster-West.

    Ten to 15 years ago, I got many of the criticisms that Dr. Clark is getting now for asking some of the same questions, the difference being that Dr. Clark has (and legitimately deserves) much more credibility in the churches than I ever did.

    The climate of trust in the CanRC of which Rev. Visscher has spoken presumes a very high degree of unity and agreement within the churches about how things are to be done. That level of agreement simply does not exist within the URC, especially south of the border.

    I do think, considering that the Canadian Reformed Churches have within themselves their own stricter and narrower wings (think of the Dutton American Reformed Church, for example), Canadian Reformed people ought to be able to understand the concern that a significant number of people within the URC have about merging with the CanRC without a great deal of discussion.

    To make this personal, it’s been less than a year since my own URC mission work was shut down by one of the URC’s stricter consistories for a number of reasons including inability by an almost totally non-Dutch church leadership to appreciate a long list of Dutch Reformed distinctives that are not in the confessions but were at one point mandatory within conservative Dutch Reformed churches. The Springfield church, after exploring the OPC and PCA, has decided to seek admission to the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church and that’s probably a much better fit than the PCA.

    I’m fully aware that would not have happened if the URC sponsoring consistory had been from any one of a nunber of churches in California, or were from one of a number of churches in Iowa, Michigan, or elsewhere. I’ve had people all over the URC tell me, “Your sponsoring consistory told you to do WHAT!!!!” and asked, sometimes even begged, me to organize an appeal to classis rather than just leaving quietly for a more amenable denomination.

    But on the other hand, this church really **WAS** an odd duck in the URC and never would have even been considered by most or perhaps nearly all URCs in Canada. I saw no valid reason for an almost totally non-Dutch church to cause problems for the URC when joining a different denomination made much more sense.

    The problem here, and the reason why I’m bringing this up, is that the very distinctives in praxis that created problems with one specific URC consistory for my local church are points on which the Canadian Reformed would likely expect federational unity. There was a long list of such issues; to cite just a few, they ranged from relatively minor things like having only one allowable songbook (our church wanted to keep using the OPC/PCA Trinity Hymnal as well as the Psalter Hymnal) to more serious issues like mandating two services on the Lord’s Day, requiring individual examination of visitors before admission to the Lord’s Table, sending a communion card back to the home church of visitors, requiring wine-only communion with no grape juice even for recovering alcoholics, etc., etc., etc.

    There is currently freedom within the URCs for a wide variety of practice under the authority of local consistories, and I know full well that a lot of what we were told we had to do, especially with regard to communion practices, is not being practiced uniformly within the URC. There’s nothing my local church was doing or wanted to do that would not gave been acceptable in a number of URC congregations, but I can’t imagine the Canadian Reformed tolerating such practices. And to avoid any misunderstandings, both Janie Cheaney from World Magazine and I were in the strange situation for a number of years of trying to explain to Southerners who knew absolutely nothing about the Dutch Reformed world why the church was being required to do things that seemed totally “out of left field” beyond the strictest of the strict in most people’s prior experience.

    When I hear the Canadian Refomed brethren speak of harmonizing their church life and practice with the URC, what I hear — perhaps wrongly — is them saying, “Take the time to learn why we do things the way we do them, let’s discuss, and we hope with time you will either return to the way Dutch Reformed churches have done things for most of their history or clearly convince us why we should change our longstanding practice.”

    Now perhaps that’s not the message the Canadian Reformed want to send. I’m very much aware that there are elements within the Canadian Reformed Churches that might greatly appreciate at least some of the freedoms of practice that now exist in the United Reformed Churches.

    But it does seem to me that if a Canadian Reformed-United Reformed merger were to occur anytime in the near future, the result would be not one but two or perhaps three splinter groups, as the stricter URCs and middle-of-the-road CanRCs find they have a lot in common, while the looser URC people object to a substantial narrowing of church practice and exit out the back door to the PCA or OPC while some of the people in the CanRC would find allowing things that now go on in the URC to be totally unacceptable.

    I do not for a moment doubt Dr. Clark’s sincerity. But I really wonder if any of the discussion in the URC about Federal Vision theology in the Canadian Reformed masks an underlying objection not to the perceived theological problems of the CanRC but rather the perceived overstrictness in practice of the CanRC.

    • Darrell:

      You wrote:

      There is currently freedom within the URCs for a wide variety of practice under the authority of local consistories, and I know full well that a lot of what we were told we had to do, especially with regard to communion practices, is not being practiced uniformly within the URC. There’s nothing my local church was doing or wanted to do that would not gave been acceptable in a number of URC congregations, but I can’t imagine the Canadian Reformed tolerating such practices.

      My reply:

      You might be surprised when it comes to the Canadian Reformed Churches. There is a greater diversity of practices when it comes to the Lord’s Supper today than there was 20 or 30 years ago. Communion in the pew, the availability of grape juice (alongside wine, which is the norm), admission of guests to the Lord’s Supper on the basis of personal testimony — these things happen in the CanRCs too. This isn’t my Opa’s CanRC.

      • You’re right… I am surprised.

        I’m learning a lot here and I appreciate it.

        I still can’t even remotely imagine the CanRC tolerating some of the things that happen at Springfield today (which would be typical for 90 percent of OPCs and probably 99 percent of PCAs, and a substantial minority of URCs) but the items you’re stating really, really surprise me.

        As recently as a decade and a half ago, I am aware of a CanRC pastor’s wife who didn’t bring her letter of attestation when accompanying her husband to a neighboring church when he was administering the Lord’s Supper and the consistory was very unhappy with both of them for forcing them to accept her at the Lord’s Table without formal written proof that she was a CanRC member in good standing. Maybe that would never happen today in most CanRC churches, but it’s older cases like that (and perhaps some equally unrepresentative bizarrities on the other side of loose practices from the URC) that lead to misunderstandings and confusion.

        • That’s happened to me too, though the consistory insisted on an attestation. So, as the chairman of my consistory, I wrote one up for her. On another occasion, I was visiting a church that had called me. They had the Lord’s Supper, being administered by their soon-to-be-departed minister, and they required me and my wife to have an attestation. That’s on the other extreme end of things. My point is that there is a lot of diversity in the CanRCs. We’re not as homogeneous as we used to be. I think the recent synodical decision to give local churches the freedom to allow women to vote in congregational elections will contribute to growing differences in our churches.

          • Writing an attestation for your wife as chairman of the consistory when asked why your wife didn’t bring hers … that has got to be the funniest “letter of the law” response to a “letter of the law” problem that I have heard in a long time.

            However, it certainly **DOES** comply with every jot and tittle of the rules.

            Before this gets out of hand and my “in box” gets flooded with people asking me if my theological convictions have been addled by Southern heat, I’d probably better add that I not only understand but actually agree with most of the historic Dutch Reformed practices when it comes to control of the Lord’s Table and a whole lot of other things — my own views are very close to those of the Free Reformed or Heritage Netherlands Reformed, using Dutch Reformed categories, and are virtually identical to those of Puritan New England. The question for me is not whether there’s something wrong with the older Reformed practices but whether looser practices can be tolerated or whether they’re unacceptable. Most of the older Dutch Reformed practices that have become a focus of criticism were once also **PRESBYTERIAN** practices, and the fact that modern Presbyterians have forgotten that doesn’t mean the practices are wrong. Some were, some weren’t, and some (perhaps many) were good ideas that may not be the only Reformed way to do things.

            On a different matter — you noted that allowing women to vote in congregational meetings may create more diversity within the churches.

            Which way?

            My own experience is that women are sometimes the most conservative people in the church and actually tug churches in a rightward direction. That’s especially true of successful businesswomen who are well-educated and who have become very angry about both secular and religious liberalism and their effect on women; if given the opportunity to speak out and act, they are sometimes much more willing than men to say, “Stop that right now! My kids’ souls are at stake!”

            I call it the “Reformed mama bear syndrome.”

  20. Darrell,

    What I meant was that some of our churches will likely very soon go that direction, while others will hold out, perhaps indefinitely. There will undoubtedly be situations where you have two churches five minutes apart, where one allows women to vote for office bearers, and the other doesn’t. We already have the tendency towards modality churches in some areas, and this decision will exacerbate that phenomenon. A certain kind of person will go to a certain kind of church of his or her own choosing. Whether that’s healthy or desirable is debatable, but it certainly will contribute to the continuing erosion of CanRC homogeneity.

  21. Darrell,

    You said:

    “To make this personal, it’s been less than a year since my own URC mission work was shut down by one of the URC’s stricter consistories for a number of reasons including inability by an almost totally non-Dutch church leadership to appreciate a long list of Dutch Reformed distinctives that are not in the confessions but were at one point mandatory within conservative Dutch Reformed churches. The Springfield church, after exploring the OPC and PCA, has decided to seek admission to the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church and that’s probably a much better fit than the PCA.

    I’m fully aware that would not have happened if the URC sponsoring consistory had been from any one of a nunber of churches in California, or were from one of a number of churches in Iowa, Michigan, or elsewhere. I’ve had people all over the URC tell me, “Your sponsoring consistory told you to do WHAT!!!!” and asked, sometimes even begged, me to organize an appeal to classis rather than just leaving quietly for a more amenable denomination.””

    I certainly would hope that a similar process would have occurred through the work of any URCNA consistory since the decision made to “cease supervision” of the Springfield work was made, 1) prayerfully, 2) after many years and much contemplation, 3) after seeking the advice of classis and much particular discussion with church visitors and other URCNA consistories, seminary professors and others, 4) ultimately in light of what each URCNA officer bearers has agreed to uphold codified in the Church Order.

    The way you have publicly characterized the decision of Kansas City to cease supervision of Springfield is not brotherly, not fully factual, and unfortunate.

    Harold Miller, Pastor
    Covenant Reformed (URCNA)
    Kansas City, MO.

  22. Rev. Miller:

    I have absolutely no intent to be unbrotherly; actually I tried to be charitable and “hold my fire.”

    I do not and never have believed the Kansas City elders were being malicious or anything else of that sort. You had numerous major problems on your hands and a decision to “cut your losses” was not necessarily a bad decision on your part. In fact, given the substantial growth over the last six to nine months in Springfield, I think time has shown the Kansas City decision was probably good for both Springfield and Kansas City. It may also have been good for the United Reformed Churches as a whole because Kansas City’s decision and Springfield’s decision not to appeal avoided (or at least postponed) a major fight over defining the limits of what can be tolerated in local church practice.

    Please also note that I did not name the sponsoring church; while a lot of “in-the-know” people were aware of Kansas City’s sponsorship of Springfield, most people in the URC were not. What counts is not the individual consistory; many in the URC would have agreed with Kansas City’s position on the issues that created problems for Springfield, while other consistories in the URC would have had few or no problems with what was going on in Springfield.

    I’m sure you agree there is considerable difference of opinion within the URC over what is and is not acceptable in church life. The result, unfortunately, is that the Springfield church got caught in the middle of an internal URC discussion about worship practices, communion practices, and other church life issues that made absolutely no sense to most of the people in Springfield since it was utterly foreign to anything they’d seen before in the PCA or OPC, let alone broader evangelical churches.

    The reason this is relevant is that many of these same issues that caused problems between Springfield and Kansas City are also issues that will have to be addressed in any merger with the Canadian Reformed. Your predecessor as pastor in Kansas City took a call into the Canadian Reformed Churches. While the Kansas City church might not exactly be the best possible fit in the Canadian Reformed Churches, it’s fair to say that your local church practices would have to change much less than many other URCs if you were to join the Canadian Reformed. (I’m not talking about Schilderian theology here; I mean traditional Dutch Reformed distinctive practices of local church life that were once near-universal in the conservative Dutch Reformed world but have become less common in recent years.)

    Although I have a considerably longer background with the Springfield church than you do, please be assured that I am quite aware that there were many reasons for the Kansas City action, some of which make much more sense to me than others. I realize this was a difficult decision for the Kansas City elders, and I have spent a great deal of time trying to explain to people in Springfield that the Kansas City consistory was doing the same thing that a number of other URC congregations would have done, and that your elders are sincere in your belief that you were trying to be faithful stewards of the trust placed in you by Christ.

    I personally believe the root of the problem was not that the Kansas City elders were bad people or that the Springfield members were bad people (except, of course, for the truth that we are **ALL** totally depraved!), but rather that the URC was a bad fit from the start for the Springfield church. In other words, it’s best to avoid assessing too much fault to either side. Recognizing that the Springfield church didn’t belong in the URC is not the same as saying the URC is bad — different denominations exist for very good reasons.

    Many bad things happened at Springfield, many of which were avoidable but some of which were not. However, confronting the issue of traditional Dutch Reformed distinctives in practice and whether they are mandatory for a church to be in the URC was not avoidable.

    Those issues were serious, they had to be faced if Springfield was going to be in the URC, and it is my belief that Springfield remaining in the URC likely would have precipitated serious problems or at least long debate at the classical or synodical level of just how much can be tolerated in the URC.

    What counts most for me is that not just dozens but well over a hundred people had attended the Springfield church for extended periods of time during the half-decade that Springfield was a URC mission work, but left for reasons that never would have even remotely been an issue in the PCA and wouldn’t have been an issue in most OPCs. Boulevard Baptist Church (a Calvinistic SBC congregation), Second Baptist Church of Springfield (a broadly evangelical Southern Baptist congregation), and the local Federal Vision church are now filled with people from an OPC or PCA or even conservative CRC background who should be in a confessionally Reformed church.

    That simply did not need to happen.

    One good thing that has happened out of the whole sad mess last year is that the Springfield church is now growing, has a good local session of committed Reformed men, and is moving ahead with trying to be a Reformed option in Springfield that is neither Baptist nor Federal Visionist.

    I want to be fair. I am fully aware that Kansas City looked at many factors in Springfield, among them being the inability of the Springfield church to keep and retain a solid core of Reformed men capable of serving in leadership, with all the problems lack of solid local leadership caused. That’s a very valid concern.

    However, what caused that problem?

    Within a few months of the church becoming non-URC, the church had representatives of four different denominations actively trying to get the church to join, with two denominational representatives even suggesting realigning presbytery borders if one presbytery would be more amenable than another for Springfield.

    What changed?

    The biggest thing that changed was once a lot of traditional Dutch Reformed rules were no longer required, people started coming back who had been driven out and a number of new people started attending. The church is still today small by URC standards, but it’s about typical for a rural evangelical church in the Ozarks, and considerably larger than most OPC church plants as well as many PCA church plants.

    Now don’t misunderstand me — the fact is that I understand the historical reasons for many of those Dutch Reformed rules that were driving people out of the Springfield church, and in a number of cases I actually **AGREE** with the rules!

    But it is simply too much to tell men from an OPC or PCA or a Calvinistic independent Bible church background that they need to follow a long list of traditional rules, many of which are not found in the church order and cannot easily be proved to be required by the regulative principle.

    Rev. Miller, neither you nor I are from the Dutch Reformed tradition. You and I both know how difficult it is to explain to “outsiders” why certain rules are the way they are. The major benefit to the OPC is that they strive hard to ground all of their rules in an explicit command of God’s Word, i.e., strictly applying the regulative principle. The major benefit of the PCA is that they focus only on the basics of the Reformed faith and don’t have a lot of rules. The major benefit of the ARPs is that they take a “live and let live” position toward a lot of things that in Southern Presbyterianism have either been allowed or have not been strictly enforced, while not tolerating some of the wider diversity or the “church growth model” un-Reformed missions methods that are becoming common in the PCA.

    None of those three approaches can be fairly said to describe the URC.

    My personal attitude, Rev. Miller, is that Christ’s church is big enough for legitimate disagreements; people can often get along much better in different denominations than under the same roof. Kansas City, I’m quite sure, will seek to remain faithful to your historic distinctives believing they are the most faithful way to be Reformed. That’s fine, and I would not be surprised if the URC overall ends up looking quite a bit like Kansas City. However, the people in Springfield who wanted to be Reformed and didn’t leave for Baptist or Federal Visionist churches are also trying to be faithful to what we see as Reformed church life.

    I can speak only for myself, of course, but I wish you well in Kansas City. I sincerely hope you can wish us well, now that there is no longer a question of whether things going on in Springfield are a divisive or energy-sapping influence for the Kansas City elders.

    However, Rev. Miller, what happened in Springfield merely postpones an issue for the URC as a whole. Of all the things going on in Springfield to which Kansas City objected over many years, there is not one of those things that is not going on elsewhere in some other URCs. The URCs are already a diverse federation in terms of practice. Someday the URC will have to decide the limits of that diversity.

    Perhaps those limits will get decided in the context of a debate over merging with the Canadian Reformed; perhaps not. But they will have to be decided someday.

Comments are closed.