Our Sister Church in Abbotsford (1)


De Gereformeerde Kerken (DGK, ‘The Reformed Churches (restored)’) have had a sister church relationship with the Liberated Reformed Church of Abbotsford (LRCA) in Canada for well over five years now. The initial decision of this sister church relationship was, at the General Synod of Emmen 2009-2010, seen as ‘a thankful moment in all of the work done by this General synod’. 1)

In many churches worldwide there is a turning away from the Word of God through all kinds of false doctrine and errors. In this confusion and turning away from God, the LRCA has, as the only church worldwide, wholeheartedly recognized the Reformation of 2003 (in the Netherlands) as a work of the Lord. Thousands of kilometers away a church was recognized as being ‘faithful in doctrine, worship and discipline to our God’. 2)

There was an historic moment at the General Synod of Groningen 2014-2015: for the first time representatives of our sister church could be present at the synod! At this synod ample attention was given to our sister church relationship and it was decided to continue this relationship. It is therefore a good thing to give some attention to the LRCA in De Bazuin.

The LRCA came into being in 2007 through a liberation from the Canadian and American Reformed Churches (CanRC), a sister church of the GKv.
In the first place we will see what developments led to the necessity of the liberation from the CanRC, and in the second place explain the formation of the LRCA.

The Reformed overseas

The CanRC came into being in 1950 as a typical Dutch ‘immigration church’ coming forth from the emigration wave after WW II. The ‘liberated’ reformed people overseas obviously came in an already Christianized North America, where from the beginning of the 18th century Presbyterianism (among others) had developed roots.

In the beginning of the 20th century a ‘modernism - fundamentalism controversy’ took place in the Presbyterian Church in the USA. The ‘modernists’ undermined the Bible as the Word of God; they denied doctrines such as Christ’s substitutive suffering and His bodily resurrection. This was strongly opposed and refuted by the ‘fundamentalists’ under the leadership of Prof. J Gresham Machen (1881-1937). In the General Assembly of 1933 (a sort of synod) he fought against the modernistic unbelief whereby also foreign mission work had been infected: he and others wanted to exclusively support missionaries who truthfully preached God’s Word. The result was that he and other ministers were removed from office. Through this a church came into being in 1936 which we now know as the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC).

Contact with the OPC

In 1966 the CanRC decided to officially seek contact with the OPC; the synod considered that the OPC was Calvinistic in character and had definitely decided for orthodoxy and against modernism. 3) At a number of synods during the years 1960-1970 several important differences (also called ‘divergences’) between the CanRC and the OPC came up:

1. The doctrine of the Westminster Standards (the confessions of the OPC) regarding especially the church, church government, assurance of faith and covenant which in parts deviate from the Three Forms of Unity.
2. The church government: the form of church government (a sort of church order) in the OPC expresses that the local churches are ‘divisions’ of the universal church; therefore, in the OPC the broader assemblies are seen as the ‘higher’ assemblies.
3. The rules for church correspondence of the CanRC were opposed by the OPC. The CanRC had, for instance, as a rule that (a) there must be oversight so that there are no deviations from the reformed confession in doctrine, liturgy, discipline and church government, and that (b) an account is given to the sister church when a relation is entered into with a third party. The OPC saw these rules as a restriction of their freedom and would rather take on a (less obligatory) relation of brotherly fellowship.
4. The OPC had church relations with the then synodical Gereformeerde Kerken in the Netherlands and took part in the Gereformeerde Oecumenische Synode (GOS) (Reformed Ecume-nical Synod). 4)

OPC a ‘true church’

In 1977 the CanRC recognized the OPC as a ‘true church’ and offered her a temporary relationship of ‘church contact’. This meant that both could receive each other’s delegates at synod (without voting rights). 5) It is striking how the synod of 1977 dealt with the above-mentioned differences. The synod of 1971 had as yet still judged that the difference in doctrine and church government were serious enough to remain a topic of discussion. 6) In order then to recognize the OPC as a true church it was to be expected that in 1977 there should have been a rounding off of a profound evaluation of these differences. However, that did not take place; the synod decided, even when recognizing the OPC, they would still desire an ongoing discussion about the divergences in doctrine and church government.

An important factor in the decision in 1977 was that they received a letter from the OPC. This letter briefly discussed the differences in doctrine and church government and stated that there were no principle differences between the various confessions, creeds or rules for church government, but only a difference how they came about originally and a difference in emphasis. And although this letter had not been answered by the deputies of the CanRC, the synod of the CanRC considered ‘it appears that the divergences are to be explained from the different origins’ of the confessions and church government. 7)

In addition, the Canadian synod took over a decision from the Dutch General Synod Amersfoort-West 1967 that the Westminster Confession was ‘a fully reformed confession’. Unfortunately, in Canada the content of this decision was at that time not put to the test.

A number of members and churches of the CanRC, had serious objections against the - according to their judgment - too hasty recognition of the OPC as a ‘true church’ and the newly developed temporary relationship of ‘church contact’. Requests for revision against this decision were rejected by later synods. However, the deputies did receive the instruction to show, after the synod already made the decision, that the divergences in doctrine and church government were no hindrance in recognizing the OPC as a ‘true church’. 8)

In a following article D.V. we will consider the developments which led to the necessity for the liberation from the CanRC.


1) Acta GS Emmen 2009, art. 144.
2) Ibid., art. 98.
3) Acts GS Edmonton 1965, art. 141.
4) Acts GS New Westminster 1971, Supplement V and Acts GS Toronto 1974, Appendix 5.
5) Acts GS Coaldale 1977, Art. 91.
6) Acts GS New Westminster 1971, art. 92.
7) Acts GS Coaldale 1977, art. 91, II, 3.
8) Acts GS Smithville 1980, art. 97 and 152; Acts GS Cloverdale 1983, art. 55; Acts GS Burlington 1986, art. 126.