Our Sister Church in Abbotsford (2)


In this article we will discuss the developments which led to the necessity for liberation from the CanRC.

Ecclesiastical practice

When having church contact with another church not only her confession and church government is of importance, but also her ecclesiastical practice (regarding preaching, administration of sacraments and discipline). Through remarkable developments in the 1980’s a better understanding came into being regarding the ecclesiastical practice in the OPC.
In these years a number of OPC members and churches came to the conviction, also through contact with the CanRC, that the reformed doctrine and practice on essential issues differed with Presbyterianism. For this reason they even freed themselves from the OPC and joined themselves to the CanRC. The classis of the CanRC which was involved in this declared that these liberations were legitimate. And, bear in mind, that was after recognizing the OPC as a ‘true church’ in 1977!

What was then the ecclesiastical practice to which these OPC members objected?
We shall consider briefly two important points: the so-called ‘confessional membership’ and the ‘open Lord’s Supper table’.

Confessional membership

In the OPC members are not bound to their own confession, the Westminster Standards (WS). In fact, even for ministers and elders this confession is non-binding as a sort of ‘form of unity’. The latter are only bound to the essentials (so-called ‘system of doctrine’) whereby they may deviate from parts of the WS. 1) Here we see a return of a point of conflict in the history of the church: is our subscription to of our confession ‘insofar’ (quatenus) or ‘because’ (quia) it agrees with the Word of God? A practical result of this is, for example, that if parents refuse baptism for their children (because they are against infant baptism) it is left to the local consistory to allow them to become members of the congregation or not. 2)

Open Lord’s Supper table

In our churches it is a rule that only confessional members or guests with an attestation from their consistory can be admitted to the Lord’s Supper table (Art. 61 C.O., Book of Praise). However, in the OPC guests from ‘other evangelical churches’ also may be admitted to the Lord’s Supper table and this participation is only accompanied by a verbal warning to partake of the Lord’s Supper ‘with discernment’. This manner of allowing admittance to the Lord’s Supper was, according to the judgment of the members of the OPC who liberated themselves in 1985, in violation with the keys of the kingdom which has been entrusted to the office bearers in the church (Matt. 16 : 16-18, Matt. 18 : 15–20, John 20 : 21-23). The admittance to the Lord’s Supper table, according to their view, is an exercise of church discipline as key of the kingdom of heaven. (H.C. Q. & A. 85). 3)

Denominationalism

According to these liberated OPC members, the root of this ecclesiastical practice lies not in another view of the sacrament, but in a deviant view of the church: the so-called denominationalism. They point to the fact that, regardless of the original aim of the authors, the Westminster Confession (WC) speaks about ‘more or less pure churches’. 4)
In the adapted version of the Westminster Confession used by the OPC, mention is also made of the task of the State to protect the churches ‘(..)without giving the preference to any denomination of Christians above the others (…)’. 5) In this way the true church is seen as a plurality of denominations.
How broadly this is seen is evident from the fact that members of ‘other evangelical churches’ are admitted to the Lord’s Supper table. Among them are also remonstrants, baptists, and evangelicals. 6)

In the 90’s a number of CanRC synods determined that ‘confessional membership’ and the practice of an ‘open Lord’s Supper table’ were issues by which there could not be a sister church relationship with the OPC. 7)
A number of churches and members of the CanRC remained seriously concerned about recognizing the OPC as a ‘true church’ in 1977. Not only were the differences in doctrine and church government evaluated afterwards (see earlier article), but at the initial decision making these differences in ecclesiastical practice had not at all been considered.

OPC, RCUS, URCNA…

In the 1990’s the CanRC also came into closer contact with other churches of which we will mention two: the Reformed Churches in the United States (RCUS) and the United Reformed Churches of North America (URCNA).

The RCUS is a reformed church originating from Germany which subscribes to the Three Forms of Unity. The CanRC synod of 1998 decided that it could not yet enter into a sister church relationship with the RCUS due to its Lord’s Supper practice (comparable to the OPC !), Sabbath observance (for instance one worship service per Sunday, unnecessary work on Sunday, restaurant visit on Sunday) and church concept. 8)

The URCNA also subscribes to the Three Forms of Unity. These churches came into being in 1996 when they split off from the ‘synodical’ reformed churches in North America (Christian Reformed Church) because of liberal developments in these churches (women in office and evolution theory). Also in the URCNA guests can be admitted to the Lord’s Supper table without an attestation. 9) Contact with the URCNA would in the end, because of its size (20,000 members) and geographical position (several churches in Canada) in practice have the most influence on the CanRC.

Synod Neerlandia 2001

The CanRC General Synod of Neerlandia in 2001 decided to establish a sister church relationship with the OPC and the RCUS as well as with the URCNA. Could these sister church relationships be established because the practice in the afore mentioned churches had changed?
No, nothing had been changed. They were satisfied with the standpoint that there must be supervision of the Lord’s Supper table (although this clearly differs from the ‘practice’). As far as the RCUS was concerned the decisive factor was that they also accepted the Articles 27-29 of the Belgic Confession. 10) The actual ecclesiastical practice in these churches, which concerned the three marks of the church, was not considered and was therefore no longer an obstruction to a sister church relation.

With the URCNA, not only was a sister church relationship established, but steps were also taken in the direction of complete unification. In a so-called continuing ‘phase of ecclesiastical union’ local consistories could recognize agreement in fundamental issues and make proposals for continuing federative unification. After an agreement to a form of merger, complete unification could then take place 11).

In a following article we will explain D.V. the establishment of the LRCA.


1) OPC Form of Government XXII, 13. Source: http://www.opc.org/BCO/FG.html (10-2-2016).
2) OPC General Assembly Paper, Refusing to Present Children for Baptism. Source: http://www.opc.org/GA/refuse_bapt.html (10-2-2016).
3) B.R. Hofford, “The Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven and Open Communion”, 23 February 2004. Source: http://www.calltoreform.com/ (12-2-2016).
4) B.R.Hofford, “Open Communion in the OPC” (London, Ontario: Inter League Publication Board, 1990). Source: http://www.reformedcontinua.nl/ (12-22016).
5) Westminster Confession, XXIII, 3. Source: http//www.opc.org/wcf.html#Chapter_23 (10-2-2016).
6) K. Kok, “PRESBYTERIAN OR REFORMED?”, http://spindleworks.com/library/kok/presorref.htm#10.
7) Acts GS Lincoln 1992, art. 72; Acts GS Abbotsford 1998, art. 106; Acts GS Fergus 1998, art. 130.
8) Acts GS Fergus 1998, art. 51.
9) Church Order of the United Reformed Churches in North America Sixth Edition (corrected), 2012, art. 45. Source: https://www.urcna.org/1651/file_retrieve/23868.
10) Acts GS Neerlandia 2001, art, 45 (OPC) and 59 (RCUS).
11) Ibid., art. 73 and Appendix 2.3.