A Very Helpful Splash

BC14Dr. James Visscher, minister of the Word (emeritus) of the Canadian Reformed Church at Langley, British Columbia, has written an editorial about the proposed amendment of Belgic Confession, Article 14. His essay was published in Clarion, 5 June 2015, vol. 64., no. 11, pp. 298-301. It is published below with permission.

Personally I’m very pleased and grateful that a churchman within the CanRC has written publicly about this proposal. His cautions are clear and pastoral, and his concluding advice ought to be heeded.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *


Classis Ontario West (COW) of March 11, 2015, decided to overture the next Regional Synod East in the hope that this body will support and endorse a proposal that came from the Providence Canadian Reformed Church of Ancaster, Ontario, to amend the Belgic Confession. Thereafter, it would be passed along to General Synod for final adoption and thus become part of the official text of the Belgic Confession.

So what exactly does COW want the General Synod to add to the Confession? It are the words, “the human race by making and forming Adam from dust (Gen.2:7) and Eve from Adam’s side (Gen. 2: 21-22). They were created as the first two humans and the biological ancestors of all other humans. There were no pre-Adamites, whether human or hominid. God made and formed Adam after his own image….”

Now, as I see it there are a number of issues that come to the fore with respect to this addition or amendment.

An Ethical Issue

The first has to do with an ethical issue. What do I mean by that? Well, it has to do with the fact that two members in our midst are specifically singled out in this overture and accused of being theistic evolutionists. They are considered to be disturbing the peace of Jerusalem in such a serious way that we need to change the confession to prevent them from teaching certain things, as well as to prevent others from emulating them.

Now, the naming of names is always a sensitive and serious thing. Whenever anyone does that care needs to be taken both in the world and in the church. At the same time you need to make every effort to get your facts straight. If not, in the world you will be sued for defamation and in the church you will be accused of violating the 9th Commandment.

So what should you do if you believe that certain members are seriously in error and you are of the opinion that they need to be stopped in their tracks? Furthermore, what should you do if you want to use them and their false teachings as a basis for adding to the confession? Surely, the first thing you will do is make sure that you have a right and accurate understanding of their views.

This means that you will draft your letter of charges against these men and then send it to them for their response and reaction. Once they respond you will evaluate whether or not your case against them is still sound and, if it is, you will proceed.

That to me is the honourable and biblical way. I say this on the basis of what we confess in Lord’s Day 43 about not “condemning or joining in condemning anyone rashly and unheard.” Behind these words is the well-known biblical principle to “do unto others as you want them to do to you.”

In addition to the naming of these two brothers, there is also the naming of the two churches of which they were or are members. That too should result in an extra effort to get all of the facts right. For by naming these churches people may well draw the inference that these two churches are tolerating members in their ranks with heretical teachings.

Hence before publicly mentioning the names of these churches, it would have been considerate if a letter had also been sent to each church naming the member, identifying what are considered to be his wrong views, asking the consistory about his status and, if need be, urging it to take disciplinary action against him.

So was any of this done? Did the Providence Church which wrote this overture originally write to these brothers and their churches before accusations were leveled publicly and used as a basis for proposing an addition to the Belgic Confession?

There is no evidence in the overture that they did. As far as I can ascertain, neither the members nor their churches were ever contacted.

Indeed, one of the men mentioned in the overture has since gone on record in social media vigorously disputing the fact that he is a “theistic evolutionist.” There is also the fact that the other accused appealed to an earlier Regional Synod East regarding his views and subsequent discipline, and that the Regional Synod sustained his appeal against the decision of Classis Ontario West.

All in all, the procedures used in this case raise some serious ethical issues. Is this how we deal with one another as members and local churches in the church of Jesus Christ?

A Confessional Issue

The second issue that this matter raises is a confessional one. In other words, is it right to take a historic reformed confession and amend it in light of a current theological controversy? Up until now the Canadian Reformed Churches have always tended to answer that question in the negative.

No doubt our history plays a role here. The fact that in the 1940’s our fathers were expected to agree to an extra-confessional wording on pain of deposition or expulsion has resulted in our churches being extra cautious about tampering with the confessions. The prevailing opinion has been that our confessions do not need amending and that together they are clear and sufficient when it comes to the necessary points of doctrine.

As a result, for many years we have in our ecumenical relations urged other churches to exercise great care in adopting all kinds of statements on doctrinal matters and raising them to quasi-confessional status.

Yet with this overture we are suddenly doing something that we have for decades been urging sister churches not to do. Why, a case can be made that we are even going beyond these warnings for suddenly it is no longer about adopting theological statements and giving them confessional status, but it is about adding to the actual confession itself.

Now, you might think that I am being unnecessarily old school here, and perhaps there is some truth in that. In my years at seminary back in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s I was taught by men like Prof. Dr. Jelle Faber, Prof. Lubbertus Selles, Rev. Gilbert Van Dooren, and Rev. Hendrik Scholten, as well as others, and they repeatedly issued the warning not to tamper with the confessions.

As a result, I must raise the general question: is this how we should handle the confessions? Whenever heresies or so-called heresies raise their ugly heads do we need to react with the stick of confessional amendment? If that is the route we should go as churches, we will be mapping out a busy future for ourselves.

Imagine if in the past we had amended the confession to deal with a certain minister whose teachings on the doctrine of the church were deemed to be unclear, confused and wrong. Or what about theonomy or federal vision? Do they not deserve a well-placed confessional retort? Or what about the Shepherd controversy? Should that have not pushed us to take up our pens and clarify further what the confession says about the relationshiup between faith and justification? Or what about the views of men such as E.P. Sanders, N.T. Wright and others? The list goes on and on.

Do we really want to go down this road? Do we really need to go down this road?

A Textual Issue

That brings me to the third issue and it has to do with a textual one. The Providence Church and Classis Ontario West would have us first add the words “the human race by making and forming Adam from dust (Gen.2:7) and Eve from Adam’s side (Gen. 2:21-22).” Is this really an improvement or a hedge against theistic evolution? As such these words are really just repeating or paraphrasing what Scripture itself already says.

I would say that if a member in our churches was to stand up and declare that Adam was not made of the dust of the earth or that Eve was not made from Adam’s side, he or she would be dealt with on the grounds that they were in contravention of Scripture itself. In other words, if Scripture is clear on a certain matter and a member refutes it, he or she should be disciplined on the basis of Scripture criticism. In such a case we do not even need to refer to the confessions.

Why bother to kick in an open door. Why target what is obviously unscriptural and insist that it needs to be added to the confession?

Thereafter, the overture goes on to propose the following addition, “they were created as the first two humans and the biological ancestors of all other humans. There were no pre-Adamites, whether human or hominid.” Again, I would ask, “is this necessary? Is this helpful? Is this an improvement?“

May I remind you that in addition to the Belgic Confession, we also have the Heidelberg Catechism. What does it say in Lord’s Day 3, Question and Answer 7? It refers to our depraved nature and says that it comes “from the fall and disobedience of our first parents, Adam and Eve, in Paradise.” Does this not exclude any notion of pre-Adamites? Does this not identify our biological ancestors? And what about Article 12 of the Belgic Confession which states that the Father has “given to every creature its being, shape, and form…”?

The point that I want to make is that our doctrinal standards already exclude ideas of there having been pre-Adamites, whether of the human or hominid variety. They clearly identify Adam and Eve as our first parents. I fail to see that this overture says any more or says it any better.

In short, the things that the brothers in southwest Ontario are concerned about are already covered in both Scripture and confession.

An Ecumenical Issue

Finally, I come to the fourth issue which is an ecumenical one. By that I mean to say that changing or adding to the confessions should not be viewed as a Canadian Reformed right or prerogative. We share these confessions with many other faithful Reformed churches around the world. If we believe so strongly that they should be changed, then we should make our case to our sister churches. After all, that is what we have also promised to do under the existing Rules of Ecclesiastical Fellowship.

Failure to do so and the adoption of a go it alone policy will bring us in conflict with our promises. It will also see us traveling down a singular and perhaps even, a sectarian road.

In conclusion let me commend the brothers in Classis Ontario West for wanting to be valiant for the truth. At the same time let me add that this is not the route that we should take as Canadian Reformed Churches. Over time it will open the doors not just to one amendment, but to many more. The end result will be a Belgic Confession that loses its historic character and becomes cluttered with all sorts of additions, many of which will be debated for decades as to their appropriateness and effectiveness.

James Visscher

Making a Dirty Splash in a Little Puddle:
An Attempt to Amend BC 14 (6)

BC14The seasonal holidays are past, and it’s time to resume our analysis of the BC 14 confessional revision proposal being circulated for discussion and decision among the Canadian Reformed Churches.

We have devoted enough space to the issue of the Ninth Commandment, but we need to explain a more wholesome and responsible course of action.

Church orderly

Part of what we have been defending, positively, is the need to follow a church orderly (Dutch: kerkrechtelijk) approach, an ecclesiastical-judicial approach, to this matter. There are protocols and procedures in place for dealing with a person and his/her views. As we have argued, embedding unprocessed and/or unvindicated personal accusations in a proposal to revise BC 14 is neither churchly nor just.

In this connection, at least three lessons have emerged from the Christian Reformed (CRC) experience of seeking to defend biblical truth in the controversies involving the teaching of evolution.

  1. Beating the air with loud assertions about a person’s alleged heterodoxy can easily become a substitute for doing the hard work of preparing and presenting an ecclesiastical-judicial case.
  1. That hard work of following a responsible ecclesiastical path, one that honors individuals as well as the churches, one that honors the process as well as the doctrinal principles at stake, takes much time, perhaps years.
  1. Without doing that hard work of honoring persons and procedures in these matters, those who sow the wind will, inevitably, reap the whirlwind. That whirlwind can be described as a “wild West” approach to church polity, a style of brutality against persons and their reputations, and the widespread distrust of fellow leaders.

I know full well the capacity for people wanting room to teach heterodoxy to manipulate and twist the processes and protocols of church polity. Rules and church orders and protocols cannot and do not guarantee a righteous outcome. I am fully aware of that. But this I also know: ignoring rules and church orders and protocols cannot and does not guarantee a righteous outcome, either.

A suggested protocol

For those who are concerned about the beliefs and teaching of a person who is a member in good standing in his or her congregation, I would like to suggest these steps as a process that would honor both the person and the principles involved.

Step 1. Communicate with, meet with, and discuss with this person, with a view to ascertaining with precision what this person believes and teaches. This step could well take (as in: consume) long months, many meetings, and much patience in seeking to understand fully and fairly the views in question.

Step 2. If legitimate concern remains, if this person is given opportunity to change his or her views in light of the concerns, and if the person does not change the views in question, then address the person’s consistory, with a view to this consistory exercising the requisite discipline toward this individual. At that point, the person becomes a defendant, those seeking discipline become the plaintiffs, and the assembly becomes the jury.

It seems both prudent and just, for the peace of the church, that if, at Step 2, a judicial process is initiated, the defendant ceases promoting his or her views until the case is settled and the defendant is acquitted.

Step 3. If, however, the defendant’s consistory acquits the defendant, and thereby refuses to place that person under discipline, then that consistorial decision must be appealed by the plaintiff to that consistory’s classis, and if necessary, to the regional synod, and eventually to the general synod. Conversely, if the consistory convicts the defendant and proceeds with ecclesiastical discipline, the defendant has the right of appeal, all the way, if necessary, to the general synod.

However, if one of those intermediate assemblies (say, a regional synod) acquits the defendant, then that decision of that assembly must be appealed by the plaintiffs to the assembly next in line (say, a general synod).

These steps, I suggest, comport with a church orderly approach for dealing with controversial teachings.

To be continued.

He Descended Into Hell:
What did Christ do between his death and resurrection?


Christ In Storm On Lake Genezareth by Rembrandt

In the explanation that the Heidelberg Catechism provides [in Lord’s Day 16] concerning the words, “he descended into hell,” we read about the inexpressible and hellish suffering that our Savior bore for us during his life on earth. That explanation from Answer 44 is remarkable and comforting. But is it a complete explanation of the words of the Apostles’ Creed? There we find the words “he descended into hell” after we are told of his burial and before we confess his resurrection. It appears as though with these words, the confession wishes to say something as well about Jesus’ activity between his death and resurrection. And that is also the explanation that has become so widespread throughout the Christian churches. Not in opposition to the Catechism, but certainly as an expansion of it.

Some people think at that point of a deliverance of the Old Testament believers from a kind of waiting situation, but nothing is said about that in either the Catechism or the Bible. The most important statement in the Bible in this connection is a statement of our apostle Peter. In 1 Peter 3:19–20 we read this: “He went to the spirits who were sitting imprisoned, in order to proclaim all of this to those who in Noah’s time refused to obey when God waited patiently and the ark was being built.” From these words of Peter it is clear that Christ was showing his victory triumphantly to those who had lived in the world before the flood and had refused to love God.

But who are these “spirits” from the time before the flood? They are either the unbelieving people from that time or (as Van Houwelingen argues in his commentary) fallen angels. Actually, this difference of detail is not as radical as it might appear. In either case it involves the fact that Christ was showing forth and proclaiming his victory. To angels or people from the time of the first (pre-flood) world.

When did he do this? Did he do this by means of his ascension (Van Houwelingen and others)? Of course, a declaration did go forth from the ascension, but in my view there is reason to think in connection with 1 Peter 3:19 first of all of a departure to the realm of the dead in order to proclaim his triumph to the prisoners there (thus Luther and others). To be sure, the verb “depart” that appears in v. 19 is used again in v. 22, there in connection with the ascension; but in v. 22 we are told in so many words that this departure did refer to the ascension (“who had gone into heaven”). In v. 19, however, we read only that our Savior, through the same Spirit whereby he was raised, also “departed to proclaim to the spirits in the prison.” Those spirits in the prison are not in heaven. And “proclaim” is an activity (“preaching”) and is therefore more than a “fact” (such as the ascension). Apparently there was a distinct journey to the place where the spirits from Noah’s time were held captive. That place is not in heaven and not on earth. That must have been a place in the realm of the dead.

Therefore it is not so strange for many to suppose that this must have happened between Christ’s death and his resurrection. For before his death, Jesus was busy proclaiming on earth, and after his resurrection and ascension, he is busy ruling in heaven. A visit to the prison cells of the spirits from Noah’s time must have occurred in the days when our Savior was at work neither on earth nor in heaven. This “descent into hell” was intended, then, to provide there a triumphant proclamation of his victory. And after that proclamation to the prisoners from the first (pre-flood) world, he arose “from the dead ones.” In the New Testament this plural (“the dead ones”) is used: Christ was staying among the dead ones and returned from their midst with the majesty of the Living One. The subsequent words in the Apostles’ Creed, “arose from among the dead ones,” tie in with the preceding words, “descended into hell,” and those words had appeared in turn after the mention of his burial.

At this point some sense a question arising: If there is something like a realm of the dead, then are our deceased loved ones with the Lord? Happily, the answer is: Yes. 1 Peter 3:19 is not talking about Noah and the other (few) believers of his day, but about those who are staying in prison. These are the unbelievers who await the judgment, not the believers. Similarly Moses and Elijah, having come from God’s glory, had been allowed to appear to our Savior and three apostles, on the mount of glorification. But the spirits who before the flood remained impenitent and perished are not dwelling in the glory where Moses and Elijah are permitted to dwell. But neither have they disappeared altogether from the creation: somewhere they are waiting until the Voice calls them for the final judgment. Christ’s descent into hell is a descent to the prison of punishment. Following that comes his return from among the dead ones and his ascension to the Father. There, all the spirits of the justified are dwelling.

In short: even though we may differ about many details in the interpretation of 1 Peter 3, what is clear is that Christ’s victory on the cross led to a shocking proclamation of his kingship in the realm of unbelievers and rebels from the first world. Therefore, the rising of our Savior from the midst of the dead ones is not comparable to the rescue of a drowning person from the water, but with the return of a Conqueror who may wave aloft his banner in the realm of the dead through the same Spirit whereby he later traveled to heaven to live at the right hand of his heavenly Father.

Therefore, his resurrection differs fundamentally from all previous resurrections of the dead. That is the comfort of Heidelberg Catechism, Lord’s Day 17, and that is what Christ’s sermon was about.

(This meditation was written by Dr. J. van Bruggen, and is provided here in English translation.)

Making a Dirty Splash in a Little Puddle:
An Attempt to Amend BC 14 (5)


As far as we can tell, this will be our concluding post about the Proposal to revise BC 14 and the Ninth Commandment, before moving on to other significant dimensions of the Proposal.

This one relates to accusations made against Br. J., in terms of three topics: (1) definition and target, (2) guilt by association, and (3) using material retracted by Br. J. In each instance, the very words of the Proposal are provided, followed by my explanation of Br. J.’s actual position.

1. Definition and target

1.1 Proposal to revise BC 14:

“By theistic evolution, we mean the teaching that God created the world and all organisms over billions of years. Many theistic evolutionistsincluding some within the Canadian Reformed Churches, also teach that Adam was not the special and direct creation of God.  Rather, while acknowledging that Adam was a historical figure, they teach that he was the descendant of preexisting hominids (manlike creatures with an evolutionary history) that was, at some point and in some illdefined way, chosen by God to be endowed with his image.”

“That theistic evolution is being tolerated in our churches is evident from the fact that to date there have been no public sanctions for any of the individuals teaching it.”

1.2 Br. J., by contrast, defines theistic evolution as the evolution of plants, animals, and humans by means of natural processes under God’s guidance. The expression “by means of natural processes” excludes direct divine supernatural intervention as a means of creation.

Contrary to the Proposal’s accusation,  Br. J. has publicly affirmed and believes that God does act in the world by direct supernatural intervention. In particular, he believes that Adam and Eve were created by God’s special supernatural intervention. Therefore, he rejects the creation of humans by natural processes as stipulated in theistic evolutionism.

Moreover, although he is open to discussing the possibility that God created Adam and Eve by direct supernatural intervention from human-like ancestors, he is not committed to this possibility, nor does he believe it or teach it.

2. Guilt by association

2.1 Proposal to revise BC 14:

Br. J., “who is a team member in the ForumC BioLogos project, discussed his own transition from young earth creationist to a position accepting an evolving creation in the 1990s.”

2.2 Br. J.: Careful reading discloses that this is a quotation from something written by a reporter that did not come from Br. J., and therefore has no standing as a ground for the proposal.

In addition, Br. J. speaks at various conferences arranged by various organizations. That does not mean he is a team member of that organization. Nor does it mean that he supports their goals. As a Christian he knows himself called to witness to the truth and in that capacity he may speak against the goals of the organization that arranges the event because there is freedom of speech. In this particular case, he was invited to speak at a conference organized by ForumC. He accepted the invitation on the condition that he would be free not to promote theistic evolution, but to present his own ideas. ForumC, which does not endorse a specific view of creation, agreed. Thus the quoted sentence should be seen in this light.

Finally, the talk described his move away from scientific creationism, not his transition to a position accepting an evolving creation. Elsewhere, he has presented theological, philosophical, and scientific arguments against an evolving creation, specifically against the transition from non-life to life and from animal to human.

3. Using retracted material

3.1 Proposal to revise BC 14:

Br. J. also wrote the following:

‘Fourthly, there is the irreversible hierarchical structure of the classification of living things. If animals living today would have been created by fiat creation rather than by evolutionary creation, there woulhave been no hierarchical branching pattern unless the Creator would have wanted those who investigate such matters to believe there had been a history which never actually occurred. Since the Creator does not deceive us I am led to the conclusion that He created animals by means of an evolutionary process thereby giving us a real evolutionary history.'”

3.2 Br. J. withdrew the last sentence when challenged in an ecclesiastical context. Therefore, it is unfair to use this as an accusation against him in the Proposal.

Moreover, in response to challenges against Br. J.’s writing, he and his challengers were advised and assured that there is room within the church for discussing these matters, as long as they do not contradict Scripture or the Confessions. For his challengers now to use his previously exonerated statements by way of accusation in support of revising BC 14 seems disrespectful toward that advice and contradictory to that assurance.

*  *  *

By way of summary, it needs to be pointed out that our Ninth Commandment claim is this: unlike other church leaders and writers accused of violating Scripture and the Confessions, who respond by saying that they’ve been misunderstood, that is not what is going on here.

These brothers being accused in Ground 1 of the Proposal to revise BC 14 are being accused of believing and teaching things that they have declared, have written, and have argued explicitly that they do not believe or teach.

Given the pre-classis letter from Br. A. to the overturing consistory, and Br. J.’s declarations to a broader assembly, and its exoneration in principle of those declarations, the issue involving Ground 1 is one of culpable misrepresentation.

To be continued.

Making a Dirty Splash in a Little Puddle:
An Attempt to Amend BC 14 (4)

BC14Apologia for this series (1)

In case readers are wondering why I’m so energetic—some might say: worked up—about this matter, here is part of the explanation.

In terms of the overture to revise BC 14, the persons whom it publicly identifies and criticizes do not hold or teach the views ascribed to them, nor have they been successfully charged with holding such views. Their reputations are being thereby injured.

But equally serious is the “church side” of this matter. An overture to an ecclesiastical assembly has been adopted and disseminated to every CanRC consistory as part of an ecclesiastical process—which very process is now continuing to injure those reputations.

Put simply: I care about those individuals and their reputations, and I also care about a just and righteous practice of church polity. I believe it would be morally righteous if Br. A. and Br. J. did not have to be left twisting in the CanRC wind while people follow an “ecclesiastical process” en route to the next meeting of RSE. Therefore, I am willing to spend some hard-earned capital (units of goodwill and favor) by speaking to these matters.

Incidentally, discerning readers will have noticed that I’ve not engaged the substance of the proposed revision of BC 14 with respect to theistic evolution or possible pre-Adamite ancestors of the first humans. Therefore, it would be both unfair and illogical to conclude from this silence that I am a theistic evolutionist or advocate possible pre-Adamite ancestors. I am not, and I do not. Nor am I trying to create room among Reformed and Presbyterian brothers and sisters for tolerating such views.

Apologia (2)

I want to broaden my defense for writing about this matter, and move beyond the CanRC for a moment.

I will be frank with you. I fear that among our smaller conservative Reformed and Presbyterian church fellowships, we are witnessing far too much “rough housing.” I assume you know the term, “rough housing”? When my brothers and I used to wrestle and grapple and tumble around with each other, things would move from playfulness to teasing to downright aggression. My parents would then have to step in and call a halt to such “rough housing.” I must tell you that my wife, whose family never, ever knew of such behavior, has never really learned, after joining our family, to appreciate this form of fraternalizing. To her, after all these years (44 years yesterday!), it still looks mean.

In the church, “rough housing” occurs among brothers (and sisters?) who know each other well, know each other’s “buttons” and weak spots, and can “take each other down” with arguments and debates. Some even enjoy it. But for outsiders looking in, this kind of church life looks awfully mean and mean-spirited.

Nowadays, I’m watching good Reformed ministers getting pushed around, sometimes shown the door, by elders who practice “rough housing.” I’m seeing Reformed ministers thrusting their personality and their opinions on mild-mannered elders and on their tranquil flock, turning molehills into mountains, battering them with personal convictions that grow into full-blown crusades.

I confess that I am as skilled at this as anyone.

But my plea to all of us, including myself, is: For the sake of our witness to a watching world, we need to stop this.

I confess that I am still learning this life-lesson: When my devotion to what is true and right leaves bloody corpses lying on the path, something is very disordered about my devotion.

The Ninth Commandment (continued)

In that spirit and with that caution, let’s resume the discussion.

We observe that accusations against Br. A. and Br. J. were given pride of place among the grounds adduced in support of the overture to revise BC 14.

The first, and by far the longest, of ten grounds reads:

“1. Theistic evolution is being publically [sic] taught or promoted by some members within the Canadian Reformed Churches.”

Then follows three pages of citations, references, and claims relating to Br. A. and Br. J., all of which are thought to prove the assertion being made in Ground 1.

Before going any further, let’s remind ourselves of the scope and extent of the Ninth Commandment. Lord’s Day 43, Q&A 112, teaches:

What is required in the ninth commandment?

I must not give false testimony against anyone, twist no one’s words, not gossip or slander, not condemn or join in condemning anyone rashly and unheard. Rather, I must avoid all lying and deceit as the devil’s own works, under penalty of God’s heavy wrath. In court and everywhere else, I must love the truth, speak and confess it honestly, and do what I can to defend and promote my neighbour’s honour and reputation (CanRC version).

Everything that follows here about Br. A., you can verify online.

The recent meeting of COW occurred on 11 March 2015. More than ten days earlier, by 28 February 2015, every PCRC council member learned the following facts.

  1. The overture states: “Theistic evolution is being publically [sic] taught or promoted by some members within the Canadian Reformed Churches. We will supply two separate examples of individuals doing so,” including Br. A.

In his 28 February communication, Br. A. declared that he is in fact not a “theistic evolutionist,” and that this is a matter of public record.

  1. The overture refers to Br. A.’s essay, “Religion and the Science Classroom,” which is Chapter 5 of Matthew Etherington, Foundations of Education: A Christian Vision (Wipf & Stock, 2014; pp. 68ff.). The overture declares that Br. A. “accepts evolution as the explanation for most of what happened and how it happened.”

In fact, nothing of the sort is stated in that essay.

  1. The overture states that Br. A. “is currently the president of the Canadian Scientific and Christian Affiliation, an organization which promotes theistic evolution.”

Br. A. replied that CSCA does not in fact promote theistic evolution. To his knowledge, the CSCA does not even have a position statement on evolution. But the ASA, which (as noted in the overture) co­-publishes the journal Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith (PSCF) with CSCA, does have such a statement, which expresses a broad range of views within the ASA.

*  *  *

Br. A. was informed that the PCRC council has placed his letter on their meeting agenda for 29 March 2015.

*  *  *

I humbly submit to you that according to any fair reading of Heidelberg Catechism, Lord’s Day 43, Q&A 112, and given the prior, timely, and direct responses of Br. A., there is valid reason to believe that the Ninth Commandment has been violated when this overture was brought to and adopted by COW.

I also humbly submit to you that something needs to be done—and can be done—to repair this damage resulting from this violation. We will be returning to that in a later post.

To be continued.

Making a Dirty Splash in a Little Puddle:
An Attempt to Amend BC 14 (3)

BC14 The Ninth Commandment

At this point, you are possibly thinking: hooo boy, here we go again, some public leaders in the church color outside the lines and get their knuckles rapped, so their defenders haul out the Ninth Commandment to protect them. It happens all the time. How many writers and speakers and theologians don’t complain, when their views are suspected of being heterodox, of being “misunderstood,” or “misrepresented,” and accuse their critics of violating the Ninth Commandment? Is there anything new under the sun?

Well, perhaps.

By now, if you’re tracking with this series, you’ve likely read the entire PCRC/COW proposal to revise BC 14.

The headline supporting arguments used to buttress this proposal invoke—repeatedly, unashamedly, and loudly—the names of two persons whose views are alleged, along with their sympathizers, to be endangering the gospel among the CanRCs.

(Incidentally, in direct contrast to this consistory and classis, I [an outsider] will adopt and follow the hitherto universal CanRC idiosyncrasy of naming these individuals “Br. A.” and “Br. J.” In addition, I offer a free coffee from Tim Hortons to anyone who can spot any occurrence, in the proposal of this CanRC consistory and classis, of the term “brother” in reference to these two individuals who are members in good standing in their respective CanRCs.)

In this official ecclesiastical document, now under public discussion among the CanRCs, Br. A. and Br. J. are being publicly attacked with such viciousness and recklessness that ought to take our breath away. Regardless of whether you agree with the views of these men, are they not brothers in Christ’s church, and therefore deserving of that public acknowledgement, until such a time as they are judged by the church to be teaching or living contrary to the gospel of Jesus Christ?

COW v. Br. J.: Not their first rodeo

That latter query could be a rhetorical question. Except that it isn’t.

Even though it hasn’t been reported in Clarion, nor have many details been reported in any press release, over the course of several long years, the Ancaster CanRC consistory (member of COW), and later COW, had enforced ecclesiastical discipline against Br. J. for his alleged views that were allegedly contrary to the Bible and the Reformed Confessions.

I say “alleged,” because all of these charges and all of this discipline were overturned and rejected on appeal by Br. J. to Regional Synod East. With obvious wisdom and integrity, the Regional Synod said: NO, to the Ancaster consistory and NO to Classis Ontario West.

Now, in terms of Reformed church polity, when an appeal is sustained, as was the appeal of Br. J., two responses on the part of the defeated defendant—in this case, the consistory and classis—are available. (1) Go home, lick your wounds, and learn from your mistakes. Or (2) appeal that verdict to the meeting of the next broadest assembly, in this case, the next General Synod.

Neither happened.

There was no appeal of the verdict, and given the classis-endorsed proposal to revise BC 14, it appears that some have yet to learn from their mistakes. Without lifting its discipline against Br. J., the Ancaster consistory nonetheless gave him an attestation to the consistory of his new CanRC. So Br. J. is a member in good standing, again.

Een smoesje

But the consistory and classis were not to accept defeat. Rather than submit to, and follow, the church orderly route of appealing a decision with which they disagree, they now attempt by an end run (sorry for the American football analogy) to circumvent the decision of Regional Synod East.

REVISION: It seems clear that an ecclesiastical process of appealing the decision of RSE regarding the discipline should be undertaken and exhausted before attempting the rather dangerous and complicated route of confessional revision. As it now stands, the confessional revision proposal, and its adoption by COW, could easily appear to be an end run around following that process, all before any General Synod could possibly receive and adjudicate an appeal against the RSE decision.

Here’s the end run for you to watch in slow motion.

“In the Canadian Reformed Churches, doctrinal breaches have typically been dealt with on a case-by-case basis. However, because these issues are often dealt with as discipline matters at assemblies in closed session, the judgments rendered have no public standing for the churches—they are decisions typically known only to the parties involved. Even if they did have a public standing, it might be argued that the judgment only pertains to that one case. The nature of this error requires an official public response that applies across the board.”

The Dutch have a word for this; they call this een smoesje. Hogwash! Rubbish! A mere pretext.

Are we now to believe that the judgments rendered in the Netherlands by Reformed synods in the Geelkerken-case, or the Telder-case, or the Hoorn-case, “have no public standing for the churches”?? Or that, since they DO have public standing, these synodical judgments “pertain only to that one case”??

* * *

Unfortunately, this confessional revision proposal leaves the backs of Br. A. and Br. J. bleeding from the open wounds administered with the knives of a smoesachtig church polity.

That, among several other reasons, is why this proposed revision of BC 14 is a dirty splash in a little puddle.

ADDENDUM: I want to assure my readers that I have obtained permission to disclose the information that I have published on this blog about the ecclesiastical discipline against Br. J.  Because this discipline case also became a matter of executive session at meetings of both COW and RSE, I have sought to honor the rules of confidentiality in doing justice to both sides—the Ancaster consistory and the COW, on the one hand, and RSE and Br. J., on the other. There are far more details about the sequel to the decision of RSE, which exonerated Br. J., that the public should know, but discretion dictates silence, for now.

To be continued.

Making a Dirty Splash in a Little Puddle:
An Attempt to Amend BC 14 (2)


Substantive alteration of BC 14?

Lest any misunderstanding arise, we are not at all suggesting that the Reformed Confessions—whether the Three Forms of Unity or the Westminster Standards—have been, and remain, beyond revision.

In fact, throughout its history (from 1561 onward), the BC has been modified in several ways. (For a very thorough and competent review of these changes, see The Belgic Confession: Its History and Sources, by Nicolaas H. Gootjes [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007].) At least three kinds of changes come to mind: (1) cosmetic, (2) clarifying, and (3) explanatory changes.

Looking back, we recognize that the 1905 revision-by-subtraction of BC 36 was a very significant moment. Before that change, another very contentious revision was made at the Synod of Dort (1618-19), to BC 22, with the revision-by-addition of the words “in our place” in order to address the denial by the German theologian, Johannes Piscator, and his sympathizers of the imputation of the active obedience of Christ.

But take careful note of this fact: beginning with Gisbert Voetius, and including Bernardus De Moor and H. H. Kuyper, the consensus view has always been that none of the changes made prior to and at the Synod of Dort was a substantive alteration, including the revision of BC 22! (For more on this, see Gootjes, 150-159.)

What makes this proposed revision a substantive alteration?

Another very important feature of every change made to the BC since 1561 is that no adopted change was designed and intended to put somebody “outside” the church for denying or jeopardizing the gospel. Even though Johannes Piscator and his sympathizers (among them, Johannes Bogerman, chairman of the Synod of Dort, and Franciscus Gomarus, described by Herman Hanko as a staunch defender of the faith) suffered a severe defeat when their position was rejected at the Synod of Dort, they were not treated as people whose views constituted a threat to the gospel.

By contrast, the present proposal significantly “raises the ante.” Among its buttressing assertions is the allegation that theistic evolution is being taught and promoted within the CanRCs. Let us suppose—only for the sake of discussion—that this is true to fact. This means that when the grounds presented in support of the proposed revision of BC 14 declare that “theistic evolution must lead to a denial of the gospel of salvation,” and that theistic evolution is “a dangerous error that threatens the gospel of Jesus Christ,” then if this proposed confessional revision were to be adopted, some people who are now CanRC members in good standing would be automatically and simultaneously declared to be outside the kingdom of God, should they not surrender their views.

At 12:00 CanRC time, they would be “inside” the true church, but at 12:01 CanRC time, they would be “outside.”

This is novel in the history of BC revisions.

Was woman created in God’s image?

Here is another feature that renders this proposed revision-by-addition a substantive alteration of BC 14.

Compare again the proposed revision with the current version, paying attention to the words in bold:

Current: We believe that God created man of dust from the ground and He made and formed him after His own image . . . .

Revised: We believe that God created the human race by making and forming Adam from dust (Gen. 2:7) and Eve from Adam’s side (Gen. 2:21-22). They were created as the first two humans and the biological ancestors of all other humans. There were no pre-Adamites, whether human or hominid. God made and formed Adam after his own image . . . .

The substantive alteration involves ignoring the persistent usage, throughout the current version of BC 14, of the generic noun “man,” which refers to the entire human race, man and woman. By contrast, the proposed revision replaces the pronoun “him” (referring back to the generic noun “man”) with the personal name of the male, “Adam.” This change may appear innocuous at first glance. But notice that the proposed revision goes on to say that “God made and formed Adam after his own image.”

Read carefully: the current CanRC version says that God “made and formed [man] after his own image,” which refers to both man and woman. The proposed CanRC revision removes any reference to the creation of woman after God’s image!

Given the recent CanRC brouhaha over retracting the right of women to vote at congregational meetings, the fuse lit by this exclusion of women’s creation in God’s image from the creedal testimony of BC 14 should ignite quite a fireworks display among at least 50% of CanRC members.

First order of business

It seems logical that, if we are to be persuaded of the need for revising BC 14, a “case” needs to be made demonstrating this need. One essential prerequisite for making such a “case” is a clear, unambiguous, and unequivocal definition of the “enemy” called “theistic evolution.”

Here is what we get: “By theistic evolution, we mean the teaching that God created the world and all organisms over billions of years.”

This definition strangely excludes what most responsible definitions of theistic evolution include, namely, that God created not directly, but by superintending an evolutionary process, for example, or by guiding the evolution of simple life forms into complex life forms.

The only qualifier in the proposal’s definition of theistic evolution is the element of time: “over billions of years.”

Alright, then. What if, instead, a person believes that “God created the world and all organisms over thousands of years,” by means of a divinely superintended process of natural selection, or a process of producing complex life from simpler life forms? Or how about “over six days“?

The proposed revision of BC 14 nowhere excludes any of these options.

Then we meet yet another strange element.

To the consistory’s definition of theistic evolution is added this descriptive observation:

“Many theistic evolutionists, including some within the Canadian Reformed Churches, also teach that Adam was not the special and direct creation of God. Rather, while acknowledging that Adam was a historical figure, they teach that he was the descendant of pre-existing hominids (man-like creatures with an evolutionary history) that was, at some point and in some ill-defined way, chosen by God to be endowed with his image.”

The clear implication is that an evolved Adamic ancestry is not an essential component of theistic evolution (since not all theistic evolutionists believe this), and therefore does not belong to its definition. But then why does the proposal’s entire defense (grounds) proceed to criticize and oppose this non-essential, incidental element that does not even belong to the proposal’s own definition of theistic evolution?

Once more: who/what is the target here?

What if a theistic evolutionist (according to more common definitions, involving divine superintendence of evolution processes) accepted the direct creation of Adam from the dust, and Eve from his side? It is not at all clear that this proposed revision of BC 14 would address that position.

One would think that, if the Bible and BC 14 are antithetically opposed to theistic evolution as an enemy of the gospel and a danger to salvation, then we would get a better, more careful and persuasive look at this enemy. Why should we accept this definition of theistic evolution? What about other definitions, offered by critics and advocates alike? The point is this: if the church is going to venture into the arena of defining, analyzing, and evaluating a scientific theory, we need something far more thorough, far more detailed and penetrating, than the Providence proposal provides.

To be continued.

Making a Dirty Splash in a Little Puddle:
An Attempt to Amend BC 14 (1)


On March 11, 2015, Classis Ontario West (COW) of the Canadian Reformed Churches (CanRCs) adopted a proposal from the Providence Canadian Reformed Church (PCRC) to amend Belgic Confession (BC), Article 14. This proposal will be discussed at the next Regional Synod East (RSE) meeting. It is now circulating publicly among the churches.

Here is the relevant opening sentence of the official version of BC 14 now in force among the CanRCs.

Article 14 – the Creation and Fall of Man and His Incapability of Doing What Is Truly Good

We believe that God created man of dust from the ground and He made and formed him after His own image . . . .

Here is the proposed amended BC 14 (all new material underlined):

We believe that God created the human race by making and forming Adam from dust (Gen. 2:7) and Eve from Adam’s side (Gen. 2:21-22). They were created as the first two humans and the biological ancestors of all other humans. There were no pre-Adamites, whether human or hominid. God made and formed Adam after his own image . . . [the rest of the text remains as currently adopted].

You can find the entire proposal here. Given the proposal’s introduction, its accompanying explanation, and the grounds thought to support this proposal, it seems evident that neither PCRC nor COW comprehend the far-reaching implications of the proposed amendment and its basis.

It is that apparent lack of comprehension that lies behind the admittedly provocative title of this blog series. Provocative, because the backstory and the current proposal constitute (1) an egregious violation of the Ninth Commandment, (2) a divisive twisting of the principles of Reformed church polity, and (3) a deeply sectarian action.

For the discerning reader

Unfortunately, given the short distance between the spacebar and the send button, one finds it necessary to issue caveats in order to protect one’s name and reputation from the digital firing squads standing in wait to do their duty. This and subsequent blog posts are not written to defend theistic evolution, or Adam and Eve evolving from some prehuman hominid, or a billion-years age of the earth, or any specific length of the creation days.

In other words, please keep your eye on the ball: this series of blog posts is written specifically to defend the names and reputations of fellow believer-scientists who are members in good standing in their respective churches; to alert people in Reformed churches to the capacity available for twisting and perverting the principles of Reformed church polity; and to warn against ongoing divisiveness and sectarianism in the world of Reformed and Presbyterian churches (as in: N-A-P-A-R-C).

* * *

An analogy from history?

The proposal’s problems begin already in its opening paragraph.

In an effort to show the legitimacy of amending the Belgic Confession, the claim is advanced that in contrast to Scripture, which possesses divine authority,

. . . the Confessions are human documents bearing ecclesiastical authority. They can be amended or edited to better conform to the Scriptures or to address new challenges. As an example, we can note changes that were made to Belgic Confession article 36 at General Synod 1905 of the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands. A number of words were deleted in an effort to better conform to biblical teaching on the role of civil government.

The question reserved for discussion in our concluding section is this: By whom should (one of) the Three Forms of Unity be amended or edited? As someone has already pointed out , the net effect of this proposal would be to create the “Canadian Reformed Belgic Confession,” which would no longer be the Belgic Confession shared by the majority of Reformed churches worldwide.

For now, however, our attention is directed to the analogy with 1905. Students of Dutch Reformed church history may recall that under the leadership of Abraham Kuyper and others, a number of words (phrases) were removed from BC 36. These words (phrases) pertained to the state’s duty with respect to non-Christians and their religion. The CanRCs, together with most (not all) Reformed churches, have accepted this revision of BC 36.

Subtraction versus addition

But here it is crucial to notice—as in: dwell upon, meditate upon—the functional difference between subtraction and addition when it comes to confessional revision.

One of the functions of a church’s confession is to define the boundaries of acceptable doctrine and practice, inside of which a person/institution may be deemed Reformed (in this case), and outside of which a person will be deemed unreformed.

Now, when confessional revision occurs by means of the subtraction of words, presumably the boundary of Reformed-ness is broadened. That is precisely what occurred at the 1905 synod of the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands. But when confessional revision occurs by means of the addition of words, the boundary is constricted and narrowed. In connection with the 1905 revision, the question never arose: Are those persons still “inside” the 1905 boundary who were “inside” the 1904 boundary? To my knowledge, never in the history of Reformed churches since the Synod of Dort has confessional revision occurred by way of substantive addition.

So then, the necessary, inevitable, and egregiously problematic result of this proposed confessional revision of BC 14 by the addition of words is that some persons who were “inside” at 12:00 CanRC time will suddenly find themselves “outside” at 12:01 CanRC time.

To be continued.

Mr. Phelps’ Impossible Mission:
NAPARC, his URC, and Sectarian Impulses (3)

MI teamMy broader concern in writing this series of blog posts is to examine the integrity and honesty of Reformed and Presbyterian ecumenicity. Among such churches in North America, that ecumenicity comes to expression principally in an organization called NAPARC (North American Presbyterian and Reformed Churches).

Pretend ecumenicity?

I’m concerned about what could be called “pretend” ecumenicity in NAPARC.

Pretend ecumenicity can wear different faces, of course.

Perhaps a church federation joins NAPARC with its fingers crossed behind its back, because their leaders covertly believe that the only real and binding ecumenicity occurs between sister churches or churches in ecclesiastical fellowship. For them, membership in NAPARC is more like a feather in their cap than a calling from the LORD. It’s what I call “tip-o-the-hat ecumenicity”: federations acknowledge bits of shared faith, but organic union? Not in a million years. This is faux fraternizing.

And then there’s foe fraternizing. This occurs when a church federation hangs out in NAPARC to avoid the opprobrium of being viewed as a stick-in-the-mud backwater micro-denomination. Meanwhile, its leaders allow themselves the luxury of routinely criticizing and publicly condemning the leaders of—and the discipline (or lack thereof) of—a fellow NAPARC member denomination.

A dead end for NAPARC?

In this series, my concern has been this second face of pretend ecumenism (although the first visage is rather ugly as well).

You see, here’s how it could go. Mr. Phelps leaves a NAPARC church, slamming the back door behind him with public accusations about that church’s doctrinal and confessional infidelity, only to be received through the front door of another NAPARC church, welcomed for his commitments to liturgical and doctrinal orthodoxy. Welcomed before he has “finished his business” with a church whose decades-long practices have recently troubled his conscience. Welcomed as someone publicly opposed to some practices and ideas that, whether or not he knows it, closely resemble practices and ideas in the receiving NAPARC church.

But at that point, it’s no longer just Mr. Phelps’ problem. For if the integrity and honesty of ecumenicity mean anything, his reception would place the receiving church under an obligation to do something about the current situation in NAPARC.

If words mean anything, then some church(es) will have to leave NAPARC, either voluntarily or by expulsion.

NAPARC cannot survive for very long when leaders and their sycophants in member churches call other member churches (and their leaders) unfaithful, heretical, gospel-deniers.

A better way?

It’s time to look for a better way, a way that enhances ecumenicity with integrity.

At this point, my suggestions are not very sophisticated or politically nuanced. The better way is the way of principled churchmanship among denominations, one that is characterized by self-denying humility amid careful truthfulness. Such churchmanship understands that there is a proper mode, manner, and method for calling others to repentance, for identifying and demonstrating error, for applying gospel grace and gospel judgment against sin in the church. Without self-denying humility, the knife blade of criticism will lack redemptive impact. Truthfulness must be careful—that is, it must be wise, timely, measured, and loving. For the sake of the other.

A good place to begin—and with this suggestion we conclude—is by ingesting the essay written more than 125 years ago, by Herman Bavinck, entitled “The Catholicity of Christianity and the Church.” Here is a taste of that theological delicacy:

“In the Protestant principle there is indeed a church-dissolving element as well as a church-reforming one.”

“There is no universal Christianity present above the confessional divisions but only in them. No one church, no matter how pure, is identical with the universal church. In the same way no confession, no matter how refined by the Word of God, is identical with the whole of Christian truth. Each sect that considers its own circle as the only church of Christ and makes exclusive claims to truth will wither and die like a branch severed from its vine. The one, holy, universal church that is presently an object of faith, will not come into being until the body of Christ reaches full maturity. Only then will the church achieve the unity of faith and the knowledge of the Son of God, and only then will she know as she is known.”

With his example and his theology, Bavinck has bequeathed to us a legacy of Reformed and Presbyterian catholicity. The NAPARC churches of our generation are left with a straightforward choice: use it or lose it.

Mr. Phelps’ Impossible Mission:
NAPARC, his URC, and Sectarian Impulses (2)

MI team


(The numbers introducing various comments refer back to associated elements in the previous narrative.)

1. Liturgical unity/uniformity

1.1  By his own admission, Mr. Phelps was received and ordained into the PCA in a time when it lacked the liturgical unity/uniformity that he now seeks. This defect has troubled his conscience for some time, to the point where he now considers the PCA to be unfaithful to the Westminster Standards regarding worship.

1.2  To be sure, personal conscience must be respected. However, if with the passing of time, Mr. Phelps’ conscience has become wounded by the diversity of liturgical practice within the PCA, and if that diversity existed at the time he entered the PCA and its ministry, should he now be publicly criticizing the PCA as being unfaithful to its constitutional standards?

1.3  In addition, appealing to personal conscience as a public officeholder is a dangerously complicated matter. Minimally, we should be able to find a trail of unsuccessful attempts—at presbytery level, at general assembly level—whereby Mr. Phelps tried to persuade others to agree with his judgment of conscience regarding alleged liturgical and confessional infidelity. In principle, any appeal to personal conscience, especially in the church, must at some point be universalizable—that is: the objector must desire that everyone agree with and share his moral judgment. Where is the evidence of such responsible churchmanship on Mr. Phelps’ part?

1.4  Fact: Regarding the URCNA and what many people term “‘the’ regulative principle” of worship, it must be observed that the history, ethos, and practice of the URCNA are not at all identical to the Westminster Directory for Public Worship. If that is the standard by which Mr. Phelps is condemning liturgical diversity in the PCA, what consistent moral claim would justify his seeking to identify with a group of churches that are not governed by or do not observe that standard?

1.5  Fact: Despite the attempts of some leaders to force the URCNA into their mold of pre-twentieth century liturgical style and practice, the URCs throughout the US and Canada display a wide variety of worship practices. Songs are consistorially adopted for use in public worship—a practice that ensures diversity, both of quality and content, in the hymns and songs used in public worship. There is no federation-wide prescribed liturgical order; churches are free to incorporate—and they do incorporate—a wide variety of activities within public worship that would not fit with the what some insist is “‘the’ regulative principle of worship.”

1.6  Because he has not identified which liturgical practices throughout the PCA are not “necessarily Reformed,” as he now seeks to enter his URC, Mr. Phelps has established his personal conscience as the arbiter and pivot-point for determining those liturgical practices that are “necessarily Reformed.” Would these perhaps include: Exclusive psalmody? Bible songs/hymns? Weekly communion? Substituting grape juice for wine? Music leader(s)? Women ushers? Women reading Scripture in public worship? Weekly reading of the Ten Commandments? Pronouncing the salutation and benediction with uplifted hands? Projecting songs for public worship on a screen? Incorporating a time of mutual greeting with the worship service? An interactive, Q/A style of preaching?

Who knows? With the URCNA having far less connectionalism than the PCA, were he to become a URC minister, Mr. Phelps could genuinely build his own church according to his own liturgical (and theological) preferences and predilections! Especially if it’s a new church plant.

2. Vestments and ceremonial liturgy

2.1  Fact: A number of ministers in the URCNA wear vestments robes as they conduct public worship. If it is replied that among the URCNA, such vestments robes are not nearly as elaborate as in some PCAs, then the quibble is over a matter of degree, not over a matter of principle.

2.2  Fact: Many URCNA ministers respect and follow the church year liturgical calendar for public worship. Again, if it is replied that among the URCNA, such liturgical observances are not nearly as elaborate as in some PCAs, then the quibble is over a matter of degree, not principle.

2.3  Because Mr. Phelps nowhere identifies the specifics of his conscientious objection, any churches receiving him as pastor would be at risk of importing private, personal predilections and preferences as normative. (For example, would having Advent candles lit throughout a worship service violate Mr. Phelps’ conscience? Would using guitars for accompaniment? Incorporating within public worship a time of sharing personal prayer requests? Each of these is practiced somewhere in the URCNA.)

2.4  Once again, if these and similar practices already occur throughout the URCNA, which some would surely describe as going “in the higher church direction,” should not Mr. Phelps and his conscience be directed elsewhere, lest in a few years he be compelled to pen another essay, this one entitled, “Grateful and Grieved: My Goodbye to the URCNA”?

3. Toleration of “FV” outside the PCA, and throughout the URCNA

3.1  Mr. Phelps alleges that the PCA has now come to tolerate “the Federal Vision,” whose teachings he alleges to strike at the foundation of the gospel. He identifies key components of that vision, and evaluates them in terms of the Westminster Standards, which elements qualify “Federal Vision” as heresy and whose alleged toleration now prompts him to leave the PCA.

3.2  Fact: URCNA office-bearers subscribe to, and are bound by, not the Westminster Standards, not the theology (or theologoumena) some derive from the Westminster Standards, but by the Three Forms of Unity—again, not by Ursinus’ Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, not by various theologoumena some derive from Ursinus or Reformed scholasticism, but only by the ipsissimis verbis of the Three Forms of Unity.

3.3  All of this becomes important when Mr. Phelps insists upon a “bi-covenantal” dichotomy of a covenant of works (Law) and a covenant of grace (Gospel) as a measure of orthodoxy.

Fact: This theologoumenon is not binding within the URCNA.

Fact: A significant number of URC office-bearers in good standing reject and repudiate the theologoumenon of a meritorious prelapsarian covenant of works.

3.4  Mr. Phelps insists that the Westminster Standards teach that the divine grace associated with baptism is given only to the elect.

Fact: The classic, historic, traditional liturgical Form for the Baptism of Infants (Form Number 1) used in the URCNA—the Form on which most URC members were nursed, fed, and grown—says, among other things, the following:

“And when we are baptized into the Name of the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit assures us by this holy sacrament that He will dwell in us, and sanctify us to be members of Christ, imparting to us that which we have in Christ, namely, the washing away of our sins and the daily renewing of our lives, till we shall finally be presented without spot among the assembly of the elect in life eternal” (italics added).

“Almighty God and merciful Father, we thank and praise Thee that Thou hast forgiven us and our children all our sins, through the blood of Thy beloved Son Jesus Christ, and received us through Thy Holy Spirit as member of Thine only begotten Son, and so adopted us to be Thy children, and sealed and confirmed the same unto us by holy baptism” (italics added).

Fact: In other words, the URCNA is rooted in a liturgical-ecclesiastical-theological tradition, has embraced that tradition, and has sought to continue that tradition which has historically taught “that baptism is always efficacious when administered.” This means that every child presented for baptism receives the bona fide divine sign and seal of grace at baptism, given in terms of the promises spoken long ago to Abraham.

3.5  Fact: A significant number of URCNA office-bearers in good standing believe and teach that good works are necessary unto salvation, and that a believer’s good works will play an important role at the final judgment.

3.6  Fact: The URCNA have for years been engaged in intense ecumenical conversations with the Canadian Reformed Churches (CanRC), on several levels, including both the federative and local levels. The CanRC Acts of General Synod Carman 2013 reports (Art. 129) that several consistories wrote to the synod stating that “some points of Federal Vision can find sympathy in the [CanRC] . . . .”

4. The viability of NAPARC v. the impulses of sectarianism

4.1  You can find information about the identity and purposes of NAPARC online.

In light of its constitutional documents, it’s clear that member churches promise to recognize the discipline being applied by other NAPARC churches. The logical implication is that this recognition pertains to the discipline applied in both the prosecution and the acquittal of members and officers. Including the acquittal of Peter Leithart.

That acquittal occurred, first, by the Pacific Northwest Presbytery (2011), and second, by the PCA SJC (2013). In both occurrences, the central and prevailing point adjudicated was whether or not the prosecution had proven its case against Leithart. In both occurrences, the verdict was acquittal.

To argue on this basis that “the PCA tolerates heresy” is unwarranted in terms of both logic and polity, and is most uncharitable.

4.2  Somewhere, sometime, someone in a URC was asked by a Reformed newbie which Reformed and Presbyterian churches are “the true churches”? The answer? “There’s no list exactly, but for the purposes of admitting people to communion we [in the URCNA] follow the rule adopted by the Synod of Dort, in the original Dort Church Order (1619) that only those who profess ‘the Reformed Religion’ may come to the table of the Lord in a Reformed congregation. In our setting we see that those churches that belong to the North American Presbyterian and Reformed Council confess substantially the same faith with us” (italics added).

This same URC source was asked where ecclesiastical refuge and protection were to be found from the ideas associated with Federal Vision, and as recently as June 9, 2013 (nota bene: after both the Pacific Northwest Presbytery trial of Peter Leithart and the PCA SJC decision denying the complaint against the Pacific Northwest Presbytery had been published), the answer came in this public declaration: “The URCs still seem resolute against the FV. The rest of the NAPARC world does not seem to be weakening in its resolve” (italics added).

4.3  Question: Why would Mr. Phelps depart, for reasons of conscience, from one church that he has accused of infidelity, to join another church that continues in full ecumenical fellowship with the allegedly unfaithful church he is leaving?

4.4  Question: If Mr. Phelps should accomplish his mission of serving as pastor somewhere in the URCNA, what implications would his reception via a classis-administered colloquium doctum have for the ecumenical integrity and future of the URCNA within NAPARC?

(To be continued.)