I do not understand how the Free Reformed Churches of Australia (FRCA), of which I am happy to be a member, could decide to enter a sister church relationship with the Reformed Churches of New Zealand (RCNZ)[i]. In this article I explain why.
For many years, the FRCA refused to enter a sister relationship with the RCNZ because the RCNZ maintained a relationship with the Christian Reformed Churches of Australia (CRCA). Recently the RCNZ discontinued their sister relationship with the CRCA. Thus, they appear to have done what the FRCA required over the years, and on this basis the FRCA have now entered a sister relationship with the RCNZ.
The trouble is that the RCNZ have not really broken the ties with the CRCA. They have simply replaced the sister church relationship with another relationship of Ecumenical Fellowship. In effect, they broke the sister relationship, thereby declaring that they are not united in the true faith, only to establish a relationship of ecumenical fellowship which essentially declares unity of the faith. In many ways it’s like a sister-church relationship, albeit with âsome safeguardsâ.
Is the RCNZâs continuing relationship with the CRCA Scriptural? And have the FRCA therefore acted justly in establishing sister relations with the RCNZ? Let’s consider how church relationships function.
The principle of discipline and unity
The church, we know, is the body of Christ, a congregation of true Christian believers who depend on Jesus Christ for salvation and on the Holy Spirit to work with the Word so that we love God and lead a holy life. If a member of the flock strays, we are to apply the ârule of Matthew 18â whereby the witness will admonish the sinner in love. If the sinner doesnât heed the admonitions the witness will again admonish, this time taking along a witness. If the sinner still doesnât repent, the consistory is informed and if the sinner still doesnât heed the admonitions he or she is excommunicated. The church is told not to associate with that person so that he or she may be shamed into repenting. The purpose is to safeguard the flock in the unity of true faith and godliness and to save the sinner.
If, however, someone sins publicly, for example by openly advertising a godless life style or promoting heresies, that person is admonished publicly. We see examples of this in Scripture when John the Baptist publicly calls the Pharisees a âbrood of vipersâ and Jesus openly tells them âYou are of your father, the devilâ. Paul publicly warns congregations against Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom he has âhanded over to Satan, so that they will be taught not to blasphemeâ. He warns the flock about âDiotrephes, who loves to be firstâ ⌠but âdoes not accept what we sayâ. Paul names two quarrelling ladies, Euodia and Syntyche, urging them âto live in harmony in the Lordâ. And there are more. Again, the purpose is to safeguard the flock and bring sinners to repentance.
I understand that principle of warning the flock and admonishing those who go astray in life or doctrine to apply also to churches within a federation. If, for example, the FRCA church at (âŚ.) was to promote false doctrine, and sister churches were to find out about it, the church would be admonished. One of the reasons we have yearly church visitation is to safeguard the bond of churches and to help ensure that we remain one in the truth and godliness. If an erring church ignores justifiable admonitions the matter is to be brought to classis and, if there is still no repentance, the matter is to go to synod. Should the church maintain its false doctrine or tolerate ungodly lifestyles amongst its members it would be excommunicated from the FRCA federation of churches. The FRCA is to have no relationship with that church so that the unity in the true faith is not undermined and the spiritual life of the flock is not threatened.
The same principle applies to sister relationships between federations of churches as is evident from our âRules for Exercising Sister Relationsâ.[ii] Consider the first two rules:
- Sister relations shall be used mutually to assist, encourage and exhort one another to live as churches of God in this world.
- The churches shall mutually care for each other so that they do not depart from the reformed faith in doctrine, church polity, discipline and liturgy.
We have a current example of exhortation and discipline in the FRCA relationship with the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands (RCN). Since the turn of this century the FRCA and other church federations have expressed serious concerns about deviations from the truth of Godâs Word in these Dutch sister churches. The FRCA Synod 2012 decided to place the sister relationship with the RCN âunder strainâ and FRCA Synod 2015 suspended the sister relationship. If there is no repentance (and we earnestly pray that they will repent) the relationship will be âuntenableâ. That is, there can no longer be a sister relationship because the FRCA and RCN would no longer be one in the faith and the FRCA would have to conclude that the RCN were a false church federation. That doesnât mean that all the RCN members are headed for hell but it does mean that as a bond it can no longer be considered a legitimate church of the Lord Jesus Christ. Hence there could be no continuing relationship with them.
Applying the principle to the relationship RCNZ-CRCA
Allow me now to turn the attention to the RCNZ. In 2000 the FRCA synod declared the RCNZ true and faithful churches but said that their continuing relationship with the CRCA formed an impediment to unity. Such a declaration can only be justified if the CRCA is a false church federation. The RCNZ, to its credit, had expressed concerns about developments within the CRCA, with whom it had historical ties. To its further credit the RCNZ recently broke the sister relations with the CRCA. Such a breaking of sister relations with another church federation can surely only be justified if that church federation (CRCA) did not repent from its sins. Why else break the sister relationship? Does it not follow, then, that the RCNZ should, for the sake of the faithfulness and spiritual safety of its church federation, discontinue a relationship with the unrepentant CRCA?
But what is the case? The RCNZ have replaced the sister relationship with a relationship of ecclesiastical fellowship. Why? The CRCA delegate to the 2014 RCNZ synod ânoted that many points of concern kept coming up for discussion between RCNZ-CRCA, and whenever most of them were dealt with, new ones would come up, hence need for new relationshipâ. He expressed the view that âthe closeness remainsâ as well as the love, care and respect.[iii] It appears that by establishing âEcumenical Fellowshipâ the warm fellowship with the CRCA remains without the need for the RCNZ to have the same responsibility of expressing concerns or warnings towards the CRCA as would happen in a sister relationship. Under the new form of relationship, the CRCA no longer needs to cope with letters of complaint from the RCNZ.
As the term âEcumenical Fellowshipâ implies, the RCNZ continues in various ways to express unity of faith with the CRCA. This unity of faith is expressed, for example, in that the RCNZ recently sponsored the CRCA to become members of the ICRC.[iv] Such a recommendation could only be justified if the RCNZ considered the CRCA to be faithful. Yet did the RCNZ not break the sister relations with the CRCA because of the latterâs unfaithfulness?
The RCNZâs unity with the CRCA is also expressed in its continuing links to the Reformed Theological College (RTC) which was established by the CRCA and remains closely affiliated with it. The Deputiesâ Report notes that 12 of 17 pastors/missionaries/vicars in the RCNZâs 20 churches are RTC trained and the RCNZ continues to levy its members $20 per confessing member in continuing support for the RTC. Summer internships at the RTC continue to be arranged for RCNZ students even though âDeputies Students for the Ministry have previously reported concern about the influÂence of the CRCA on the RTCâ. Although there is a perception by some in the RCNZ that the RTC âmight be theologically conservative overallâ, others do express concerns. FRCA deputies astutely ask âcould it be that in areas like worship it is having an unwelcome influence on the RCNZ that the RCNZ itself doesnât realize or see clearly?â[v]
We see then that although the RCNZ have cut the sister ties âthey want to maintain closeness ⌠a close relationship because of the historyâ.[vi] Moreover, âthe RCNZ state that calling of ministers [from the CRCA] with colloquium doctum will still occurâ. Although they speak of a âpreliminary evaluationâ as a âsafeguardâ itâs clear that âchurches can still consider CRCA ministers for callâ.[vii] Pulpit exchanges continue to be allowed after âan examination with the local consistoryâ and CRCA visitors will âbe able to attend Lordâs Supperâ and receive âmembership in the RCNZ ⌠following an interviewâ. Then there are the joint projects in diaconal work, mission work and a joint âChristmas compassionate catalogueâ as well as shared theological training. As the Deputies remark, âthere remains a practical relationship between the RCNZ and the CRCAâ.[viii]
Does not honesty compel us to conclude that the RCNZâs new relationship with the CRCA is an unscriptural compromise? On the one hand the sister relationship is discontinued, yet on the other hand they âhave not yet been so bold as to say that the CRCA lacks the marks of the true church (Art 29 BC)â.[ix] FRCA deputies make the claim that âour past synods ⌠have not required the RCNZ to break ties with the CRCAâ and refer to our Synod 2003 which âexpressed appreciation for the manner in which the RCNZ use their relaÂtionship to admonish their erring sister (Art 62, p.33)â. However, this ignores the fact that since 1962 successive synods have clearly stated that the RCNZâs continuing relationship with the CRCA was an impediment to our unity with the RCNZ. What else can this mean but that they must completely break with the CRCA?
The deputies refer to a 1985 synod decision that states that ârecognizing another church as a true and faithful church of the Lord Jesus Christ âhas as direct consequence that a sister-Church relationship can be established, without disregarding the fact that historical developments may well give cause to several stumbling blocks still lying on the road to a practical realization of unity (Art. 67, p.40).ââ One might imagine such stumbling blocks to be culturally determined practicalities such as singing of unrhymed Psalms, how ministers are called, how they run synods, etc. Â Deputies, however, make the claim that âFRCA synods have considered the RCNZâs sister-relations with the CRCA to be one such stumbling block that required resolution before accepting their offer for sister-relationsâ.[x] Thereby deputies have devalued our concerns about the RCNZ relationship with the CRCA to merely an historical stumbling block on the road to practical unity instead of seeing this, as our churches have always seen it in the past, as a matter of Scriptural principle.
That weâve always seen it as a Scriptural principle is evident from the decisions of Synod 1985 which referred to Synod 1962âs decision which âstated that the Reformed Churches of New Zealand were not faithful because of their relationship with the [Christian] Reformed Churches of AustraliaâŚâ (Art. 75, p. 49). Moreover, Synod 1998 agreed that the âRCNZâs sister-relations with the CRCA is an impedimentâ which posed âprinciple difficulties regarding third party relationsâ. Ignoring such principle difficulties would âalso flow to practical difficultiesâ (Acts 1998, p.187-189). Indeed, it cited one of the RCNZâs own reports which said that relationships needed to be true in all dimensions: âThis is being consistent with the principle of a true and faithful church and consequential thinking, as otherwise there would be a triangular problem when A and B establish close relationships while C who already has an intimate relationship with A still has principle objections to Bâ (Acts 1998, Art. 89, p.42-43).
If the RCNZ hold that the CRCA are true and faithful churches, surely they should not permit the sister relationship with them to be broken. However, if the CRCA are not true and faithful churches, as the FRCA evidently believe by having for more than half a century required the RCNZ to break the sister relationship with them, then does it not follow that the RCNZ do wrong to continue the close relations with them? True, they have now discontinued the sister relations with the CRCA but, by agreeing to a new bond of âEcumenical Fellowshipâ, they have not distanced themselves completely from the CRCAâs theological liberalism and unreformed worship and polity. Scripture speaks of a little leavenâs dangerous influence, and of the need for unity in the truth. Â Does it not appear, then, that the obstacle to the FRCAâs unity with the RCNZ has not been removed and FRCA Synod 2015 has acted prematurely in establishing sister relations with the RCNZ?
J Numan
[i] Acts of the 2015 Synod of the Free Reformed Churches of Australia, Baldivis, Western Australia, Article 38.
[ii] Acts 1992, Article 95.
[iii] Deputies Reports to the 2015 Synod of the Free Reformed Churches of Australia, June 2015, p. 252.
[iv] Ibid, p.252.
[v] Ibid, p.253.
[vi] Ibid, p.264.
[vii] Ibid, p. 265.
[viii] Ibid, p.265.
[ix] Ibid, pp.265-266.
[x] Ibid, p. 256.