What is it that compels representatives from overseas sister churches, in addressing FRCA Synod 2024, to take sides in a divisive issue in our churches by putting pressure on the FRCA to join the ICRC? First it was Rev C van Dam of the CanRC (see my previous article). Last night (20 June) it was the turn of Br Hagg of the Free Reformed Churches of South Africa (FRCSA).
Having witnessed at our synod what he described as “a pretty tough discussion on the ICRC”, Br Hagg said: “On purpose I did not want to make any comment on what happened. I thought, I’m not a delegate for interchurch relations; I’m from the theological training side.” Then why, having experienced the divided views in “a pretty tough discussion on the ICRC” does he choose sides by promoting one side of the debate?
He gives the answer. He “was told by the deputies” in the FRCSA to “encourage” the Australian churches to join, which he then proceeded to do. He pointed to what he saw are some practical benefits of joining the ICRC.
No-one would deny that there may be practical benefits, that member churches can learn from each other. But that’s not the point. The point is whether an organisation of churches which purport to be reformed can do what the Constitution requires without first being united as sister churches in the truth.
How can we express “the unity of faith that the member churches have in Christ” when we have not expressed that unity of the faith through a sister-church relationship? How can we cooperate in “missionary and other mandates” if we are not sister churches? How can we “present a reformed testimony to the world” if we are not united in the truth. Yet these are all “purposes” given in Article III of the ICRC Constitution to which member churches subscribe.
The reality is that there are churches that are members of the ICRC with which we are not united in the truth. Indeed, some of these churches are even critical of other member churches in their own geographical location. Br Hagg implies this, for example, when he says that the churches of which he is a member (FRCSA) and the RCSA (Reformed Churches in South Africa) are both members of the ICRC. Yet, despite some recent ‘pulpit exchange’ at the local level, he says “contact at the national level remains very strenuous even after three decades of discussions. The RCSA are wrestling with a call for women in office at the moment from an increasing number of congregations, pastors and professors. There is also a slack attitude among members in maintaining the sabbath day and reformed school education.” Can the FRCSA then, after three decades of failing to become sister churches, really say they have “unity of faith” with the RCSA? Could they do mission work together and could they, united, present a “Reformed testimony to the world”? For that matter could we, FRCA, do it with the CRCA or PCEA? Are we being honest when we declare that we have unity of faith at the ICRC when in reality we don’t?
Having witnessed the discussion at our synod, and the objections voiced by some delegates, Br Hagg says: Taking your reservations into account we suggest that you at least send observers to the next ICRC general meeting so that they can see and assess the experience firsthand to see how it compares with 25 years ago.
Apart from such a decision being the obvious ‘foot in the door’ approach to becoming members later, it misses the point. Objections (euphemistically called ‘reservations’ by Br Hagg) voiced against ICRC membership are based not on experience and observations but are based on principles. The issue is not whether the ICRC has changed but whether the Constitution, the underlying basis, has changed. And it hasn’t changed, despite some proposals by our churches in the 1980s to effect changes.
The FRCA initiated the ICRC over four decades ago but sought to restrict it to a meeting of sister churches. Our Dutch sister churches at that time, the RCN (GKv), called together the first ‘constituent’ meeting but invited also churches with which they had contact. That led to the ICRC commencing on a wrong footing.
The Constitutional purposes of the ICRC can only be achieved if the member churches not only say in words that they are united in the reformed faith but demonstrate this by heeding Christ’s call to ecclesiastical unity, by being sister churches. That is the Scriptural norm. As Br Hagg quoted at the end of his speech, Ephesians 4: “There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.” Would that not obligate us to manifest that unity by being one body, members of one holy catholic church (BCF 27), a physical “communion of saints’ (Apostles Creed), which everyone is obliged to join (BCF 28) and which has clearly identifiable marks (BCF 29)? Have our churches not said repeatedly that this is also what Christ prayed for in his high-priestly prayer (John 17)?
To be clear, I’m not saying that the ICRC member churches don’t seek to be reformed, nor am I saying that the Christians in those churches don’t seek to live godly lives, let alone that they won’t be saved. Perhaps they’re godlier than the members of the FRCA. But that’s not the issue; the issue relates to what we confess about Christ’s true church, its institutional legitimacy in being called Christ’s church. Are the marks of the church evident in these churches; is justice being done to God’s Word and to His glory; is there humble submission to Christ as head of the church?
Declarations of unity expressed at the ICRC across the walls of church federations, without the churches having done ‘due diligence’ in accordance with what we confess in BCF 29 and without having manifested true unity as sister churches in the one body of Christ, merely works to devalue the term ‘church’ and undermine what the FRCA confesses Christ teaches about that church. In effect it leads to pluriformity of the church thinking.
That’s not being judgmental; it’s an attempt to have us act responsibly—not in submission to the persuasive words of others but in humble submission to the Word of our God as the churches confess it in our Three Forms of Unity.