Pluriformity thinking in the RCNZ? An RCNZ minister accepts a call to the CRCA

An elderly widow, still sharp as a tack, drew my attention to a notice in the July issue of Faith in Focus (magazine of the Reformed Churches of New Zealand – RCNZ). The notice simply said that Rev. R. Noppers of the RCNZ had accepted a call to a Christian Reformed Churches of Australia (CRCA) in Melbourne. It was a brief notice, without comment, as though this was quite normal and acceptable behaviour. But for anyone who takes seriously what we confess in the Belgic Confession of Faith (BCF) about the church it raises questions. How can it be that an RCNZ minister accepts a call to a church federation of which the RCNZ has previously said: we can no longer accept you as our sister churches? Is this possible in view of what the churches confess in the BCF? Or is it, since the RCNZ have both the BCF and the Westminster Confession of Faith’s (WCF), a fruit of how the WCF’s article about the church is interpreted?

I said “interpreted” because some say that, when the WCF speaks of churches as being “more or less pure”, it is speaking of churches within the framework of what the BCF says about the true church. For example, one of the Free Reformed Churches of Australia (FRCA) could be called purer than another but still be a true church.

Whilst that sounds like a way to remove the concerns about the WCF’s article about the church, one could be excused for concluding from the way that the RCNZ acts in relation to the CRCA that it does not see it in this restricted (Scriptural) way. In other words, the RCNZ would appear to conclude that there is a world-wide church which consists of various denominations. Some they see as purer, others less pure, but all then form the world-wide church of the Lord Jesus Christ.

How else can one explain the close relations which the RCNZ maintain with the CRCA through a second-tier arrangement called Ecclesiastical or Ecumenical Fellowship,[i] despite having broken the sister relations with the CRCA? How else can one explain the continuation of pulpit exchanges, accepting one another’s attestations (albeit with ‘safeguards’), and the RCNZ’s financial support of the predominantly CRCA theological seminary? And how else might an RCNZ minister justify accepting a call to the non-sister CRCA?

Such behaviour is surely not in line with the BCF which describes a church as either true (legitimate) or false (illegitimate).[ii] It’s either Christ’s (true) church, or it’s not (BCF 29). If the CRCA are true churches, the RCNZ had no right to break the sister relations. For everyone is duty bound to join Christ’s church and not to leave it (BCF 28). That required unity in the true church is based on God’s Word (e.g. John 17:20-21; Ephesians 4:5-6; Philippians 2:1-2) and is the reason why our church fathers sought unity with all churches, and only those, which submit to God’s Word. [iii]

But if the CRCA are living in disobedience to the Lord by maintaining wrong teachings and practices (the reason why the RCNZ eventually broke the sister relationship) then the RCNZ may not continue to exercise the sort of fellowship they maintain with the CRCA.

Likewise, if an RCNZ member believes he is in the true church, he cannot leave it to become a member (let alone a minister) of a church which the RCNZ has repeatedly admonished for its errors and with which it subsequently broke sister-church relations. To leave the true church in order to be united with one that has been declared unfaithful is to break the unity of the church.

For the RCNZ to have made such a declaration about what had for many decades been their sister churches is very serious. It’s serious because a true church may not break the unity of faith with a sister church unless that sister church demonstrates that, despite admonitions, it clings to errors.

And that’s what the CRCA did. Despite time and again being admonished by its RCNZ sister churches, it refused to repent and therefore, eventually, the RCNZ discontinued the sister relations. We confess in BCF 27 and Heidelberg Catechism (LD 21) that through the ages Christ is gathering one holy catholic or universal church which He has purchased with His precious blood. By breaking the sister relationship with the CRCA, the RCNZ said, in effect: we are no longer together as Christ’s one, holy catholic church.

So then, how is it possible that Rev. R. Noppers of the RCNZ can accept a call to the CRCA with which the RCNZ broke the sister relations? That can only be done when we no longer look at what we confess in the BCF but switch, instead, to an interpretation of the Westminster Confession.

The Interpretation of the WCF on the church versus that of the BCF

According to that interpretation a church is not either true or false but is placed on the sliding scale of being more or less pure. If you see the various Christian Churches (Presbyterian, Methodist, Congregational, Baptist, etc.) as being on the continuum from more to less pure, but nevertheless all being legitimate churches of our Lord Jesus Christ, then ministers can accept calls to ‘less pure’ churches. Your church can then accept (albeit with some ‘precautions’) ministers from such ‘less pure’ churches into your pulpit and members from these ‘less pure’ churches can attend Holy Supper in your ‘more pure’ church.

Such pluriformity of the church notions are completely at odds with what we confess in our BCF and Scripture. The call to join Christ’s true church has then lost its imperative. After all, who can say that a particular church federation is the true church? It no longer matters so much. A young man can then court a young lady from a different federation, for are they not all churches of the Lord, though some being a bit purer than others?

Whilst the RCNZ did the right thing by breaking sister relations with the CRCA, it downplays the importance of ‘unity in the truth’ (1 Cor. 13:6; Jn 17:12, 17; 1 Tim. 3:15) by maintaining a form of unity (‘ecumenical fellowship’) with the unfaithful CRCA. Indeed, the RCNZ even recommended that the CRCA be admitted as members of the ICRC on the grounds that the CRCA are faithful churches. How could the RCNZ on the one hand break the sister relations with the CRCA because of the CRCA’s unfaithfulness by their failure to heed the RCNZ’s admonitions, yet on the other hand recommend the CRCA to the ICRC as faithful churches?

It could do that if it does not hold to what we confess in the BCF about Christ’s church and instead applies the view that the various Christian church federations are churches of the Lord, albeit that some are more and some less pure. It’s on that ‘pluriformity of the church’ basis that the RCNZ could recommend the CRCA to the ICRC as “faithful churches”. On such a basis an RCNZ minister (Rev. Noppers) can accept the call to the CRCA even though the RCNZ have broken the sister relations with them. Such pluriformity of the church notions are contrary to what we confess in the BCF. And that’s serious, for we all believe with the heart and confess with the mouth that what we confess in the BCF about the church is in accordance with what Scripture teaches.

The principle underpinning the FRCA’s position regarding the CRCA

When the RCNZ broke its sister relationship with the CRCA their decision was applauded by the FRCA. The path was now considered open for the FRCA to establish sister relations with the RCNZ.

Perhaps it is good to remind ourselves why the FRCA wanted the RCNZ to break with the CRCA? We confess that, from the beginning, our Lord Jesus Christ gathers, defends and preserves one church (LD 21, BCF 27). That one catholic (universal) church manifests itself in local churches which have the marks of the true church (BCF Art 29) and everyone is duty bound to join it (BCF Art 28). As members of the FRCA we declare that we are a member of that church (LD 21). In fact, we can trace the history of the church of which we are a member back through the Liberation of 1944, via the Union of 1892, back through the 1st Secession of 1834, to the Great Reformation of the 16th Century.  From there the church can be traced back to Pentecost and, in the Old Testament, back through Abraham, Noah, Seth, right back to Adam. To be sure, there are other churches whose later ancestry take a different path. Nevertheless, we maintain the confession that through the ages Christ gathers His one flock, His one church, and that in it the preaching, sacrament and church discipline are administered in accordance with His holy Word.

The false church (i.e. which illegitimately calls itself Christ’s church) also has marks. It tolerates false doctrine and persecutes those who admonish it for its errors (BCF 29). The ‘Reformed (synodical) Churches’ from which our forebears liberated themselves in the 1940s had become false churches. They insisted its ministers preach false doctrine (presumptive regeneration) and persecuted those who exposed and refused to teach their errors by suspending and deposing faithful office bearers.

When our forebears settled in Australia, members from the Liberated (true) Churches as well as members from the Reformed (Synodical, false) churches talked together about unity. The latter said they wanted to start afresh and leave behind what happened. However, in our discussions with them they refused to denounce the evil which Reformed (Synodical) Churches had done and which had led faithful believers to leave the synodical churches. Moreover, the migrants from these synodical churches who established what is now called the Christian Reformed Churches of Australia (CRCA) continued to have sister churches with the Dutch synodical churches and to call ministers from those churches. So, we remained separate – the Liberated Churches as FRCA and the Synodical Churches as RCA (now CRCA). We told them:

“You claim neutrality, but at the same time regard the churches that call themselves ‘Reformed Churches of the Netherlands’ (the Synodical churches), as well as the Christian Reformed Churches of the USA and Canada, as true churches of Christ, who uphold the reformed confessions. You therefore also accept attestations and receive ministers from those groups of churches. You can know that both groups qualify the Liberation, which we gratefully acknowledge as a work of the Lord, as revolution and factionalism. You have indeed made a choice; unfortunately, it is the wrong choice” (FRCA Acts 1959, Art. 44). 

The RCNZ and CRCA

Across the Tasman Strait, migrants from the Reformed (Synodical) Churches had, together with others, established the RCNZ. Like their CRCA sister churches in Australia, they maintained sister relations with the Reformed (Synodical) church in the Netherlands. For that reason, members of the Liberated Reformed Churches of the Netherlands thinking of migrating were warned not to join the RCNZ (FRCA Acts 1962, Art. 18 & App.1).

Things in the Dutch synodical churches continued to deteriorate so that first the RCNZ and later the CRCA broke the sister relations with the Synodical Churches. However, the CRCA declined to the extent that the RCNZ, having reprimanded the CRCA without the desired effect, finally broke the sister relations with the CRCA.
We need to understand the seriousness of this as per the Belgic Confession. One does not break unless the church has become false. There can be no other legitimate ground for breaking the unity of Christ’s Church.

We’re not speaking here about whether the members go to heaven or hell. We’re talking about whether the religious body is a legitimate (true) church of the Lord Jesus Christ or not. That is how the Belgic Confession, in accordance with the doctrine of God's Word, sees it.