Synods make decisions that affect the churches, but they must not rule over the churches. Christ has entrusted that authority to the local consistory, whose office bearers publicly promised to guard the flock and reject all teachings contrary to God’s Word. For that reason, consistories must either ratify or reject synod decisions. Their task is not to rubber‑stamp what a synod has decided, but to test it carefully in the light of Scripture and our confessions, the Three Forms of Unity.
But the responsibility does not rest with office bearers alone. Ordinary members also have a duty to appeal when they believe a decision is contrary to Scripture and confessions and harmful to Christ’s church. The Church Order gives this right because Christ calls every believer to watch over the purity of doctrine and the well‑being of His church. If a member believes that a consistory has approved something that conflicts with God’s Word, that member is obligated to appeal—not out of stubbornness, but out of love for Christ and His bride. That is why, when my consistory ratified Synod 2024’s decision to send observers to the next two ICRC meetings, I felt compelled to appeal.
“What’s the big deal?”
Some may wonder why sending observers is a problem. After all, the FRCA has not (yet) decided to join the ICRC; we are simply gathering information to see whether we can join. What harm is there in that? Isn’t it wise to investigate before deciding?
The difficulty is this: sending observers already makes a statement. It signals that the ICRC has a legitimate right to exist as a body of faithful Reformed churches united in the truth. Yet this is precisely what is in question. The act of sending observers is not neutral. It communicates that we consider the ICRC to be a potentially valid expression of the unity and catholicity of Christ’s church. But if the ICRC includes churches we have judged to be unfaithful, then even sending observers becomes problematic.
The ICRC claims to “express and promote the unity of faith which the member churches have in Christ” (Purpose 1). But such unity belongs only to churches that have officially recognised one another as faithful and have entered a sister‑church relationship. The FRCA has not been able to do this with all ICRC members. In fact, we have explicitly judged some of them to be unfaithful in doctrine or practice and therefore we could not unite with them.
The contradiction
Consider the PCEA and the CRCA. The FRCA concluded, following discussions and investigation, that we cannot enter sister‑church relations with them because of tolerated errors in doctrine and practice. These are not minor issues. They involve matters where Scripture’s teaching is clear and where the FRCA has pointed out the errors and called these churches to repentance. Yet the ICRC accepts them as faithful Reformed churches.
This is a direct contradiction. It compromises the truth and violates Christ’s command: “Let your Yes be Yes and your No, No” (Matt. 5:37). If we say “No” to unity with these churches at the local level, how can we say “Yes” to an organisation that declares them faithful? The inconsistency is obvious.
This inconsistency was already recognised by our own deputies in 1994, who wrote:
“In the ICRC, we say: there is unity of faith… In practice, however, we discover differences… Is it not unethical to state unity while detecting differences that hinder official recognition of unity?” (Acts 1994, p. 211)
Nothing has changed since then. The same contradictions remain. The same churches we could not recognise as faithful are members of the ICRC. And yet Synod 2024 has instructed observers to attend and ask what the ICRC means by “unity of faith”. But the Constitution is clear: it speaks of unity as something the member churches already have; it is presented as a present reality.
The RCNZ example
The RCNZ illustrates the same problem. They broke their sister‑church relationship with the CRCA because of unfaithfulness. Yet they later recommended the CRCA for membership in the ICRC as faithful churches. This is not letting their No be No. It also risks giving unscriptural views a platform within the ICRC (Titus 1:9).
If a church is unfaithful enough to break unity with, how can it be faithful enough to recommend for membership in a body that claims unity of faith? The contradiction is glaring. And yet this is the very body we are now sending observers to.
Our own history
In 1996 the FRCA decided to terminate membership in the ICRC. According to Church Order Article 31, such decisions are settled and binding unless proven contrary to Scripture. No such proof has been given. Why then are we acting as though the decision no longer stands?
If we believe that decision was correct, then we must honour it. If we believe it was wrong, then we must show from Scripture why it was wrong. But we cannot simply ignore it. To do so is to undermine our own Church Order and to weaken the integrity of our decisions.
The purposes of the ICRC
Several ICRC purposes—presenting a reformed testimony to the world, cooperating in mission and other mandates, and studying common issues—can only be carried out when true unity has already been established. Scripture and the confessions teach that such unity is expressed through sister‑church relations (John 17:21; Col. 3:15; Belgic Confession 28–29). Synod 1985 affirmed this clearly:
“On reaching sister‑church relations, inter‑church cooperation in mission and other matters is possible.”
But the FRCA has not reached such unity with all ICRC members. Therefore, these purposes cannot be legitimately pursued. To participate in them without unity is to act as though unity exists when it does not. It is to pretend that differences do not matter. It is to blur the marks of the true church.
Purpose 4 of the ICRC—studying common problems and issues—also assumes unity. How can churches that disagree on fundamental matters of doctrine and practice study issues together and aim for common recommendations? Such cooperation belongs within the context of recognised unity, not outside it.
The deeper issue: pluriformity
Behind all this lies a subtle danger: the re‑emergence of the doctrine of church pluriformity—the idea that the true church exists in many forms, even where serious errors are tolerated. This doctrine was rightly rejected in the lead up to the Church Liberation of 1944 and afterwards. It undermines the marks of the true church and weakens the call to reject all errors.
Yet pluriformity creeps back in when churches we cannot recognise as faithful are nevertheless treated as faithful within the ICRC. When we act as though unity exists where it does not, we are implicitly accepting pluriformity. We are saying that the truth can be stretched to include contradictory teachings and practices. We are saying that faithfulness is broad enough to include unfaithfulness.
This is not what Scripture teaches. Christ calls His church to unity in the truth (John 17:17). He calls elders to guard the flock against false doctrine (Acts 20:28–30). He calls His people to reject all errors and to cling to the pure preaching of the gospel (Belgic Confession 29).
Why I appealed
My appeal is not about being difficult or obstructive. And it’s certainly not about judging the hearts of those at the ICRC. It is about the lack of Scriptural legitimacy for the ICRC. It is about faithfulness to Christ, who commended the church in Philadelphia for keeping His Word even with “little strength” (Rev. 3:8). We do not need to be large or influential. We need to be faithful.
Sending observers to the ICRC implies recognition of an organisation that treats unfaithful churches as faithful. Thereby it blurs the marks of the true church. It legitimises cooperation in mission and other “Purposes” without first establishing unity in the truth. It risks reintroducing pluriformity. It compromises our own decisions and weakens our commitment to Scripture.
For these reasons, and out of love for Christ’s church, I appealed my consistory’s decision to ratify Synod 2024’s decision. My hope is that we will continue to stand firm in the truth, to let our Yes be Yes and our No be No, and to seek and practise unity only where it truly exists—in the faithful confession of, and humble submission to, Christ’s Word and the Three Forms of Unity.