Dutch Church Suspended from ICRC over Women in Office

Status
Not open for further replies.
It is sad, but I'm glad to see the body having the strength to do what is right, in spite of the seemingly liberal-leaning opponents. That this stuff comes up at all is depressing.......
 
Gforce9 said:
It is sad, but I'm glad to see the body having the strength to do what is right, in spite of the seemingly liberal-leaning opponents. That this stuff comes up at all is depressing.......
Click to expand...

True. The path to apostasy started when the RCN started seriously entertaining the idea of women in office. Proper response: dismiss it immediately as ridiculous and self-evidently unbiblical.
 
Thanks for the posting of this information, Wes.

What has happened to a once faithful church is indeed grievous. I was involved in the January 2014 consultation sponsored by the Canadian Reformed Theological Seminary that involved a number of us on one side (not just CRTS professors but Cornel Venema, myself and others) presenting papers in response to professors from Kampen presenting their positions as leaders in the Liberated Church. Gerry Visscher (et al.) edited the volume of our addresses, published by Wipf and Stock as Correctly Handling the Word of Truth.

It was a great privilege to be able to stand with those faithful CanRef men but quite sad to see the compromise (not only on the question of women in office but on other matters even more fundamental) on the part of theologians, church historians, Biblical scholars, etc. in the Liberated Church.

The OPC has had significant contact with and knowledge of the general ecclesiastical situation in the Netherlands. Our GA adopted this directive to our ecumenical representatives without dissent and I am thankful that the ICRC adopted our recommendation and took the action that it did to suspend the Liberated Church. This is the best course in calling them to repentance. May God be gracious to grant it.

Peace,
Alan
 
With this creeping apostasy in the Liberated Churches in the Netherlands will their be any effort by the Canadian Reformed Churches to establish contact with those that had previously broke from the Liberated in the Netherlands?

I am told the Nederlands Gereformeerde Kerken is also a denominations in the Netherlands in the Liberated tradition. It is a loose federation and has some congregations that allow women deacons.

Another Netherlands Church federation in the Liberated tradition is the Gereformeerde Kerken in Nederland [hersteid]. They are said to be thoroughly conservative and contend they have restored the liberated tradition.
These new Reformed Churches restored have an English language website www.reformedcontinua.nl
 
Last edited:
yeutter said:
With this creeping apostasy in the Liberated Churches in the Netherlands will their be any effort by the Canadian Reformed Churches to establish contact with those that had previously broke from the Liberated in the Netherlands?

I am told the Nederlands Gereformeerde Kerken is also a denominations in the Netherlands in the Liberated tradition. It is a loose federation and has some congregations that allow women deacons.

Another Netherlands Church federation in the Liberated tradition is the Gereformeerde Kerken in Nederland [hersteid]. They are said to be thoroughly conservative and contend they have restored the liberated tradition.
These new Reformed Churches restored have an English language website. http://www.reformedcontinua.nl/article/8
Click to expand...

The NGK is in talks with the RCN which are expected to culminate in a merger. One of the obstacles was women in office. The NGK have it (for all offices in the church) and, till recently, the RCN didn't. So NGK is not on for the Canadian Reformed.

The other group you mention does have the attention of the Canadian Reformed Churches. HOWEVER, that particular group also has ecumenical relations with a small group in British Columbia which "liberated" itself from the CanRC because of decisions to have ecumenical relations with the United Reformed and OPC (amongst others). So that's a bit complicated.

There is, however, another group which holds brighter prospects: Gereformeerde Kerken Nederland. They're also made up of people who left the RCN. Their website is here (only in Dutch). They also have contact with the CanRC (as well as with the Free Reformed Churches of Australia where I presently serve).
 
Guido's Brother said:
He's there speaking as a delegate of the PCEA. Knowing some of the brothers in the PCEA, I doubt he would be speaking for everyone.
Click to expand...

I'm disappointed that some are too ready to believe what they read in news reports. I appreciate most of you don't know me personally but I am not at this late stage in my life senile nor given to change although I still like to say things in a way that hopefully makes people think.
There were quite a few matters that made this discussion at the ICRC a bit messy.

1. Some churches were much more familiar with what was happening in the RCN than others, particularly the Europeans and North Americans. In the PCEA we knew the possibility and that it would impact our relations with the RCN, but our Synod in May gave no clear instructions. Others in the PCEA including my fellow delegate might well have a different, more hard line, view, which is to be respected. I did consult the three other members of our ICR Committee by email and did not receive a bar to my approach.
2. The RCN decision was made on or about 17 June and was final about 29 June but we did not have the grounds of it until early July with no real opportunity to study it before ICRC met 12 July. Certainly there appeared on a quick look to be some odd exegesis but it was, in my view, worthy of much more scrutiny in order for some rebuttal by Scripture argument and not just by the ICRC constitution or the creeds. For the confessions are a help to faith but the Scripture is the rule of faith. The subject is a bit more complicated than some realise. I've seen exegesis on the right of a heavily patriarchal kind and on the left which just follows our prevailing culture. I don't like either. (Happily a proposal for an all male editorial Committee for the new ICRC quarterly, was readily changed to allow either gender to be on it. Why must we think that only a contribution on a editorial committee that comes filtered through men is OK?)
3. The constitutional revision made at Cardiff in 2013 is more explicit in rejection of sisters in office but it needed to be ratified by at least two thirds of the churches to come into effect. Up until a few days before the meeting we did not have anywhere near that support. It came through a last minute follow up by the Secretary. (Why are churches so bad in communicating promptly?) In the Co-ordinating Committee I was in favour of addressing the RCN issue before the new constitution was ratified because (a) I thought the constitutional provision for ratification lacked clarity and (b) I did not want to give the impression that the RCN were being condemned without a hearing. As it was the revised constitution was implemented first. Strangely, it turned out (as I found out after the initial discussion) that the RCN had itself agreed to the revised constitution - apparently because the relevant department of the RCN had not read it!
4. If the new constitution had not been ratified at once then objection to the RCN membership could have been raised from the floor providing opportunity to deal with any erroneous hermeneutic &c. but with the new constitution the initiative had to come from the major assembly of a member church, hence the OPC anticipated, wisely in the event.
5. On the other hand the OPC proposal was narrowly drafted to address simply the decision to ordain sisters to church office in a way that precluded raising issues of hermeneutics or other decisions which might flow from it (although one or two broke that canon).
6. Of course the Conference is not an ecclesiastical assembly, but as a body with a definite constitution one had to agree with OP point (1) declaring the RCN was outside the constitution; point 3 calling for return and 4 indicating their membership would on the agenda in 2021. I made this abundantly clear in my speech. Point 2 (to suspend immediately) was the only one on which there was debate. The RCN did not participate in the debate. I made plain I was unaware of the politics or other decisions the RCN might have made that were concerning, but on the basis of a decision professedly based on Scripture I regarded the RCN as still a Reformed Church - thus, as Brother Bredenhof says somewhere on his web blog, a church in error but not heretical.
7. I made clear when I spoke the second time that I was not happy with an amendment to point 2 that the CRCN moved because it really was covered by points 3 or 4. Despite my regard for these brothers and, indeed, telling them beforehand that their motion was not to the point, they put it up. English can be as confusing as certain press reports, it seems. If their motion had been to the effect that suspension occur if the RCN do not reverse their decision when the Synod Meppel meets for a further session in November 2017, they might well have carried the day. (I didn't put up a further amendment since it was clear the OPC point 2 would carry and there was enough confusion.),
8. Personally on point 4 I thought the OPC position was generous, perhaps weak. If the offence was so aggravated against repeated admonition by numerous churches, which was repeatedly stated, why wait 4 years to then merely put their membership on the agenda (for the decision was not actually to terminate their membership then but only that it be on the agenda)?
9. Earlier in the debate the RCN acknowledged they were outside the constitution of the ICRC and promised to propose to their Synod that they withdraw. In all the circumstances did we really have to suspend them given suspension means only they cannot vote but can still participate in Committees etc.
10. It is quite clear that the RCN will have some division over their decision. I may well have been unwise or wrong on what I expressed which, as I stressed, was a personal position. But I like absolute fairness in handling matters even when I'm on the other side. The matter will be sorted out soon enough. It was pleasing that a number of delegates shook hands with the RCN folk after the suspension decision was made (by secret ballot). It was a sad day for all of us.
 
Rowland Ward said:
I may well have been unwise or wrong on what I expressed which, as I stressed, was a personal position.
Click to expand...

I appreciate the time and energy that you have put into explaining your position on this issue and I do want to thank you for adding to the discussion.

That being said, I do fully disagree with your approach for dealing with those who seek to undermine the church. Postponing confrontation never helps and most generally hurts. I strongly suspect the timing and lack of notice in implementing this change by the Dutch church was not mere happenstance.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Guido's Brother
  • Locked
International Conference of Reformed Churches -- Women in Office
Replies
4
Views
1K
Guido's Brother
Guido's Brother
Pilgrim72
  • Locked
Reformed Churches in the UK
Replies
7
Views
3K
Pilgrim72
Pilgrim72
Pilgrim72
  • Locked
Reformed churches in Australia
Replies
10
Views
2K
Jack K
Jack K
Abeard
  • Locked
Reformed Churches In Detroit
Replies
3
Views
635
Jake
Jake
Polanus1561
  • Locked
Reformed churches in Liverpool?
Replies
2
Views
589
Reformed Covenanter
Reformed Covenanter
Back
Top