Showing posts with label GKv. Show all posts
Showing posts with label GKv. Show all posts

Tuesday, May 09, 2023

Re: the merger of the GKv and the NGK

Wes Bredenhof wrote on his blog: "As of May 1, the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands (Liberated) no longer exist.  In the Netherlands they were known as the Gereformeerde Kerken – Vrijgemaakt (GKV).  As of May 1, the GKV merged with the Nederlands Gereformeerde Kerken to form a new federation of churches.  The new federation is called the Nederlandse (note the extra ‘e’) Gereformeerde Kerken (Dutch Reformed Churches)."

What follows is an excerpt (pp 109-111) from the biography I wrote on my father, Jules Taco van Popta (1916-1968). I am including this in my blog because of how the GKv and the NGK, on May 1st,  2023, merged into one federation of churches. The NGK are the children of the Open Brief. My father, like many fathers of the ecclesiastical liberation of 1944, would be very sad.


The Open Brief

     As the difficulties in connection with the Form of Subscription [the C. de Haan affair] played out in Canada, a news item from the sister churches in the Netherlands reported on similar tendencies emerging there. An Open Brief had been published in which its twenty-five signatories expressed the desire for greater latitude in doctrinal matters than they felt that the Form of Subscription afforded them. The twen­ty-five brothers of the Open Brief also denied that the ecclesiastical liberation of 1944 was a work of Christ; rather, said they, it was mere­ly a human work motivated by an ideology. The twenty-five brothers declared that those who held that it was a work done in harmony with Article 28 of the Belgic Confession were subscribing to a false faith.     

     Jules published a six-part critique of the Open Brief in Canadian Reformed Magazine (CRM).*

     Jules recalled the issues of the Liberation of ‘44 under seven points.

1.  In 1942 the general synod adopted the doctrine of presump­tive regeneration.

2.  The synod imposed that doctrine upon the churches and proscribed any teaching or preaching that was not in accord with the doctrinal deliverances.

3.  The synod forbade the teaching that the Holy Spirit works regeneration through the preached word, even though this is what Scripture plainly teaches and the confessions profess.

4.  By this strict binding to these doctrinal statements the synod put a yoke on the churches, which was not the easy yoke of Christ (Gal. 4, 5; Col. 2).

5.  In a letter dated Feb. 25, 1944, the synod informed the church­es that all had to carry out the decisions of synod. A church did have the right to appeal, but in the meantime the church was required to put the decision into effect. Such a church polity is in conflict with itself, that is, with Article 31 of the Church Order.

6. This rule was strictly upheld. Office-bearers who did not put into effect the decision of the synod were deposed from their offices. Those who continued to teach that the Holy Spirit regenerates us by the preaching of the gospel, rather than that the baptized infants were presumed already to be regenerate, were deposed. Those who refused to carry out the declara­tions of the synod were accused of raising “discord, sects, and mutiny” in the church, and were treated accordingly.

7.  The synod claimed to be the highest authority in the church with respect to doctrine.

    The signatories of the Open Brief rejected the very thinking of which they themselves had once been convinced and wrote it off as a human ideology. Jules explained that the Liberation of 1944 was a plea for the proclamation of the preaching of the Word of God unencumbered by theological opinions. He reminded the reader of how the Dutch synod had usurped the place of Christ by arrogating unto itself power and authority that belong only to the Word of God.

Jules pointed out that some of the signatories took steps that were consistent with their position and left the GKN-Liberated to join the synodocratic GKN. It was not given to Jules to complete the series of articles, but his point is clear. These men did not remain in the freedom into which Christ had set them free. Rather, they ex­changed the easy yoke of Christ for the heavy burden of theological opinions and systems.

(Further note: The "Open Brief people left the GKv and eventually formed a new federation, the NGK).

------------- 

 “The ‘Open Brief,’” Canadian Reformed Magazine, 17 (April 6, 1968), 2; (April 20, 1968), 3–4; (May 11, 1968), 1–2; (May 18, 1968), 1–3; (July 20, 1968), 2. Unfortunately he was not able to complete the series before his unexpected death.

 


Thursday, June 22, 2017

Are the CanRC only ten or twenty years behind the GKv?

Our sister churches in the Netherlands, GKN-Liberated (GKv), recently decided at their General Synod to open the offices of minister, elder, and deacon to the sisters of their congregations. This unfortunate decision will do irreparable damage to their relationships with many of their sister churches worldwide. The GKv is a member church of the International Conference of Reformed Churches (ICRC); I cannot imagine that many of the other member churches will be content to let the GKv retain the privileges of membership.

The Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) and the Reformed Church in the United States (RCUS) must be experiencing deja vu. In the mid-1990s the Christian Reformed Church of North America (CRCNA) opened up the offices in their church to women. This became an issue in the North American Presbyterian and Reformed Council (NAPARC). At that time the CRCNA was a member church of NAPARC, but their opening of ecclesiastical offices to women led to their suspension in 1997. The OPC and the RCUS were already members of NAPARC then. Also, the CRCNA ordination of women was largely the catalyst for the formation of the United Reformed Churches of North America (URCNA), presently a member of NAPARC.

Are the Canadian Reformed Churches (CanRC) going to follow the GKv in this? Are we a mere ten or twenty years behind? Historically we have had rather close ties to the GKv. Technically the GKv is a sister church to the CanRC, but realistically, the GKv is our mother. Many of our parents and grandparents were born and bred in its bosom. Will the closeness and the ties be the undoing of the CanRC? Will it be only a few years before we see women in our elders benches and on our pulpits?

Although I have no crystal ball, I think the answer to those questions is No. I say that with some confidence because of which churches we associate with here at home, in North America. Not a one of the twelve other NAPARC churches ordains women. At least one of them (URCNA) formed largely because of the issue, and others (OPC and RCUS) have fought the fight against a liberal hermeneutic on several fronts and, by the grace of God, prevailed for the truth.

Possibly we have an advantage that the GKv does not have. We are in a circle of churches that maintains an explicitly Reformed hermeneutic, a circle that I do not think the GKv has on the European continent.

Let us, as CanRC, be cautious about the company we keep, and let us stay in step with our NAPARC associates.