NAPARC

Apparently, the CanRC intends to join NAPARC. Amongst the membership of that organization one can find the PCA, my present denominational home. For details see article 140 in these minutes.

(HT: yinkahdinay)

Comments

I see a few denominations that we recognize as sister churches are already members; I suspect that might have something to do with the decision for the CanRC to join. I see that the constitution mentions the Westminster Confession and Catechisms; I wonder what that will mean for us? I also notice with a certain amount of interest that the Christian Reformed Church is listed as a founding member in the constitution, but they aren't listed as a member denomination on the home page.

Rev. Schouten mentioned the NAPRC in tomorrow's litury sheet too. He also mentioned that the Reformed Church of Quebec and the Reformed Church of New Zealand have been escalated to sister church status. Discussions with the Free Reformed Churches of North America are being abandoned due to lack of interest from their side.

For those keeping score at home, I guess this is the complete list now:

  • Gereformeerde Kerken in Nederland
  • Free Reformed Churches of Australia
  • Free Reformed Churches of South Africa
  • The Free Church of Scotland
  • The Presbyterian Church in Korea
  • Orthodox Presbyterian Church (NAPARC member)
  • Reformed Church in the United States (NAPARC member)
  • United Reformed Churches in North America (Phase 2)
  • Reformed Church of Quebec (NAPARC member)
  • Reformed Church of New Zealand

I would think the Reformed Churches in Brazil should be on that list too, but I can't find any mention of them in the Yearbook; seems a little odd.

The Canadian and American Reformed Churches are already a member of the International Conference of Reformed Churches. Some of the other churches on the NAPARC member list are also on the ICRC member list.

Part of me thinks that NAPARC will do about as much as ICRC, meaning that you'll rarely hear much about what's going on. Part of me hopes I'm wrong. I may not be as gung-ho about ecclesiastical unity as some other people, but I think that I'm probably more in favor of it than most. If they're just as much a true church as we are, should we not be in the same federation? Forming these membership-type group is a great step, but it doesn't feel quite as official as a sister church, and even a sister church doesn't feel official enough to me. I was told once that the reason we don't unify with our sister churches in Australia, for example, is because the travel costs for Synod delegates would be prohibitive. But then here we have denominations like the URCNA and RCUS that have congregations right here in our own backyard. I understand that this will take time, but part of me wonders if things could be sped up a little bit by having more frequent meetings? Sometime last year, as an interesting exercise, I plotted every CanRC and URCNA place of worship in Google Earth. There was a bit of overlap, but especially interesting was the lack of overlap. Most of us tend not to move too far away from a congregation in our denomination, though there are always exceptions. Full federative unity would open up a lot more possibilities for many people. I might take a look at the ERQ next; we have zero coverage in Quebec, and I doubt they have coverage outside of Quebec.

I also notice with a certain amount of interest that the Christian Reformed Church is listed as a founding member in the constitution, but they aren't listed as a member denomination on the home page.

They were booted out in 2002ish for liberal trends in the denomination.

Oh, from what I recall of yinkahdinay's reporting I think that you can drop the Free Church of Scotland from your list.

No, that was just the Free Church Continuing, the splinter group from a couple of years back.

If they're just as much a true church as we are, should we not be in the same federation?

How much do you think that you need to agree on in order to consider another church a true church?

To pick a little on Mike Horton (since he's URCNA) and the White Horse Inn, the regulars on the show consist of two URC-affiliated people, one Southern Baptist, one Lutheran. These folks agree on some stuff:

Though the hosts have different denominational and ethnic backgrounds, the White Horse Inn unites itself on the principle slogans of the Protestant Reformation, such as the sufficiency of Scripture, salvation by grace alone through faith alone by Christ alone, and the importance of a God-centered, rather than human-centered outlook.

Even though they share some of these same emphases, I don't expect them to plan to unite into a single denomination anytime soon.

Consider also the Together for the Gospel conference (and one of the main folks there is PCA). Once again you have some degree of unity between christians of different denominations - but at the same time these folks don't agree on everything.

Something popped up in my blog aggregator this morning relating to this. Take a look at some details of a talk given this morning at the New Attitude Conference.

At times there is even disagreement amongst people from the same denomination.