# Canadian and American Reformed Churches



## Bryan (Mar 16, 2004)

http://www.canrc.org/

Does anyone know more about this church then what is on it's website? 

On it, they say that they have a &quot;relationship of ecclesiastical fellowship&quot; with the OPC which is interesting. 

It also says with regards to the Christian Reformed Church; &quot;Some progress was initially made, but as time went on, it became obvious that the Christian Reformed Church was not willing to sever its ties with the increasingly liberal Reformed Churches in Netherlands. It also became apparent that the thinking of this church on matters of biblical authority and church government was having a greater and greater influence on the Christian Reformed church.&quot;

This is very interesting to me becasue thye two Reformed Churches in my area are CARC and CRF. Can anyone offer any more insights to what they disagree over then is offered by their website?

Thank you,

Bryan
SDG


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Mar 16, 2004)

[quote:a8b4981633][i:a8b4981633]Originally posted by Bryan[/i:a8b4981633]
This is very interesting to me becasue thye two Reformed Churches in my area are CARC and CRF. Can anyone offer any more insights to what they disagree over then is offered by their website?
[/quote:a8b4981633]
The CRC allows ordination of women. The CanRC does not. The CRC does not demand (in reality) full subscription to their confessional standards. The CanRC does to the best of my knowledge.
The CanRC is heavily influenced by the theology of Klaas Schilder and a slightly more extreme view of redemptive historical preaching than what the reformed presbyterians would be use to. For more insight on this aspect read Greidanus's book [i:a8b4981633]Sola Scriptura[/i:a8b4981633]. You can also find articles by Schilder and his followers on the internet, most likely on Spindleworks. His books are still available to.

[Edited on 3-16-2004 by puritansailor]


----------



## JohnV (Mar 16, 2004)

Bryan:
I grew up in the hostile atmosphere between the two denominations. My uncle was an outspoken and influential man in the CanRC. From the side that I viewed it from, the CanRC was not at all trying to patch up relations, but seemed to be continually on the hunt for further reasons to justify their separateness. But I admit that this is a very subjective observation. I don't know if I was being fed stuff to make it look that way. 

Now that I am in the OPC, and there is a relationship there with the CanRC, and the CanRC is working toward a better relationship with all Christians, I think that it is well enough time to let the past be past. The CRC in our area is quite liberal, and it is one of the conservative ones. I don't think that there are many Reformed churches that have any affiliation with them anymore, unless they too have gone liberal, like the RCA. 

When my parents first immigrated in 1952 they ought actually to have gone to the CanRC. But they very quickly learned that the animosity from the old country was being carried on there. And one of the reasons they were eager to leave was because of the state the church was in at that time in Holland. There was so much hurt, and so much ill-will toward each other, even within families, and that during and immediately after the war, that they didn't care to live there any more. There was a big immigration move going on, so that Holland could sort of start all over. There was not much left after the Germans left. 

My parents sided with the liberated churches, but reluctantly. They did not think it right that all that name calling, and house-burning needed to be part of the schism. But they left that there, and said very little of it to us kids raised in Canada. I never knew Holland at all. 

When they found themselves here in Canada, they ran into another Dutch couple who had been here a little while already. They invited my Dad and Mom to their church, and they took them up on it. They never looked back, even though relatives on one side were pressuring once they found out that Dad and Mom were going to the CRC. When Dad refused, then the relationship with these relatives fell off too. Later, the only cousins that I knew also went over to the CanRC, and I didn't know them anymore either after that. 

We weren't liberal ourselves. We were not much different than them. But we were shunned. 

But there was something wrong. Our church started to have serious problems. More and more dissent and unrest was growing. Finally in 1992 the church split over the issues, and a slightly smaller half started an independant congregation, later to become a URC. But the original church continued to struggle with dissension, even after the &quot;orthodox&quot; left; the conservatives and the progressives continued to wrestle with differences, only they no longer had the common cause of needing to deal with the orthodox. 

In local discussions between CanRC and URC congregations there is still some left over animosity. Some still hold that URC members are nothing more than former CRC members; and some URC members remember all too well the ill-will and cold shoulders. These are a minority, a small minority, but they are there and they are vocal.

It is my belief that the war was very hard on the Dutch. Too hard. Their entire land was raped of all goods. There was barely a tree left standing. They were less than second-class citizens in their own land. Of their own people some were real heros, risking life and limb for the defenceless; while others were stooges for the Nazis. It was so hard that one could not and should not trust even his own neighbour, and eventually not even his own family. My father and his brothers were betrayed by someone who needed bread for his family. They were sent to Germany to work in the factories and camps. My Father was kept by God's hand to work on a farm near the border, where he too worked for the sake of those flyers and airmen who needed to escape from their downed aircraft in enemy territory. But all that while he had a good idea who betrayed his whereabouts, and how he had hidden from the Germans. Only someone who knew could do that. That severely limited the possibilities. 

That is the story of many a Dutchman's family. And some are worse. Some never saw their loved ones again. The British, Canadian, and American armies drove the Germans out, but they could not undo the damage just by making airdrops of badly needed items of food and medicine. The social damage was as bad, and worse. And in the midst of that the church had a heart-wrenching split (1944). Tempers were already frayed, and patience was at an end for everyone. 

It is my belief that the issues were real, but that it was not the time for either side to have done what it had done. I was born nine years after the schism, and in another country an ocean apart, and still I could feel the results in my family. And my family did not participate willingly. The last thing we needed was the Sixties. But they happened. And what the one locust didn't eat the next one did. 

That's my personal view on it. I still believe that the CRC church I was taught to believe in is the right one to hold to. The more I delve into things, the more I miss what we &quot;had&quot;. But it is also true that we never really had those things that we preached and taught.


----------



## Bryan (Mar 17, 2004)

Thanks guys, that was a lot of help.

This is more for JohnV but since both of these denominations are heavily influenced by their ethnic origins I'm curious as to how open they are to those who do not share the same &quot;roots&quot; as them? Are there a lot of people in these groups that are not decendents of the immigrints that set up them?

Bryan
SDG


----------



## JohnV (Mar 17, 2004)

Bryan:
Officially they make no distinction, of course. But in the last few years that I was a member in the CRC, which is only a little culturally oriented, there was an unspoken attitude of not evangelizing too much because that would undermine our &quot;heritage&quot; if we were successful. I think that kind of gives you the idea. 

But don't let that fool you. I would say that there are not just a few that are really interested in being more culturally diversified. The CanRC in some places is really trying to get past the Dutch ways, expecially with a new wave of second generation-ers coming of age. These were born of those who were born here, or of who came over when they were very young. Things have been changing for a while now; not that long, but still not just recent either. 

It would be my guess that they would be quite open, generally, to those who are not of Dutch extraction. But I would not say that this is true across the board. There are yet churches that are quite Dutch in their ways, and they seem to judge of orthodoxy by that, as I understand. 

I think that Richard Davis (I haven't seen hiim on line recently) is also in the CanRC in the north of Toronto. As I recall, he isn't Dutch, so he would be a better judge of it than I am.

On the whole I would say that &quot;roots&quot; is less important than it used to be, and is becoming even less so. But I am being frank about my experience. This does not take into any account any overt policy or action they may be undertaking to overcome past barriers.


----------



## Bernard_Marx (Mar 17, 2004)

JohnV &amp; Bryan,

I've been going to the Canadian Reformed Church in my area for about 6 months, and have decided to join.

It is a &quot;Dutch&quot; church. If you're invited to a host family you'll get meat-ball soup with &quot;magee&quot; and buns with Gouda cheese. However there are a lot of folks who are trying to get past the whole Dutch thing. They've seemed to ge out of their way to make me, a non-Dutch person feel welcome. But don't be fooled, old habits die hard. 

John, what happened with your uncle? I remember you once said that he was once their &quot;pope&quot; or something.


----------



## JohnV (Mar 17, 2004)

[quote:6a44ca8a7a][i:6a44ca8a7a]Originally posted by Richard B. Davis[/i:6a44ca8a7a]
JohnV &amp; Bryan,

I've been going to the Canadian Reformed Church in my area for about 6 months, and have decided to join.

It is a &quot;Dutch&quot; church. If you're invited to a host family you'll get meat-ball soup with &quot;magee&quot; and buns with Gouda cheese. However there are a lot of folks who are trying to get past the whole Dutch thing. They've seemed to ge out of their way to make me, a non-Dutch person feel welcome. But don't be fooled, old habits die hard. 

John, what happened with your uncle? I remember you once said that he was once their &quot;pope&quot; or something. [/quote:6a44ca8a7a]

Ahh! Soup on Sunday, with Maggi. And Gouda cheese on a bun. This ought to the ethnic flavour of the whole world. They do no wrong in keeping to that. Imagine what a beautiful world this would be if everyone would have soup on Sunday, with Gouda cheese on a bun. And whatever happens in world affairs, DON'T FORGET THE MAGGI!!!!!!!!!

My uncle? Well he just faded from influence. It was a hard time, and it would be better to it leave in the past. He does have a son that lives close by now. We do more than acknowledge each other, and we both recognize the history of pain, and the need to leave it behind. 

The social damage that no air drop could help took it's toll on many of us. The fact that second and third generation children have been able to face up to each other is really no small feat. I think that it shows that God's grace could conquer even what &quot;Operation Manna&quot; could not. Operation Manna (&quot;Chowhound&quot; to the Americans)was that blessed massive effort by the Allies to drop necessities from the air through the bleak winter months immediately following the withdrawal of German troops.

[Edited on 3-18-2004 by JohnV]


----------



## yeutter (Mar 31, 2004)

*Schilder*

The Liberated Churches including the Canadian Reformed came into being when Prof. Schilder was unjustly disciplined in the Netherlands. The &quot;Liberated&quot; stand very much in the tradition of Schilder.

This may be a good place to ask a question about Schilder. John V. may be able to answer this question.

Is their a substantive difference between K. Schilder and 
C. VanTil on the issue of Common Grace?


----------



## JohnV (Mar 31, 2004)

Yeutter:
You asked,
[quote:073754d13c]Is their a substantive difference between K. Schilder and 
C. VanTil on the issue of Common Grace?[/quote:073754d13c]
I don't have any references before my right now, and it would take a bit of research to compare the two. It has not occurred to me to compare the two on this issue. Off hand I would have to keep myself to a guess. I would assume that there is a difference, but one that appears only upon careful examination. That is to say, I would look at the outcome of their particular views more than the actual statements. 

As I understand it, both stood in line with the historic view on Common Grace, by the judgment of the general churches. But Schilder's views led the Frijgemakt into a peculiar view of the universal church that, on the outside, resembles somewhat the old RCC tradition of the priority of the church. That means to me that Common Grace is downplayed somewhat, since that view has a tendency to overlook the individual value of each soul in favour of the greater value of the church. Views on Common Grace usually have an opposite direction. 

Van Til, on the other hand, put great value in the grace afforded those who rely solely on the Word for truth. His ideas of &quot;no common ground&quot;, and &quot;no brute fact&quot; has a tendency to deny Common Grace in those who are not believers, in the area of intellect or cognizance. Though Van Til's perspective on church is the reverse direction as Schilder's in respect to Common Grace, yet they seem to come out in the same general area, namely, that of denying the efficacy of Common Grace upon those it is conferred. 

As you can see, I am struggling to yet understand either one of the views held be these men. I do not claim to understand Schilder's view of the church, nor Van Til's view on man's understanding. Men may say what they believe concerning certain things such as Common Grace, but it is the outcome of these teachings, and how they bear on theology as a whole that matters more. &quot;You shall know them by their fruits.&quot; 

I do not agree with the CanRC view on the universal church; and I also differ with Van Til in his assessment of an unbeliever, among other things. That in itself may cloud my judgment, or it may be insightful; that remains to be seen. But this much seems clear: Schilder was against a Kuyperian philosophy in the church, while Van Til favoured it. How that plays into their individual views on Common Grace, when neither one is noted for his oppositon of it, is probably deserving of some looking into.


----------

