National and Ecclesiastical Boundaries

[py3ak]

Should denominations cross international boundaries, or should each separate country constitute its own denomination?

I understand this is a complex question. I would appreciate input both with regard to how this would function if things were as they should be (on your view), and what we ought to do in suboptimal circumstances.

 

[J.L. Allen]

If we annexed Canada, it would answer a big portion of your question (at least for English-speaking churches).

In all seriousness, I think proximity, cultural connection, and ease of travel to and from makes the difference in how you answer the question. Otherwise, it might be best to keep separate denominations, even if one plants another, but maintaining the closest possible ties.

 

[Charles Johnson]

Historically, protestant churches have been strictly national. But occasionally a synod is held where commissioners or representatives arrive from various nations (for example, the Synod of Dort, or Westminster).
On the other hand, international congregations have always existed. There was an English-speaking congregation in Frankfurt, one in Denmark, one in Leiden, one in Geneva, and so on. And the Church of Scotland maintained a Scottish church in London.
The main difficulty with one country's churches being dependent on another is that governments tend to see foreign interference in such arrangements.

 

[Edward]

The African congregations kept the Methodists from going full woke for half a generation, and forced an exit path for many to flee. So that's a plus for internationalism. The Africans in the Anglican communion also provided support to the faithful in the Episcopal Church.

 

[Charles Johnson]

The African congregations kept the Methodists from going full woke for half a generation, and forced an exit path for many to flee. So that's a plus for internationalism. The Africans in the Anglican communion also provided support to the faithful in the Episcopal Church.

It goes both ways though. The PCUSA had a net-negative influence in the 20th century on the Presbyterian Churches of Mexico and Chile, and the Church of Scotland had a negative influence on the Presbyterian Church of Argentina.

 

[py3ak]

If we annexed Canada, it would answer a big portion of your question (at least for English-speaking churches).

In all seriousness, I think proximity, cultural connection, and ease of travel to and from makes the difference in how you answer the question. Otherwise, it might be best to keep separate denominations, even if one plants another, but maintaining the closest possible ties.

The United States of North America would no doubt put many things on a different course. But the invasion of Canada in 1812 didn't go well.

Historically, protestant churches have been strictly national. But occasionally a synod is held where commissioners or representatives arrive from various nations (for example, the Synod of Dort, or Westminster).
On the other hand, international congregations have always existed. There was an English-speaking congregation in Frankfurt, one in Denmark, one in Leiden, one in Geneva, and so on. And the Church of Scotland maintained a Scottish church in London.
The main difficulty with one country's churches being dependent on another is that governments tend to see foreign interference in such arrangements.

How much of that was due to the existence of established churches? Should we follow the same model even with disestablished churches or does that change the calculation?

 

[Charles Johnson]

How much of that was due to the existence of established churches? Should we follow the same model even with disestablished churches or does that change the calculation?

It wasn't just due to established churches, because the Reformed church of France wasn't established, but it was limited to France. And the same in Hungary.

 

[Sam Jer]

To add complexity, what about places where the borders and ease of travel change quite often (Africa and the Middle East come to mind)? Places where there is persecution which means that whether a synod or GA can be held and who can attend changes on a regular basis? Countries that are very small (such as a single city)?

 

[J.L. Allen]

The overall flavor of questions and answers seems to favor separation by nation but with close ties to one another. However, being bound by common language and culture mitigates friction. Either way, close communion and operation would still show forth the reality of the catholic church.

Do others see it that way?

 

[Jake]

The ARP Church has followed the pattern of establishing a separate Synod in different countries which still work together. We have national synods in Mexico, Pakistan, and starting next year we are separating the North American into Canadian and US synods. We have never actually had a meeting of the different synods (e.g., something like a General Assembly with representatives of US, Mexico, Pakistan), but we cooperate and are in full fraternal relationships between the synods.

I was at our North American synod meeting this year about separating the Canadian presbytery into a separate Canadian synod. Most of the reasons given were practical. Some of the issues we've had to deal with lately (pastor's retirement, insurance, etc.) are completely separately handled by the Canadian presbytery. The issues they face in their country are different (this was quite stark during COVID where the largest number of our churches are in South Carolina which was in a very different political environment from our Canadian brethren). Travel is expensive and difficult. Also, the way our synod committees and meetings are designed means that every committee required representatives from the Canadian presbytery, which was relatively small, and often more distant not just geographically but from the issues being discussed.

The work in Canada started as a small effort as part of an existing presbytery (Presbytery of the Northeast[ern United States]), then its own presbytery, and now next year it will be its own synod. There were some similarities to the missions efforts in Mexico and Pakistan which led to them having their own synods.

There are disadvantages. We have grown more separate from our fellow synods in Mexico and Pakistan over time. Some of this is due to mistakes made, but it can be hard to maintain the same level of fraternity, even for churches just across a national border. We did have representatives from our Mexico and Pakistan synods speak this year, but I think this was the first time in a while we had from our Mexican brothers.

Somewhat regrettably, the reasons given during the discussion about separation were primarily practical and not theological. Recently the RPCNA similarly dismissed their Canadian churches to be a separate denomination. I shared this quote from an RP article about the formation of the Reformed Presbyterian Church of Canada giving a theological justification for the separation on the floor of our Synod meeting:

God created the nations according to their languages, clans, lands, and the boundaries of their dwelling places (Gen. 10:5, 20, 31-32, Acts 17:26), and the Lord Jesus Christ commissioned His Church to make disciples of every nation (Matt. 28:19-20, Luke 24:45-47).

Our understanding is that the universal visible Church is distributed regionally among the nations of the earth. We note the prophetic promise in Isaiah 49:23, which states that kings shall be foster fathers and queens nursing mothers to the Church. And the Larger Catechism Q. #191 reminds us that when we pray “Your Kingdom come,” we are asking God to grant that the civil magistrates of every nation will maintain the Church within their lands.

I believe the RPs including the RPCNA have a "Global Alliance" to foster communication between the different national RP churches which may work a little better: https://rpglobalalliance.org/

 

[py3ak]

Even if national churches are the ideal, is there anyone who would claim it's illegitimate to cross national boundaries as a temporary staging or reformation effort?

 

[Charles Johnson]

Even if national churches are the ideal, is there anyone who would claim it's illegitimate to cross national boundaries as a temporary staging or reformation effort?

No, I don't think anyone would say that.

 

[yeutter]

Should denominations cross international boundaries, or should each separate country constitute its own denomination?

The African congregations kept the Methodists from going full woke for half a generation, and forced an exit path for many to flee. So that's a plus for internationalism. The Africans in the Anglican communion also provided support to the faithful in the Episcopal Church.

When you travel do you always attend a congregation that is in your denomination?

A question we need to answer, before we answer Ruben's initial question is: should we even have denominations/Church federations?

We could look at the history of Ruben's own Reformed Church of the United States, to see how complicated this question is historically. When Reformed Germans and Hungarians first came to the States from Prussia, Württemberg, and the Österreich they often did not feel comfortable joining the Reformed Church of America because they were ethnically Netherland Dutch, and because the Germans, and Hungarians sang hymns and the Netherlanders did not. So they formed their own German and Hungarian speaking Church federations, which over time became several geographic Classis and the Reformed Church of the United States.

Over time some of the leading Reformed Church United States pastors, John Williamson Nevin and Philip Schaff developed their own theological perspective, Mercerburg Theology, that differed from what was taught in Dutch Reformed Churches or at Princeton Seminary. New German Reformed immigrants, especially those in the upper Great Plains did not fully agree with the Mercerburg theology, many of these men were Wolgadeutsche, or from the Schwäbische Diaspora, often they were pietists and heavily influenced by the theology of Hermann Friedrich Kohlbrugge. But they found a congenial place to minister to their congregations in the West in the several Classis of the Reformed Church of the United States that were founded in the Upper Great Plains. When the Reformed Church of the United States gave in to ecumenism and apostatized; the faithful Eureka Classis stayed out of the merger and continued to be a faithful German Reformed witness.

Do we really need a denomination, or is a regional Diocese / Classis / Presbytery sufficient to preserve/defend orthodoxy? Are denominations necessary to do mission work?

Yes, African Anglican Provinces played a role in preserving orthodoxy within Anglicanism in the West. But the Anglican Province of Kenya, and others in Africa, also spread/ normalized Pentecostalism within the Anglican communion. In fairness Africans are not the only one to blame, Lesslie Newbigin also contributed to the acceptance of Pentecostalism and Anglo Catholicism within Anglican Communion world wide.

When we live abroad we usually attend an English speaking service of an Anglican Church. But in Singapore, where the Anglican Archdiocese of Singapore is Pentecostal friendly, we attend a Bible Presbyterian Church, in Chiang Mai Thailand, [which is also within the boundaries of the Anglican Archdiocese of Singapore] we regularly attended Trinity Baptist Church, a sovereign grace land mark Baptist Church, although sometimes we attended one of the two Bible Presbyterian Churches in Chiang Mai. When we lived in Hua Hin we attended a bilingual independent fundamentalist Baptist congregation. When we visit Bangkok we attend Christ Church, which is Anglican.

We sponsor an indigenous Church planter in Nepal. We have not encouraged him to seek to affiliate with the Anglican Deanery of Nepal. They would not receive him anyway, because they are Pentecostal, and he is generally Reformed.

 

[py3ak]

A question we need to answer, before we answer Ruben's initial question is: should we even have denominations/Church federations?

That is a more basic level question, but I have a practical purpose for asking, and denominations are not going to disappear by Monday!

 

[Edward]

When you travel do you always attend a congregation that is in your denomination?

Define "attend". I've watched my home church's services live streamed while eating supper in Germany. Does that qualify? The handful of PCA churches were too far to get to from where we were.

 

[CathH]

Even if national churches are the ideal, is there anyone who would claim it's illegitimate to cross national boundaries as a temporary staging or reformation effort?

I don't think so. I have wondered about this, in the context of, say, a Scottish presbyterian church committed in principle to the establishment principle, yet with a presbytery whose geographical boundaries include congregations in both Scotland and England. Presumably the argument would be that church business takes priority over state boundaries, even though on a practical level congregations in the same presbytery will be interacting with different civil authorities.

 

[Jake]

I don't think so. I have wondered about this, in the context of, say, a Scottish presbyterian church committed in principle to the establishment principle, yet with a presbytery whose geographical boundaries include congregations in both Scotland and England. Presumably the argument would be that church business takes priority over state boundaries, even though on a practical level congregations in the same presbytery will be interacting with different civil authorities.

I've wondered how this works out with the FPCoS as your church has congregations in quite a few countries for such a small church, while as you said holding to the establishment principle. Do you know if anything has been written on this?

By the way, I had a lovely time worshipping at the Edinburgh FP Church last week.

 

[CathH]

I've wondered how this works out with the FPCoS as your church has congregations in quite a few countries for such a small church, while as you said holding to the establishment principle. Do you know if anything has been written on this?

By the way, I had a lovely time worshipping at the Edinburgh FP Church last week.

That is so lovely to hear!

To my knowledge, nothing has been written on this. It would be interesting to see, if anybody ever did. I suppose historically some of the congregations outside Scotland would have been expat Scots, rather than outreach or plants or whatever, so perhaps there has not been much intentionality or reasoning-from-first-principles about how it should work. It does mean that different congregations are affected by different legal systems (eg the marriage service in England compared to Scotland, different tax systems, etc). I might surmise that the optimistic eventual outcome envisaged might be for each nation to have at least enough congregations to form its own presbytery, even if only to simplify the legal situation and in the interests of things like respecting cultural homogeneity. There could also be a case (on the basis of the establishment principle) that those presbyteries should ideally be expected to grow into their own synods and assemblies in a way which would allow them to become fully fledged churches in their own nation, no longer branches of the "... of Scotland" church. Which is effectively what you have described above in terms of Synods maintaining full fraternal relationships.

 

[ArminianOnceWas]

The African congregations kept the Methodists from going full woke for half a generation, and forced an exit path for many to flee. So that's a plus for internationalism. The Africans in the Anglican communion also provided support to the faithful in the Episcopal Church.

Your statement may contain partial truths but.....

The Africans did not force the exit path, the 2019 General Conference minutes demonstrate that fact.

Moreover, over 90% of the African bishops/clergy/churches remained in the UMC. They determined the LGBTQ+ issue was not their fight.

Lastly, the 2020 General Conference minutes (which occurred in 2024) clearly demonstrate that the African delegation was instrumental in passing the legislation to permit LGBT+ ordination and marriages.

These are the facts.