Danny Hyde (our pastor and my colleague at OURC) sent me a link to a blog written by someone (apparently) in a Canadian Reformed Congregation taking issue with something I wrote in the HB on 1 January of this year. The substance of the criticism seems to be that he understood me to be implying that Canadian Reformed Congregations are not true churches. This inference does not follow from what I said and assumes at least one false premise if not two. Here's my response (with some elaboration):

*** 

I'm the fellow who wrote the Heidelblog in question. I'm not sure I understand your post correctly.

First, I believe that Escondido URC is Twinned with Langley, BC. I might be wrong about this, but I don't think we at OURC are.

Second, I don't think the post said or even necessarily implied anything about the CanRC.

Third, The post seems to ignore a crucial distinction which the Heidelblog made, i.e., the distinction between the two modes of communion in the covenant of grace. I've written on this at length in the Confessional Presbyterian Journal and the Outlook this year so I won't repeat that material here. In short it means that the Reformed have always distinguished those who have only an "external" relation to the covenant of grace, who are baptized but who do not believe from those who also have an "internal" relation to the covenant of grace. Those in this category have inherited the benefits of Christ by grace alone, through faith alone in Christ alone.  Both sets of folk are "in the covenant of grace" but they are not "in the covenant of grace" in exactly the same way.

Those who have only an external relation to the covenant of grace may be said improperly or broadly to have a "conditional" relation to the covenant of grace, if the condition is understood to be faith as defined by Heidelberg Catechism 21 and Belgic Confession Articles 22-23. Faith in the act of justification is "resting and relying" and a "certain knowledge and a hearty trust." It is not "trusting and obeying." See also Covenant, Justification, and Pastoral Ministry, in which there are   two essays on sola fide. Properly, Witsius said, we should speak of faith (sola fide) as the "instrument" of justification and thus the instrument of receiving the benefits of the covenant of grace.

With this distinction in mind, the "conditional" language used in the CanRC form of baptism is fine. If the distinction is  ignored and if every baptized person is said to be in the covenant of grace in the same way "head for head," ("all or nothing") well, that's problematic.

Surely you're not saying that all CanRC congregations agree with the FV are you? Our CERCU has never been told that and so it would be news to us in the URC.

Your post also raises the question not only of ecumenical relations between the URC and the CanRC (about there are at least two overtures from two classes coming to the URC Synod this year) but it also raises the specific question of how we communicate with each other.

 I'm sure that I'll get an email or two chastising me for conducting ecumenical relations via the internet. Well, I reply by saying that our Classis (and others) made a good-faith (bona fide) effort to communicate with our CanRC brothers and sisters through our Committee on Ecumenical Relations and Church Union (CERCU). Through them our classis posed a series of important questions to the ecumenicity committee of the CanRC. In turn, they replied that they could not speak for all the CanRC congregations. I think we knew that. What we wanted them to do and what they seem strangely unwilling to do is to ask the pastors and consistories of the CanRC  the questions  our classis and others put to the  CanRC. 

Why did the CanRC committee refuse to put these questions to the congregations/consistories of the CanRC? I say "strangely" because they then asked our committee about approaches to creation in the URC! Surely they knew that Synod Escondido adopted a statement on creation to which all ministers and consistories in the URC have submitted. Second, if they are unwilling to even put these questions about covenant, justification, and baptism to the congregations in the CanRC why should they ask us about creation? Honestly, I struggle to understand this line of reasoning.

As I've been saying since Synod Escondido (and I said it on the floor of Synod so it's not a secret), I've no objection to getting married, as it were, to that nice Canadian girl (CanRC) but we need to get to know one another first.

We asked her representative to ask her some important questions and her representative refused!

When I was dating/courting my future wife, we discussed (and even argued) some important theological questions on our first date. Working out a common understanding of those questions was essential to the maturity of our relationship. Had she refused to answer those questions, as lovely as she was (and remains!) and as witty and attractive in every way, I don't know we could have continued dating. It would have been even weirder had she, having refused to answer my questions,. then turned to me and asked me to answer question to which I had already published formal, ecclesiastical answers! I suppose I might have got the impression that she wasn't really paying attention to me or perhaps that she didn't really care what I thought.
 
Over time her views changed to conform to the Reformed confession of Scripture, but the fact that she was willing to have an honest and vigorous discussion about these issues said as much to me as her point of view.

I'm not sure what is going to happen at Synod Schereville/Palos Heights this summer, but whatever happens, I hope we find a way to have an open discussion with our CanRC brothers and sisters about these issues. I know that when I've discussed these things privately with CanRC brothers those discussions have been fruitful and stimulating and we've come to a better understanding and even agreement on many things!  For the life of me I can't understand why we can't do the same on an ecclesiastical level.