About RED
Can Reformed churches dialogue more with one another? Can they work together more? Can they cooperate more to share pulpits, plant churches, and spread the gospel to the ends of the earth?
RED exists to encourage those activities. The (R)eformed (E)cclesiastical (D)dialogue aims to promote genuine ecclesiastical fellowship within Confessionally Reformed churches. We highlight six avenues that accomplish this goal within the institutional church:
1) Pulpit exchange: Pastors display ecclesiastical unity when they share their pulpits with pastors of other NAPARC churches.
2) Joint services: Many Reformed churches have a tradition of holding joint services with other NAPARC churches.
3) Joint Conferences: NAPARC churches in the same geographical region have held conferences in which each pastor teaches an aspect of a common theme.
4) Tradition Interchange: Many pastors teach through the confessions of their own Reformed church, but secondarily supplement their own confessions with those of other Reformed churches. Six Forms of Unity: Westminster Confession of Faith, Westminster Larger Catechism,Westminster Shorter Catechism, Belgic Confession, Heidelberg Catechism, and Canons of Dort.
5) Church Planting: Many pastors devote themselves in every way possible to assist in planting Confessionally Reformed churches.
6) Overseas Missions: NAPARC churches are taking the gospel to every corner of the globe.
RED exists as a channel for Reformed ecumenicity. Dialogue leads to relationships which lead to cooperation. We also aim to be cheerleaders for ecclesiastical fellowship – to promote it and encourage it. Let us know where it is already taking place so we can fan the flame of institutional cooperation.
Comments
Dan Borvan
J.Beaird
niclazz
Mark VPol
Zac Wyse
Question. What would you guys do with London Baptist 1689 guys? Also, do you have an opinion on working with any Acts 29 churches? Just wondering since I came out of a reformed baptist church when I lived in California (affiliated with FIRE) and have a few friends who are PCA doctrinally but go to A29 churches. One of them is actually just starting a church plant. Do any of you have an opinion on working outside the 6 forms, with people who are almost identical doctrinally?
Hi John. On a personal level, I love LBC 1689 Baptists and their confessional drive. I hope and pray that they can have greater influence in the SBC and, of course, in ARBCA. I am also appreciative of Acts 29 with their attention to doctrine and a more serious Christianity. I am encouraged by their interest in historical theology and the Reformed tradition. So, I would love to work with those guys in any capacity on a personal level. I think that all members of RED would agree.
On an institutional level, however, RED is limited to NAPARC churches. It is not that we do not like non-NAPARC churches or that we do not recognize non-NAPARC churches. It is just that NAPARC has already built the foundation in that we have formal ecclesiastical union with one another. I can cooperate with non-NAPARC guys on a personal level but I cannot have formal ecclesiastical fellowship on an institutional level because we do not have ecclesiastical relations. It is not about my non-NAPARC friend and me at that point; it is about the institutional churches represented. RED works to accomplish goals on the institutional level.
We founded RED because we saw a need for NAPARC churches to dialogue toward greater ecclesiastical fellowship. These types of dialogues exist already in Acts 29, the Gospel Coalition, etc. NAPARC churches, however, do not have a great track record of working together to accomplish ecclesiastical goals, i.e. missions, church-planting, pulpit sharing, joint services. Unlike Acts 29, TGC, and others, RED is intrachurch – we work within the bounds of the institutional church to execute ecclesiastical business.
We want to see the personal relationships that develop within RED help to bridge the gap between NAPARC churches. It would be great if two RED pastors began to swap pulpits, hold joint services, and do conferences together, – all with approval of their local session/consistory. Then they could go to their respective presbytery/classis and persuade other pastors to work together in their cities and perhaps even sponsor church plants or missions with other NAPARC churches at the regional level. These are all at the institutional level.
Sorry, that was a long answer to a very important short question. Thanks, John.
Thanks for the response.
I figured that it might be limited institutionally to NAPARC, but I just wanted to clarify. I still hope to be involved in any way that I can given the opportunity.
John, have you read all the resources we posted on ‘Take the RED Pill…’ ???
Not yet. I plan on ordering the first two books this weekend, and the Doctrinal Intregrity I’ll probably have to find online (I hate reading on my computer but it is out of print) and the Carl Trueman piece is on my list to read tonight.
http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualNLs/DI_ch0.htm
Is that the full Samuel Miller book?
Hey John, sorry it took so long for me to get back to you. Yes that is the miller book online. Still waters has a lot of lost classics. Another book thats good to read is Recovering the Reformed Confession by R. Scott Clark. Not everyone agrees with me on this but if your open to it, then it could be very helpful. I just re-read it for my ecclesiastical exams. Also do you follow http://www.oldlife.org blog? Its good but it is also like walking into the middle of a conversation so you have to give it some time.
[...] Ethos-Tenacity [...]
Question: What about the RPs?
I understand the basic unity expressed in the “six forms of unity.” But the RPCNA adheres to the Westminster Standards, AND the Testimony of the RPCNA. Why should we cooperate in the ways described above with those who oppose our Testimony on various points?
Think of it from the perspective of confessional church membership — how can you admit someone to the Table (or into your pulpit) who rejects your church’s subordinate standards? But the Testimony is an integral part (and the most distinctive part) of our standards; it is part of our fundamental law, together with the Confession of Faith and Catechisms.
http://oldlightcovenanter.wordpress.com/2011/02/09/r-j-george-the-interchange-of-pulpits/
Hi OLC,
Excellent post on the interchange of pulpits. That was very informing. I appreciate the RPCNA’s adherence to the Standards and the Testimony. Unlike mainline presbyterians and reformed, RPs take their confessional documents seriously. I admire the concern to closely guard the pulpit. If the distinctive parts of the RPCNA’s standards prohibit ministers and sessions from participating in pulpit exchange, cooperative church planting, and foreign missions, then stand by your standards. You are men under authority and must abide by that authority.
This is why RED first and foremost promotes ecclesiastical fellowship within one’s own particular denomination. We exist to help RPs work together with RPs, OPs to work together with OPs, etc. I confess ignorance as to the level of cooperation amongst churches in the RPCNA. If you guys are anything like the rest of NAPARC, it could likely be improved, at least to “excel all the more.” We want to see more intra-denominational cooperation. And if RPs are unique in NAPARC at working well together, then you owe it to the rest of us to teach us how to do this in our own denominations. We must learn from you. We need your help to overcome the squabbles within our respective communions so that we can work to accomplish the Great Commission.
That is my first encouragement – excel all the more within the RPCNA in pulpit exchange, joint services, conferences, church planting, and foreign missions. Second, there are ways for RPs to fellowship with other NAPARC churches other than pulpit exchange. Could you hold joint services with another NAPARC congregation if they were held at the RPCNA? The RP pastor preaches and the liturgy is the same. The only difference is that you welcome the other congregation into your church. Could you hold joint services with another NAPARC congregation at their church? What if they agreed to use the RP Psalter and sing a cappella? Why not hold a joint conference with another NAPARC congregation? You could open it up to the community and teach different aspects of reformed theology. We have many ways to fellowship ecclesiastically beyond pulpit exchange.
But what about the context of foreign missions? Despite my differing views on covenant, I would heartily support an RPCNA mission work in an area darkened to the gospel. If an RP was planting a church in China and needed my help, I am all in. Again, we agree on too much and the need for the gospel is too great for me to refuse. It makes more sense for me to aid the RP than to wait for the OPC to plant a church in that region. Would I prefer an OPC? Sure, but I recognize that we cannot go everywhere. We have formal ecclesiastical relations with the RPs and formal confessional unity on most areas of doctrine. This is not to minimize the distinctive parts of the RPCNA’s standards, but to stress the areas of agreement. Of course, this approach applies only to NAPARC churches. I do not have institutional relations and confessional unity with Southern Baptists, Acts 29, or any number of other communions.
I am iure divino presbyterian. The BCO of the OPC reads iure divino presbyterian. I strongly believe that Christ “has ordained government in his church” (OPC BCO 1.2). However, I participate in ecclesiastical fellowship with those who are not iure divino presbyterian. I will cooperate with them to plant non-iure divino churches around the world as we seek to accomplish the Great Commission. We agree on too much and our institutional relations are too secure for me to avoid cooperation. Now, I am not bound by the same level of ecclesiastical law with regard to these matters as an RP. If those laws prohibit cooperation in foreign missions, by all means, adhere to them. But if there is room to work together with other NAPARC churches in mission contexts, we must do all that we can to take the gospel to the ends of the earth.
So, RED wants to assist the RPs in growing stronger as a church and cooperating together. We would also love for the RPCNA to cooperate with other NAPARC churches in the Great Commission. What is the best way for RPs to contribute in light of your standards and ecclesiastical law? Pray.
Love the idea and would love to participate!
Dan,
I should clarify that this is no longer the pattern in the RPCNA. Our congregations regularly have pulpit exchanges with other NAPARC churches; we currently have an agreement with the ARP Synod to have one of our ministers preach at their Synod, and one of their ministers preach at ours.
The views set forth on my site are representative of our older commitment to a strictly close communion — allowing ecclesiastical fellowship (whether congregational, ministerial, or sacramental) only when found to be in agreement with our subordinate standards. I question why we ought to be involved in organizations such as NAPARC or the ICRC, or have fraternal relations with denominations that reject our subordinate standards or distinctive principles. I would like to see our denomination return to our historic positions, and am maintaining this site to encourage such a return.
I would simply argue that the very principle of unity set forth by NAPARC — unity on the basis of our common confessional commitment — actually requires us to forego such unity with the other NAPARC denominations; since we have a Testimony (of the same authority in our church as the Confession of Faith and Catechisms) that has no standing or recognition in any other NAPARC denomination, or in NAPARC as a whole.
OLC,
Thanks for the clarification. You bring up some interesting points and certainly have educated me on the history of the RPCNA. This is exactly the kind of dialogue that RED seeks to promote. You articulated your position, apparently the historic RP position, in a clear and winsome manner. Thank you for that. I hope that dialogue such as this leads to greater cooperation, rather than disassociation. However, I applaud your commitment to your standards. Godspeed.
[...] Ethos-Tenacity [...]