In November 2025, three members of the PRCA’s Committee for Contact with Other Churches traveled to Beaver Falls, PA to attend the annual three-day meeting of NAPARC: the North American Presbyterian and Reformed Council (this year was the 50th anniversary). The council is ecumenical, meaning interdenominational in this case, and comprised of 13 member denominations, which range in size from very small—only five congregations with 275 members and two active pastors, to very large—about 1,700 congregations with 400,000 members and 5,000 ministers. Size differences notwithstanding, all express determination to maintain the Reformed (Three Forms of Unity) and Presbyterian (Westminster Standards) creeds. The Protestant Reformed Churches in America are not a member denomination of NAPARC but attend with three other denominations as invited guests called “observers.” In all, there were about 75 men present at the meetings this year, with anywhere from two to six representing each denomination.

The PRCA has attended NAPARC as observers on and off since 1990. We were mostly absent in the decade of the 2000s, but since 2010 have regularly attended as directed by synod.

Our Contact Committee’s (CC) constitution (in VII.E.1-3) describes in detail the PRCA’s view of ecumenical councils—what these councils are and are not, and what determines whether we can observe or join them. You can find this constitution in the back of the PRC Church Order book, or at prca.org (under “Resources” and “Denominational Resources” and “Committee Constitutions”). At bottom, the purpose of all the CC’s work is stated in the constitution’s preamble: “…it is [our] sacred duty to manifest the true unity and catholicity of the church on earth in as far as that is possible….”

WHAT HAPPENS AT NAPARC MEETINGS?

The three days are divided about equally into public meetings, where all the men are present, and private bi-lateral meetings, where two denominations discuss matters of mutual concern.

At the public meetings, each denomination is asked to give a report about its status and needs, after which another denomination asks follow-up questions and then prays for that church. Although we are only observers, we are given this same opportunity as the members. We gave a summary of our statistics, mentioned our 100th anniversary celebration and the publication of our revised Psalter, recounted briefly our recent schism and the troubles surrounding sexual abuse, and reminded them of our distinctives regarding particular grace, the preaching of the gospel, and divorce and remarriage.

In the private meetings we sat down with men from five denominations: Canadian Reformed, Free Reformed, Heritage Reformed, Orthodox Presbyterian, and United Reformed. These meetings were most profitable because they gave opportunity to discuss doctrinal positions and distinctives. Among other topics, we were able to explain our view of the preaching of the gospel over against the well-meant offer, our view of children in the covenant and church, and why we still are only observers and not yet members of NAPARC. At these bilateral meetings, churches have admonished one denomination about their view of women deacons, which has brought them to reexamine the practice. Strong admonitions have been given about the errors of the Federal Vision and of theistic evolutionism. A few years ago, our delegation warned the URC “about the connection between the conditional covenant and FV [Federal Vision] theology.” The Presbyterian Church in America (PCA, the largest denomination) has been rebuked for some of its practices.

DENOMINATIONAL DISTINCTIVES

What becomes clear in these meetings is that each denomination is firmly committed to its own distinctives. This is significant because, in two places in the CC’s constitution, the PRCA is forbidden to participate, either as observers or members of a council, if that would “bind us as churches to anything that would compromise our distinctive Reformed identity as churches.”

There are two important matters here. On the one hand, our synod wrote into the CC’s constitution that the PRCA desires to participate in interdenominational councils: “The Committee shall participate in ecumenical councils.” The constitution defines what a Reformed ecumenical council is: a gathering of churches who are committed to Scripture and the Reformed creeds, who recognize each other as true churches, but who have “significant differences in doctrine and practice that keep them from forming into one denomination.” In other words, our synod recognized the possibility and legitimacy of joining a council of churches who both hold the Reformed creeds and yet have significant differences from us. Therein lies a question: “What might be these significant differences that both allow contact but preclude close fellowship?” This is a question that also arises in a more important relationship—a “corresponding relationship” with other churches.

To get an overview of our interdenominational relationships, note that we have three kinds of contacts with other denominations: sister-church relations (closest), corresponding-church relations (less close), and participation in ecumenical councils (least close). We fully embrace our sisters (Covenant PRC in Northern Ireland, the PRC in the Philippines, and Covenant ERC in Singapore), freely exchanging members and ministers. If these churches were in our country, we could be one denomination. Next, if a church is close to us, yet not close enough to become a sister, we can establish a “corresponding relationship” with them. This relationship recognizes two things: 1) that we ought to manifest unity with these churches in some way; 2) but that they are different enough to preclude full unity. Our brothers and sisters in the EPC in Australia and the BERG in Germany are examples.

Then there is the possibility of participating in an ecumenical council, which would be contact even less close than in a corresponding relationship. We recognize that churches in such a council will have greater differences from us than those of the corresponding relationship. Would they be denominations like those in NAPARC? The differences in these include a different view of the covenant (CanRef), an acceptance of common grace and the well-meant offer (URC, and others), a different view of covenant children (Heritage Reformed, Free Reformed), or an allowance of certain forms of theistic evolutionism.

The CC’s constitution calls us both to have contact with other churches in ecumenical councils and warns about risking our Reformed identity and distinctives. We may be observers in a council if this does not “bind us as churches to anything that would compromise our distinctive Reformed identity….” And we may become members if “we can agree with the obligations of membership…without compromising any of our Reformed distinctives….”

So the CC’s constitution calls the committee to face two questions: 1) What might tempt the PRCA to compromise important distinctives and how could she avoid it? 2) What makes a difference significant enough that she may not become a member because of it?

TWO MORE IMPORTANT ELEMENTS

The Contact Committee’s constitution includes two other significant matters.

First, a council in which we would be willing to participate will “facilitate discussion” of 1) “doctrines and practices that divide them as well as those they have in common”; and 2) “current heresies and practices that threaten Reformed and Presbyterian churches.” The CC has been eager to raise such things in the private bi-lateral meetings with other denominations. Doctrines that divide (covenant, common grace, divorce and remarriage), and heresies that threaten (Federal Vision, theistic evolutionism), are matters on our mind to discuss with these other churches, and we have done so in the one-on-one meetings. But as guests to the council (we are observers, not members), we have not been able to suggest discussion topics for the public and general meetings. And this is why some of the other denominations have urged us to become members of NAPARC: so that the PRCA can have a larger voice in the council. For now, the decision of Synod 2017 holds: we will remain observers because, synod judged then, NAPARC has not shown sufficient commitment to the confessions. That synod said some of the denominations have “exonerated those who embrace the teachings of the Federal Vision” (an accusation judged by some at NAPARC’s 2018 meeting to be a violation of the ninth commandment) and allow as “member denominations those who teach a doctrine of creation that does not interpret literally the Genesis creation account.”

All this makes it clear that our churches need to face the question: Which erroneous teachings would, and which would not hinder the PRCA from becoming a member of an ecumenical council? A form of theistic evolutionism in some of the denominations forbids us to join a council, but allowance of divorce and remarriage does not preclude a (closer) corresponding relationship. What is the difference?

Second, the CC’s constitution defines an ecumenical council as one that does not “cooperate in missions, seminary training, or other work belonging to the sphere of a denomination (instituted church).” That is, the PRCA will not join with churches to do mission work or train ministers.

NAPARC churches do not unite in seminary training of ministers or do joint missions. Member denominations agree to be careful when doing mission work in the vicinity that another denomination is working (the “comity agreement”), which shows that the denominations want to do their own distinctive mission work. One area of cooperation in work the PRCA would consider “denominational” is diaconal relief. Where hurricane relief was given in a large area, some “disaster relief” committees of a few NAPARC churches joined hands.

PRACTICES WE HAVE IN COMMON

Finally, our constitution calls the CC to discuss practices we have in common with other churches. Under this category would fit the subject of confronting sexual abuse. This subject is such a concern in the other denominations that one of them proposed a call for “prayer, fasting, and days of humiliation regarding the rise of clergy/member sexual misconduct in NAPARC Churches.” NAPARC adopted the proposal to recommend such a day to the churches. Last year the churches discussed the possibility of forming a “third-party” committee to help member churches who wanted assistance from a Reformed organization. An ad hoc committee was formed, the PRCA was invited to participate, and the CC has delegated two to attend ongoing meetings to discuss the feasibility of such a committee. It is possible that the PRCA synod sees a recommendation along these lines.

The CC judges that attending NAPARC has been profitable for the PRCA and plans to send observers again in the fall of this year. The CC also believes, according to the reports from other churches, that the PRCA’s presence at NAPARC is a healthy testimony to the Reformed faith which is beneficial to the other denominations.