GS 2019 – Article 86 – Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC)

3. Considerations

3.3    The presence of an OPC presbytery in Canada could give opportunity for our classes to send delegates to their meetings.

4. Recommendations

4.2    To mandate the Committee for Contact with Churches in North America (CCCNA):

4.2.2    To encourage neighbouring classes to interact with the new presbytery in Canada when it is formed;

ADOPTED

GS 2019 – Article 149 – CRCA & CCCNA

1.Material

1.1    Report of the Committee on Relations with Churches Abroad (CRCA) (8.2.2.1)

1.2    Report of the Committee for Contact with Churches in north America (CCCNA) (8.2.3.1)

1.3    Letters from the following churches: Toronto (8.3.2.4); Grassie-Covenant (8.3.2.7); Tintern Spring Creek (8.3.2.8)

2. Observations

2.1    The CRCA and CCCNA submitted a combined report describing obstacles they encountered in operating as separate committees with a measure of overlap in their responsibilities:

2.1.1    In multi-lateral situations such as the ICRC or NAPARC, challenges arose in relation to which committee should delegate how many men. GS 2016 mandated the two committees to consult with each other on the delegation to the ICRC.

2.1.2    The two committees have inconsistent policies in some matters (e.g., whom to invite to our general synods). They have also experienced a lack of awareness about each other’s work when it came to representing the CanRC at sister churches’ General Synods or Assemblies so that they inadvertently worked at cross purposes.

2.1.3    The CRCA and the CCCNA also report that the OPC “asked if the CanRC could cross-pollinate their inter-church relations committees (CRCA and CCCNA) to make it easier for our inter-church relations committees to function together.”

2.2    Consequently, the CRCA and the CCCNA jointly recommend that Synod “mandate” the “CanRC inter-church relations committees” to do “a study of how CO article 50 can best be executed.” The committees request that the result of their study become “part of our ecclesiastical regulations.”

2.2.1    This study should include the following topics:

2.2.1.1   Whom to invite as delegates and whom to invite as observers to our general synods?

2.2.1.2   Who is responsible for extending this invitation?

2.2.1.3   What are the rights and privileges of delegates and observers during synod? How are they cared for during the time of synod and how can they interact with members of synod?

2.2.1.4   What synod materials are delegates and observers respectively entitled to?

2.2.1.5   Who is responsible for ensuring delegates and observers receive the materials they are entitled to?

2.2.1.6   How to have CanRC representation at multi-church conferences (e.g. ICRC, NAPARC).

2.2.2    This study should also indicate “how the CanRC inter-church relations committees might most effectively and efficiently work together.” Answers to challenges about working together ought to include matters as:

2.2.2.1   The flow of information between the CanRC inter-church relations committees;

2.2.2.2   The cooperation between CanRC inter-church relations committees;

2.2.2.3   The pros and cons of consolidating and reorganizing all inter-church relations committees into one, taking into consideration reflection on this in the past;

2.2.2.4   The pros and cons of maintaining different types of relationships.

2.3    The Toronto-Bethel CanRC supports the concept of studying how the churches can best execute our inter-church relations and offers some additional perspectives. For various reasons (e.g., Article 50 CO speaks of “churches abroad”, but migrations of peoples increasingly means that these foreign churches are in reality living in our own communities; further, becoming one federation of churches with the sister churches living on our own continent is difficult to achieve at a solely federational level). Toronto concludes that “our current practice of EF no longer suits our context and needs to be re-evaluated.” Toronto recommends that the proposed study include reflection on “if and how ecclesiastical fellowship can be acknowledged and experienced at a local/classical level while being considered at a federative level to avoid a hierarchical approach that can hinder local church interaction.”

2.4    The Grassie-Covenant CanRC shares its opinion that “adopting a more clearly defined structure to govern inter-church relationships would provide more clarity and consistency in our efforts to achieve Ecclesiastical Fellowship (EF) with other faithful churches.” As an example of a “more clearly defined structure,” Grassie-Covenant draws Synod’s attention to the 5 levels of EF used by the Heritage Reformed Congregations (with details supplied), with the suggestion that Synod consider making a decision to implement a structure in that line.

2.5    The Tintern Spring Creek CanRC advises Synod of their conviction that “it would be beneficial for our federation to have a better policy as to our purpose and method in establishing and maintaining” existing and new relations with other churches. Tintern Spring Creek feels that too many resources are currently being used in establishing and maintaining relationships. Accordingly, Tintern commends to Synod’s attention the Rules for Ecclesiastical Relations of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (with details supplied).

3. Considerations

3.1    Already at GS 2010 the CRCA requested Synod to consolidate and reorganize inter-church relations by disbanding the CRCA and the CCCNA and creating one Committee on Inter-church Relations. Synod did not follow through with that request because (among other reasons) the CCCNA had not been part of the conversation. Now both the CRCA and the CCCNA express some dissatisfaction with the full separation of the two committees.

3.2    The influx of migrants to Canada plus our growing awareness of Reformed Christian communities amongst these migrants prompts a reshuffling of the relationship between foreign mission and local mission. This in turn suggests that we do well to re-examine the interface between mandates typically given to a Committee on Relations with Churches Abroad (CRCA) (per CO Art. 50) and those given to the Committee for Contact with Churches in North America (CCCNA).

3.3    Given these new realities, our current structure for the ecclesiastical relations could benefit from a careful re-examination. Rules followed by other NAPARC and ICRC churches could assist us in improving our patterns of establishing and maintaining relationships.

4. Recommendations

4.1    Synod decide to instruct both the Committee on Relations with Churches Abroad (CRCA) and the Committee for Contact with Churches in North America (CCCNA) to jointly:

4.1.1    Do a thorough study on how CO Art. 50 can best be executed in today’s ecclesiastical realities. The items flagged in Observations 2.2-5 should be incorporated into the study.

4.1.2    Submit a report to the churches 6 months prior to the convening of the next Synod.

ADOPTED

GS 2019 – Article 117 – Free Reformed Churches of Australia (FRCA)

3. Considerations

3.2    The value of our relationship with the FRCA is evident particularly in the ongoing cooperation in theological education and mission work.

3.3    The CanRC can assist the FRCA in the production of an Australian Book of Praise and exploring possibilities for distance education from CRTS.

4. Recommendations

That Synod decide:

4.3    To encourage the Board of Governors and Senate of the Canadian Reformed Theological Seminary (CRTS) to continue contact with the deputyship for theological  education in  the  FRCA in matters pertaining to their desire to have the first year CRTS program available as distance education in the short term and their desire to establish a regional seminary in Australia in the medium to long term;

4.4    To mandate the Committee on Relations with Churches Abroad (

4.4.2    To invite the various deputyships of the FRCA to seek direct contact with the corresponding CanRC committees (e.g., our Standing Committee for the Book of Praise, Committee on Bible Translations) in areas of mutual interest where the CRCA’s mandate does not reach;

GS 2010 – Article 60

3. Considerations

3.1       It is true that at times the work of the CRCA and the CCCNA overlaps.

3.2       Should a new committee known as the CIR be formed, delegation to this committee should include Alberta. Alberta can easily be combined with Manitoba or British Columbia so that the delegation to this committee can be drawn from any one of our churches.

3.3       Unfortunately no response from the CCCNA has been forwarded to the churches. Since the proposal of the CRCA involves the CCCNA, as one church pointed out, it is inadvisable for Synod to make a decision on this matter.

3.4       There is not broad support from the churches for the proposal of the CRCA. The present two committees have a good handle on their mandates and the churches with which they are dealing. It would not be good for the continuity of this work to completely restructure these two committees.

3.5       As several churches have indicated, allowing the committee to set its own retirement dates is not wise. Continuity is important but Synod can consider that as it makes appointments with staggered retirement dates.

4. Recommendation

That Synod decide not to accept the proposal of the CRCA.

ADOPTED

GS 2007 – Article 174

Committee Changes

The advisory committee presented its proposal:

1. In connections with decisions made, it should be noted that the name of the Committee for Contact with Churches in the Americas (CCCA) has been changed to Committee for Contact with Churches in North America (CCCNA).

The CCCNA will be responsible for:

1.1   Maintaining Ecclesiastical Fellowship with:

1.1.1   The Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC)

1.1.2   The Reformed Church in the United States (RCUS)

1.1.3   The Reformed Churches in Quebec (ERQ)

1.2   Applying for membership in the North American Presbyterian and Reformed Council (NAPARC).

1.3   Investigating the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America (RPCNA).

1.4   Communicating with:

1.4.1   The Free Reformed Churches in North America (FRCNA)

1.4.2   The Orthodox Christian Reformed Churches (OCRC)

2.    It should also be noted that the Committee for the Promotion of Ecclesiastical Unity (CPEU) has been re-named The Committee for Church Unity (CCU).

The CCU will be responsible for:

2.1   Promoting unity with the United Reformed Churches in North America (URCNA)

3.   There is no name change for the Committee on Relations with Churches Abroad (CRCA).

The CRCA will be responsible for:

3.1   Maintaining Ecclesiastical Fellowship with:

3.1.1   The Free Church of Scotland

3.1.2   The Reformed Churches in The Netherlands

3.1.3   The Free Reformed Churches in South Africa

3.1.4   The Free Reformed Churches in Australia

3.1.5   The Reformed Churches in New Zealand

3.1.6   The Presbyterian Church in Korea

3.1.7   The Reformed Churches in Brazil

3.2   Maintaining membership in the International Conference of Reformed Churches (ICRC).

3.3   Gathering additional information on

3.3.1   The Gereja-Gereja Reformasi Calvinis in Nusa Tengarra Timur (GGRC-NTT)

3.3.2 The Gereja-Gereja Reformasi de Indonesia Propinsi Nusa Tengurra Timur (GGRI-NTT)

3.4   Communicating with:

3.4.1   The Free Church of Scotland – Continuing (FCC)

3.4.2   The Reformed Churches in the Netherlands – Restored (GKH)

3.4.3   The Independent Reformed Church in Korea (IRCK)

3.4.4   The Presbyterian Church in Eastern Australia (PCEA)

3.4.5   The United Reformed Churches in Myanmar (URCM)

ADOPTED

GS 2004 – Article 31

The following was adopted:

3. Consideration

Synod agrees with the committee that continuity in our contacts would be served best if at the most half of the membership of the committee would retire from the committee.

4. Recommendations

4.2   To replace at the most, half of the membership of this committee.

See CO article 30

GS 2019 – Article 139

3. Considerations

3.1    Synod agrees with the considerations provided by the CCU-C as provided above in observation 2.7. It does not make sense to reappoint coordinators for unity and subcommittees when the URCNA is taking a “breather” from these matters.

3.2    Synod agrees with the analysis provided by the Subcommittee for Liturgical Forms and Confessions as provided above in observation 2.10. The same applies to the Subcommittee for Theological Education.

3.3    Synod wishes to express that the CanRC remain committed to the pursuit of unity with the United Reformed Churches and are looking forward to reengaging in this discussion when the URCNA is ready.

4. Recommendations

That Synod decide:

4.4    To not reappoint the Committee for Church Unity (CCU – including the coordinators, the sub-committees, and related committees (Church Order, Theological Education, Common Songbook, and Creeds and Forms).

ADOPTED

GS 2019 – Article 128

That Synod decide:

4.1    To thank the Committee on Relations with Churches Abroad (CRCA) and those who assisted the committee in its work.

4.2    To thank br. J. VanLaar for his work and release him from the committee.;

4.3    To expand the CRCA to seven members.

4.4    To give the CRCA approval to request relevant documentation per Consideration 3.6 from the church responsible for the archives of general synods.

4.5    To mandate the Committee on Relations with Churches Abroad (CRCA):

4.5.1    To continue its contact with the churches abroad that synod has approved;

4.5.2    To report on any contact received from a church that seeks contact with the CanRC;

4.5.3    To appoint one of its members to validate and submit to the treasurer of the General Fund all expenses being submitted for committee work;

4.5.4    To submit its report to the churches 6 months prior to the convening of the next general synod.

ADOPTED

GS 2013 – Article 175

4. Recommendations:

That Synod decide:

4.1.      To thank the CRCA for the manner in which it has fulfilled its mandate;

4.2.      That the practice of issuing declarations by the CRCA to ministers who will be preaching in sister churches shall be discontinued;

4.3.      That those declarations must be provided by the consistories instead.

ADOPTED

GS 2019 – Article 68

2. Observations

2.4    [Re 4.3.3] The CCCNA indicated its plan to raise in the plenary sessions of the November 2018 of NAPARC, concerns about the application of the “‘Golden Rule’ Comity Agreement” and the “Agreement on Transfer of Members and Congregations” as per the mandate above. No explanation is offered why this could not already be raised at NAPARC 2016 or 2017.

2.8    The CCCNA also brings to the attention of Synod that for them to adequately fulfill their mandate, for example recommendations 4.2.3 and 4.2.5, it would be most helpful if GS 2016 had provided more information to the committee in order to address the concern(s) raised.

3. Considerations

3.3    It is regrettable that the CCCNA did not bring up the requested concerns at the 2016 or 2017 meetings of NAPARC.

4. Recommendations

That Synod decide:

4.1    To thank the Rev. D.W. Vandeburgt and br. H. VanDelden for their work on the CCCNA;

4.2    To mandate the Committee for Contact with Churches in North America (CCCNA):

4.2.1    To continue contact with all those churches in North America with which we have Ecclesiastical Fellowship (EF) according to the adopted rules, and in accordance with the mandates described in decisions taken by synod with respect to the churches with which we have ongoing relationships;

4.2.2    To investigate diligently all the requests received for entering into EF in North America;

4.2.3    To respond, if possible and feasible, to specific requests made to attend assemblies, synods, or meetings of other churches in North America;

4.2.4    To report on its findings with suitable recommendations to the next general synod, and to present to the churches a report of its work 5 months prior to the convening of the next general synod.

ADOPTED

GS 2016 – Article 49

That Synod decide:

4.1    To mandate the Committee for Contact with Churches in North America (CCCNA):

4.1.1     To continue contact with all those churches in North America with which we have Ecclesiastical Fellowship (EF) according to the adopted rules and in accordance with the mandates described in decisions taken by synod with respect to the churches with which we have ongoing relationships;

4.1.2     To investigate diligently all the requests received for entering into EF in North America;

4.1.3     To respond, if possible and feasible, to specific requests to attend assemblies, synods, or meetings of other churches in North America;

4.1.4     To report on its findings with suitable recommendations to the next general synod and to present to the churches a report of its work six months prior to the convening of the next general synod.

4.2    To discharge the Rev. P.H. Holtvlüwer, the Rev. E. Kampen, and br. C. Poppe from the CCCNA and to thank them for their years of service to the churches as members of this committee.

4.3    To recommend the questions of the Committee for Ecumenicity and Inter-church Relations (CEIR) of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) for the consideration and usage of the committee at its discretion.

ADOPTED

GS 2019

Note: GS 2019 overlooked dealing with the CRCA report on the ICRC. Thus the decision of GS 2016 continues to be the mandate for the CRCA.

GS 2016 – Article 121

3. Considerations

3.1    From their report, Synod concludes that the committee has fulfilled their mandate and expresses thankfulness for their work.

3.2    The proposed changes to the Constitution are an improvement and Synod agrees that they be adopted.

3.3    Abbotsford’s suggestion makes sense. It would be good for the CRCA to communicate with the Committee for Contact with Churches in North America (CCCNA) and Committee for Church Unity (CCU) when they consider delegation to ICRC events.

4. Recommendations

That Synod decide:

4.1    To continue the membership of the CanRC in the International Conference of Reformed Churches (ICRC);

4.2    To approve the revised Constitution of the ICRC, as recommended;

4.3    To mandate the CRCA to ensure an appropriate CanRC presence at ICRC events;

4.4    To send a delegation of two voting members and two advisory members to the next ICRC, scheduled to meet in southern Ontario in 2017, keeping in mind Cons. 3.3.

ADOPTED

GS 2013 – Article 167

4. Recommendations:

That Synod decide:

4.1.      To continue the membership of the CanRC in the ICRC;

4.2.      To send a delegation of two voting members and two advisory members to the next conference scheduled to meet in Cardiff, Wales, 2013.

ADOPTED

GS 2007 – Article 132

3. Considerations

3.1   Smithers supports a suggestion by the committee to send a delegation of adequate representation. As members of the ICRC we have the obligation to send a proper delegation. The CRCA should delegate representatives of the committee and not ask officers of the ICRC to do double duty.

4. Recommendation

4.3   To mandate the CRCA:

4.3.1   To continue the participation of the Canadian Reformed Churches in the ICRC and send two voting members and two advisory members to New Zealand in 2009.

ADOPTED

GS 2007 – Article 142

3. Considerations

3.5   The recommendations of Smithers and the CRCA regarding full delegation to the ICRC has merit seeing that at the last two meetings of the ICRC our delegation was kept to a minimum but other CanRC members present were expected to help out (i.e., the Corresponding Secretary and Treasurer of the ICRC). This put added pressure on them. It also needs to be realized that the meetings of the ICRC provide a valuable opportunity for members of the CRCA to hold additional meetings with deputies from sister churches at virtually no additional expense to the churches.

3.6   The recommendation of the CRCA whereby synod gives direction to the committee as to which churches in ecclesiastical fellowship should be visited has merit as it involves the broadest assembly of our churches in the matter of delegation. At the same time the CRCA should not be forced to rely solely on the direction of synod seeing that there may be circumstances and situations in our relations with other churches that demand an unexpected visit.

4. Recommendation

Synod decide:

4.1   To mandate the CRCA:

4.1.1   To consider requests for ecclesiastical fellowship from churches abroad in consultation with and taking note of the judgment of (in accordance with the rules for ecclesiastical fellowship re third party relationships), a sister church familiar with the church from which the request originates.

4.1.2   To respond, only if necessary, to specific requests made to attend assemblies, synods, or meetings of other churches outside the Americas, besides those visits specifically mandated by general synod.

4.1.3   To serve Synod 2010 with a report with suitable recommendations, to be sent to the churches six months prior to the next general synod.

4.2   Keeping in mind Consideration 3.6 above, synod decide to instruct the CRCA to send delegates to:

4.2.1   The General Synod 2008 of the Reformed Churches in The Netherlands

4.2.2   The General Synod 2008 of the Reformed Churches in New Zealand

4.2.3   The General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of Korea (in consultation and rotation with sister churches)

4.2.4   The 2009 meeting of the ICRC (full delegation: two delegates and two advisors).

ADOPTED

GS 2019 – Article 105

4. Recommendations

That Synod decide:

4.1    To discharge the Committee for Contact with Churches in North America (CCCNA) from the mandate given it by GS 2016;

4.2    To mandate the CCCNA to continue to represent the CanRC at NAPARC and to continue its active involvement in it;

4.3    To submit its report to the churches 5 months prior to the convening of the next general synod.

ADOPTED

GS 2016 – Article 87

4. Recommendations

That Synod decide:

4.1    To thank the Committee for Contact with Churches in North America (CCCNA) for representing the CanRC at meetings of the North American Presbyterian and Reformed Council (NAPARC);

4.2    To approve the changes made to the revised constitution and bylaws of NAPARC;

4.3    To mandate the CCCNA:

4.3.1     To continue to represent the CanRC at NAPARC and to continue its active involvement in it;

4.3.2     To convey to NAPARC the approval of the changes made to the revised Constitution and Bylaws of NAPARC;

4.2.3     To raise in discussion at NAPARC, the application of the “‘Golden Rule’ Comity Agreement” and the “Agreement on Transfer of Members and Congregations” as a reminder for the Member Churches;

4.2.4     To assist the local churches when asked about conflicts with the “‘Golden Rule’ Comity Agreement” and the “Agreement on Transfer of Members and Congregations”;

4.2.5     To address NAPARC about a lack of definition for the terms “Member Church” and “Unit Vote” in the revised Constitution of NAPARC.

 ADOPTED

GS 2013 – Article 78

4. Recommendations:

That Synod decide:

4.1.      To thank the CCCNA for representing the CanRC at meetings of NAPARC;

4.2.      To mandate the CCCNA to continue to represent the CanRC at NAPARC and to continue its active involvement in it;

4.3.      To mandate the CCCNA to raise in discussion at NAPARC what may be perceived as a tension between Article 4 of the NAPARC constitution on “The Nature and Extent of Authority,” and the last sentence of 5.2 on “Membership,” namely, “Those churches shall be eligible for membership … [which] maintain the marks of the true church (pure preaching of the gospel, the Scriptural administration of the sacraments, the faithful exercise of discipline)”.

ADOPTED

GS 2019 – Article 61

4. Recommendations

That Synod mandate the Committee for Contact with Churches in North America (CCCNA):

4.1    To engage in continued dialogue and contact with the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church (ARPC).

4.2    To submit its report to the churches 5 months prior to the convening of the next general synod.

ADOPTED

GS 2019 – Article 124

That Synod decide:

4.1.   To thank deputies for their work and discharge them;

4.2.      To maintain contact with The Reformed Churches (DGK) and mandate the Committee on Relations with Churches Abroad (CRCA) to continue to monitor developments within this federation, paying special attention to the relationship between the DGK and the Liberated Reformed Church at Abbotsford (LRCA).

ADOPTED

GS 2019 – Article 22

4. Recommendations

That Synod decide:

4.1    To continue the relationship of Ecclesiastical Fellowship (EF) with the Reformed Church of Quebec (ERQ) under the adopted rules;

4.2    To encourage the churches to support the ERQ prayerfully and financially in their missionary endeavours and special projects.

4.3    To mandate the Committee for Contact with Churches in North America (CCCNA):

4.3.1    To maintain contact with the ERQ according to the adopted rules;

4.3.2    To submit its report to the churches 5 months prior to the convening of the next general synod.

ADOPTED

GS 2019 – Article 21

4. Recommendations

That Synod decide:

4.1    To continue the relationship of ecclesiastical fellowship (EF) with the Free Church of Scotland (FCS) under the adopted rules;

4.2    To mandate the Committee on Relations with Churches Abroad (CRCA):

4.2.1    To continue personal contact with the FCS whenever that is feasible (e.g., at meetings of the International Conference of Reformed Churches (ICRC), and mutual presence at assemblies of sister churches);

4.2.2    To send a delegation to their assemblies at least once every three years;

4.2.3    To submit its report to the churches 6 months prior to the convening of the next general synod.

ADOPTED

GS 2013 – Article 161

4. Recommendations:

4.2.      To mandate the CRCA:

4.2.1.   To be available to assist the FCS and FCC in any efforts at reconciliation and reunion, should that be requested;

ADOPTED

GS 2019 – Article 18

4. Recommendations

That Synod decide:

4.1    To continue the relationship of ecclesiastical fellowship (EF) with the Free Church of Scotland (Continuing) (FCC) under the adopted rules;

4.2    To mandate the Committee on Relations with Churches Abroad (CRCA):

4.2.1    To continue personal contact with the FCC whenever that is feasible (e.g., at meetings of the International Conference of Reformed Churches (ICRC), and mutual presence at assemblies of sister churches;

4.2.2    To encourage the congregations to seek out and strengthen ties with local FCC congregations in North America;

4.2.3    To send a delegation to their assemblies at least once every three years;

4.2.4    To submit its report to the churches 6 months prior to the convening of the next general synod.

ADOPTED

GS 2013 – Article 162

4. Recommendations:

That Synod decide:

4.2.      To mandate the CRCA:

4.2.1.   To be available to assist the FCC and FCS in any efforts at reconciliation and reunion, should that be requested;

ADOPTED

GS 2019 – Article 117

4. Recommendations

That Synod decide:

4.1    To continue the relationship of Ecclesiastical Fellowship (EF) with the Free Reformed Churches of Australia (FRCA) under the adopted rules;

4.2    To express thankfulness and appreciation for the FRCA’s ongoing support for and interest in the Theological Seminary, including their financial support;

4.3    To encourage the Board of Governors and Senate of the Canadian Reformed Theological Seminary (CRTS) to continue contact with the deputyship for theological  education in  the  FRCA in matters pertaining to their desire to have the first year CRTS program available as distance education in the short term and their desire to establish a regional seminary in Australia in the medium to long term;

4.4    To mandate the Committee on Relations with Churches Abroad (CRCA):

4.4.1    To maintain close contact with the deputyship of the FRCA in matters of relations with sister churches abroad and to consult the FRCA concerning changes or developments in third party relationships;

4.4.2    To invite the various deputyships of the FRCA to seek direct contact with the corresponding CanRC committees (e.g., our Standing Committee for the Book of Praise, Committee on Bible Translations) in areas of mutual interest where the CRCA’s mandate does not reach;

4.4.3    To send a delegation to the next FRCA synod in 2021;

4.4.4    To submit its report to the churches 6 months prior to the convening of the next general synod.

ADOPTED

GS 2019 – Article 148

2. Observations

2.2    The CanRC does not have EF with the FRCNA but is a member of NAPARC together with these churches.

2.3    The CanRC and FRCNA had official interaction at the federative level from 1998-2008. In response to certain concerns of the FRCNA, in 2007 the CanRC chose to cease pursuing discussions with the FRCNA until such a time as they requested resumption of contact. In 2008 there was a brief resumption but since that time there has been no contact until 2017.

2.3.1    GS 1998 (Art. 98) decided to take up contact with the FRCNA and initiate fraternal dialogue with the FRCNA with a view towards establishing federative unity.

2.3.2    GS 2001 (Art. 92) decided to acknowledge that the FRCNA has received the CanRC into a stage of “limited contact” according to the FRNCA unity guidelines at their recent Synod, and to continue dialogue with a view to promoting federative unity, discussing whatever obstacles there may be on this path.

2.3.3    GS 2004 (Art. 85) decided to continue meeting with a view to EF, while at the same time promoting and maintaining the desire for federative unity, and to discuss whatever obstacles there may be on this path.

2.3.4    GS 2007 (Art. 105) decided to cease from pursuing discussions with the FRCNA. A letter from the FRCNA dated November 10, 2005, listed the following reasons for a reluctance to meet: 1) “the ongoing discussions and movement of the CanRC towards union with the URCNA” 2) “our meetings are too much top down.”

2.3.5   GS 2010 (Art. 30) decided to utilize NAPARC to meet the FRCNA and to conclude regretfully at this time to have no formal ecclesiastical relations with the FRNCA.

2.4    There was an informal meeting at the ICRC 2017 between FRCNA delegates and CanRC delegates of the CRCA and CCCNA. The committee also held a meeting with the FRCNA at NARPAC 2017.

2.5    With our joint membership in both the ICRC and NAPARC, there was an opportunity to renew acquaintances with the FRCNA’s external relations committee.

2.6    During the meeting on November 15, 2017, the following was discussed:

a) The reasons for the pause in our relationships over the past decade.

b) The perception of one another when it comes to the topics of experiential preaching, the regeneration of infants, and what it means that children are sanctified in Christ.

c) The mutual desire on the part of the respective committee members to resume contact and under the Lord’s blessing to have a relationship between our two federations grow without the pressure of speaking about federative unity.

  2.7     General Synod 2018 of the FRCNA decided to resume relationship with the CanRC at the FRCNA Level One correspondence. According to their rules, “Level 1 – Limited Contact” involves the following:

1. sending a delegate(s) to attend each other’s Synods (or equivalent). Visiting delegates attending our Synod may be asked for advice;

2. exchanging copies of the Acts of Synod (or equivalent)

3. offering spiritual support. This may include:

a. calling attention to each other’s spiritual and ecclesiastical problems with mutual efforts toward Scriptural solutions;

b. warning each other of spiritual dangers which arise and which spread and begin to dominate the church of Christ;

c. correcting each other in love regarding any slackening in connection with the confession or practice of “the faith once delivered unto the saints.” (Jude 3);

4. co-operative activity in areas of common concern. For example: offering material support and co-operation or consultation with regard to mission work, theological education, etc.

3. Considerations

3.2    Engaging in contact and dialogue with the Free Reformed Churches of North America (FRCNA) is equivalent to FRCNA’s Level One correspondence.

3.3    On the basis of the CCCNA report and the input from the churches, with gratitude to the Lord, it is right to accept the offer of a Level One relationship of the FRCNA.

4. Recommendations

That Synod decide:

4.1    To accept the invitation of the Free Reformed Churches of North America (FRCNA) to enter into their Level One correspondence;

4.2    To mandate the Committee for Contact with Churches in North America (CCCNA):

4.2.1  To keep the churches with which EF has already been established informed of our relationship with the FRCNA and consult with them concerning the FRCNA.

4.2.2  To submit its report to the churches 5 months prior to the convening of next general synod.

ADOPTED

GS 2010 – Article 30

4. Recommendation

That Synod decide:

4.2       To conclude regretfully that our churches at this time have no formal ecclesiastical relations with the FRCNA.

ADOPTED

GS 2019 – Article 108

3. Considerations

3.4    Given the brotherhood of the communion of saints around the globe, the current circumstances of the FRCSA make it desirable for the CanRC to be willing to assist to the degree we can. Churches possessing the means and desire to assist the FRCSA need to know that there are Canada Revenue Agency regulations regarding the need for charitable organizations which send money overseas to retain “direction and control” over how these funds are disbursed.

4. Recommendations

That Synod decide:

4.1    To continue the relationship of Ecclesiastical Fellowship (EF) with the Free Reformed Churches in South Africa (FRCSA) under the adopted rules;

4.2    To mandate the Committee on Relations with Churches Abroad (CRCA):

4.2.1    To send a delegation to the next synod of the FRCSA;

4.2.2    To recommend the FRCSA to the churches as worthy of continued and increased prayerful and financial assistance, to help them with their extensive mission work as well as the compassionate pursuits among the disadvantaged;

4.2.3    To submit its report to the churches 6 months prior to the convening of the next general synod.

ADOPTED

GS 2016 – Article 47

4. Recommendations

That Synod decide:

4.1    To continue Ecclesiastical Fellowship (EF) with the Free Reformed Churches of South Africa (FRCSA);

4.2    To mandate the Committee for Relations with Churches Abroad (CRCA) to send a delegation to the next synod of the FRCSA;

4.3    To encourage the CRTS to support the FRCSA in the training of their theological students, because of the unique circumstances of the FRCSA theological training program.

ADOPTED

GS 2013 – Article 132

4. Recommendations:

That Synod decide:

4.2.      To recommend the FRCSA to the churches as worthy of continued financial assistance, to help them support the needy churches in the federation and to assist them with their extensive mission work and relief efforts among the disadvantaged and sick in South Africa;

ADOPTED

Full text of CanRC Synod articles on Indonesia (PDF)

GS 2019 – Article 120

4. Recommendations

That Synod decide:

4.1    To enter into Ecclesiastical Fellowship (EF) with the Reformed Calvinist Churches [in Indonesia] (GGRC);

4.2    To mandate the Committee on Relations with Churches Abroad (CRCA):

4.2.1    To send a delegation to the next synod of the GGRC, planned for 2019, informing them of this decision;

4.2.2    To work in consultation and cooperation with the Free Reformed Churches of Australia (FRCA) and United Reformed Churches in North America (URCNA) as they encourage and support the churches of the GGRC in their efforts to grow in Reformed doctrine and polity;

4.2.3    To work in consultation and cooperation with the Smithville CanRC given their mission work in Timor;

4.2.4    To encourage the GGRC to foster and promote church unity among Reformed churches in Indonesia;

4.2.5    To submit its report to the churches 6 months prior to the convening of the next general synod.

ADOPTED

Full text of CanRC Synod articles on Indonesia (PDF)

GS 2019 – Article 121

4. Recommendation

That Synod decide:

4.1    To extend ecclesiastical fellowship (EF) to the Reformed Churches in Indonesia (GGRI) as a whole, being the federations of the churches in Kalimantan Barat (GGRI-KalBar), the churches in Nusa Tenggara Timur (GGRI-NTT), and the churches in Papua (GGRI-Papua);

4.2    To mandate the Committee on Relations with Churches Abroad (CRCA):

4.2.1    To try to send a delegation of brothers to Indonesia to represent the CanRC at the next national synod of the GGRI, planned for 2020;

4.2.2    To work in consultation and cooperation with the Free Reformed Churches of Australia (FRCA) in encouraging and supporting the churches of the GGRI in their efforts to grow in Reformed doctrine and polity;

4.2.3    To work in consultation and cooperation with the Smithville CanRC given their mission work in Timor;

4.2.4    To encourage the GGRI to foster and promote church unity among Reformed churches in Indonesia;

4.2.5    To submit its report to the churches 6 months prior to the convening of the next general synod.

ADOPTED

Full text of CanRC Synod articles on Indonesia (PDF)

GS 2019 – Article 121

3. Considerations

3.1    The request to “investigate” the GGRI-T with a view to establishing a sister church relation with them did not come to the attention of this GS via the ecclesiastical route.

3.2    As the GGRI-T is the fruit of mission work by Canadian Reformed Churches, we may be confident that our sister churches, the GGRI, will accept them (be it perhaps via a process) in an application to join their federation.

3.3    As the churches known today as the GGRI-T were forming and finding their way into a federation, they have been looking to the Smithville CanRC for a measure of guidance. Now that they are newly federated, they continue to look for encouragement and support from Smithville and those with whom Smithville belongs. The CRCA has experience and resources from which the GGRI-T could benefit.

4. Recommendation

That Synod decide:

4.1    To instruct the Committee on Relations with Churches Abroad (CRCA):

4.1.1    To provide assistance to the GGRI-T in its effort to join the GGRI;

4.1.2    In conjunction with Smithville to offer any other assistance within the normal ambit of CRCA work that the GGRI-T would need.

4.2    To send this decision to the Smithville CanRC as Synod’s answer to their request.

ADOPTED

GS 2019 – Article 125

4. Recommendation

That Synod decide:

4.1    To maintain contact with The Reformed Churches The Netherlands (GKN)

4.2    To instruct the Committee on Relations with Churches Abroad (CRCA):

4.2.1    To monitor developments within the GKN;

4.2.2    To consider the request from the GKN to establish sister relations;

4.2.3    To be available for dialogue with the GKN when needed.

4.2.4    To submit its report to the churches 6 months prior to the convening of the next general synod.

ADOPTED

GS 2019 – Article 41

4. Recommendations

That Synod decide:

4.1    To thank the subcommittee mandated by GS 2016 for the diligent work they have done.

4.2    With sadness to discontinue the relationship of ecclesiastical fellowship (EF) with the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands (GKv) and to implore the CanRCs to continue in prayer for the GKv.

4.3    To convey this decision, together with a letter of explanation and encouragement, to each of the GKv congregations.

4.4    To mandate the Committee on Relations with Churches Abroad (CRCA):

4.4.1    To deliver this decision and letter (see 4.3) in person to the next Synod of the GKv;

4.4.2    To submit its report to the churches 6 months prior to the convening of the next general synod.

ADOPTED unanimously.

GS 2019 – Article 104

The following text was adopted for a letter to be sent to all the Reformed Churches in The Netherlands (GKv) and brought in person to their synod 2021. The second clerk was instructed to ensure a Dutch translation is made of both the letter and the decision found in GS 2019 Art. 41.

To all the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands (liberated) (GKv)

Re: Decision on Ecclesiastical Fellowship (Sister-Church Relationship)

May 21, AD 2019

Dear Brothers and Sisters in our Lord Jesus Christ,

It is with profound sadness and heavy hearts that as Synod of the Canadian Reformed Churches held in Edmonton 2019 we write directly to you—each congregation in the federation of Reformed Churches in the Netherlands (liberated). We are taking this unusual step because of the distressing situation that has developed within your churches over the last years leading to the most recent decision of your General Synod Meppel 2017 to allow women to serve in any of the special offices. Not only has this development brought about a disruption of our long-standing and deeply cherished sister-church relationship, but, most importantly, it is offensive and disobedient to our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. The purpose of our letter is to explain our decision as Synod regarding your federation of churches, to offer a final word of exhortation, and to encourage the faithful among you to take necessary action.

As you may be aware, for more than twelve years we as churches have expressed growing disquiet with decisions made by your synods which have increasingly put our relationship as sister-churches under strain. Our General Synods 2007 and 2010, through an appointed committee, communicated to your synods of that time period serious concerns about the faithfulness of your federation to the Word of God in particular matters. To our dismay, those concerns were not alleviated but instead grew worse. Our General Synod 2013 took matters a step further by writing a letter of admonition directly to your General Synod 2014, clearly warning against the underlying faulty method of interpreting Scripture (i.e. hermeneutics) which was evident among you. Our Synod pointed out how those hermeneutics resulted in your Synod failing to maintain faithfulness to the Word of God in several matters. Once again, there was no change in the direction of your churches. Our General Synod 2016 then decided to suspend certain formal rules of fellowship with your federation in the hope that this more drastic measure would arouse your next synod to reverse course. Our Synod 2016 also appointed a committee to send a letter directly to each congregation in your federation to, as much as possible, make all consistories aware of the great seriousness of the issues and to warn against the very real threat that our ecclesiastical fellowship would be severed if there was no genuine repentance evidenced in the decisions of your next synod. With great sorrow, our General Synod 2019 received a thorough report from the appointed committee showing that not only was the warning of Synod 2016 not heeded, but Synod Meppel 2017 carried forward the hermeneutical trajectory of your previous synods and decided that the Bible permits women to serve in the offices of deacon, elder, and minister. In the address by the fraternal delegates sent to our Synod 2019 by Synod Meppel 2017, nothing was said that contradicted the findings of this report. For reasons outlined in the report and presented in our Synod Edmonton 2019 decision (see attached), this action is a clear violation of the Word of God and has forced us to terminate our ecclesiastical fellowship with you, the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands (liberated).

Brothers and sisters, we do not write any of the above with a sense of superiority or self-righteousness but rather in humility and awareness of our own sins and shortcomings. We too are susceptible to error and we pray that the Lord will open our eyes should we become delinquent in doctrine or in conduct. Daily we also need to repent as the Holy Spirit pricks our conscience. Our fervent desire is that by means of this letter, by means of the many admonitions expressed to you by us and many of your sister churches, that you as a federation of churches will also be pricked in your conscience and return to a faithful walk with the Lord in obedience to the plain teaching of His word. Please know that as General Synod Edmonton we have prayed for this very thing and rest assured that this will be the ongoing prayer of our churches for you as well. May this Word of God stimulate us all in these matters: “Good and upright is the LORD; therefore he instructs sinners in the way. He leads the humble in what is right, and teaches the humble his way” (Ps. 25:8–9).

We also are aware that many individuals and more than a few consistories have all along shared our concerns and have been praying and working for a return to faithfulness to God’s Word at the synod level. We want to encourage all such individuals, consistories, and congregations that you do not stand alone and that we wish to support you as best we can in this troublesome time. By means of this letter we would like to urge all members and consistories to “contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3) by calling your next synod to repent and return to the Scriptures, to the Reformed confession we have historically shared together. If in time that process does not produce the desired result, we would then urge you to consider your place in the  federation. As we confess in the Belgic Confession, when a church federation no longer consistently maintains the marks of the true church, it is time to come out of it and seek membership in a true church: “. . . it is the duty of all believers, according to the Word of God, to separate from those who do not belong to the church and to join this assembly wherever God has established it” (BC Art. 28). We recognize that this process will not be easy and undoubtedly will be filled with many challenges but we believe it is necessary for the glory of the Lord, the preservation of his church,  and the salvation of many souls. As a church federation we will support all such efforts with prayer, encouragement, and whatever other assistance we may be able to render. We encourage you to take up contact with our Committee on Relations with Churches Abroad in order to seek whatever help you may need ([email protected]).

Dear brothers and sisters, please receive our letter in the spirit in which it was written, the spirit of brotherly love and concern. May the Lord give you grace, wisdom, and strength as you reflect on these things and find your way forward.

Yours in Christ Jesus our Lord,

On behalf of General Synod Edmonton 2019,

Rev. Douwe Agema                                        Rev. Peter H. Holtvlüwer

(Chairman)                                                         (Second Clerk)

GS 2016 – Article 104

4. Recommendations

That Synod decide:

4.1    To express thankfulness for the Subcommittee for Relations with churches in The Netherlands of the Committee for Relations with Churches Abroad (CRCA-SRN) for their work;

4.2    To express thankfulness and joy to the Lord for much faithfulness in the Reformed Churches in The Netherlands (GKv) as well as grief and disquiet over tolerance of deviations from Scripture and confession;

4.3    To continue EF with the GKv, with the temporary suspension of the operation of EF rules 4 and 5;

4.4    To mandate the CRCA-SRN:

4.4.1     To maintain contact with the Committee for Relations with Churches Abroad (BBK) of the GKv and represent the CanRC at the next GKv Synod;

4.4.2     To inform the next synod of the GKv in writing of GS 2016’s decision;

4.4.3     To send a copy of this act of GS 2016 to each of the GKv churches, accompanied by a cover letter;

4.4.4     To monitor the work of the committee “Males / Females and Office”, as well as the decisions of the next GKv Synod regarding this matter;

4.4.5     To monitor the ongoing discussions between the GKv and the Netherlands Reformed Churches (NGK);

4.4.6     To continue to observe developments at the Theological University of the GKv in Kampen (TUK), which includes paying attention to the article by Dr. Burger;

4.4.7     To monitor the results of the GKv’s involvement with the National Synod;

4.4.8     To work in consultation with the deputies of our other sister-churches;

4.4.9     To report to the churches six months prior to GS 2019 giving special attention to the question whether or not to continue EF.

ADOPTED

GS 2013 – Article 148

4. Recommendations:

That Synod decide:

4.1.      To thank the committee for their extensive report;

4.2.      To continue at this time the relationship of Ecclesiastical Fellowship with the RCN under the adopted rules;

4.3.      To express – by letter, from this synod to the next RCN synod – our brotherly concerns in a letter of admonition as per the rules for EF (1&6) about the tolerance of deviations from Scripture and confessions that we see in our sister churches at this time. This letter will express our love for the RCN as church of the Lord and our sincere prayers for our sister church in the extremely secular European situation. But it will also describe our disquiet about the following matters:

4.3.1.   The views coming from or tolerated at the TUK which show marks of Scripture criticism and which deviate from Reformed hermeneutical principles as indicated by Articles 5 and 7 of the Belgic Confession;

4.3.2.   The work of the Deputies Men/Women in the Church appointed by Synod Amersfoort-West 2005 and Zwolle 2008, especially regarding how Scripture was treated in their reports;

4.3.3.   The growing relationship with the NRC, without resolution of crucial differences such as women in office and subscription to the confessions;

4.3.4.   A growing sense of estrangement as a consequence of the concerns mentioned above, which we hope and pray will not lead to a parting of the ways in the future;

4.4.      If churches send female delegates to CanRC synods, they will not be given synod privilege;

4.5.      To hereby express regret for the strong expressions used in statements made by some members of the subcommittee in Clarion, July 29, 2011;

4.6.      To reappoint a subcommittee of the CRCA with the following mandate:

4.6.1.   Maintain contact with the BBK of the RCN and represent the CanRC at the next synod of the RCN. If possible, the CRCA subcommittee be present when this synod’s letter is dealt with by the next synod of the RCN;

4.6.2.   Inform BBK of our decision concerning female delegates;

4.6.3.   Continue to observe developments at the TUK;

4.6.4.   Monitor the work of the Deputies concerning the Role of Women in the Church and assess its report as well as the decisions of the next Synod of the RCN regarding that report;

4.6.5.   Monitor the ongoing unity discussions between the RCN and the NRC and to review the decisions of the next Synod of the RCN regarding unity with the NRC;

4.6.6.   Review the results of the revision of the RCN church order;

4.6.7.   Monitor the results of the RCN’s involvement with the “National Synod;”

4.6.8.   Monitor the developments regarding the application of Article 67 of the RCN Church Order;

4.6.9.   Work in consultation with the deputies of the FRCA and OPC;

4.6.10. Report to the churches six months prior to General Synod 2016 giving special attention to the question whether or not we continue in Ecclesiastical Fellowship.

ADOPTED

GS 2013 – Article 165

The General Synod

of the

Canadian Reformed Churches

Meeting in Carman, Manitoba, Canada

May, 2013

To the General Synod 2014 of the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands:

 Esteemed Brothers in Christ:

Synod Carman 2013 greets the Synod of the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands (RCN). We praise our faithful God for his continuing work of grace in the midst of your churches. As observers from afar, we are thankful for the confession, worship and witness of the RCN. We recognize in your midst the faithful preaching of the gospel of salvation and that fills us with joy. Between you in The Netherlands and us in North America, there is a bond of some 60 years. Many of our members trace their ancestry to your country. With you, we find our roots in the Reformation of the 16^th century and we are united to you in our common confession of faith. Even though the present generation of Canadian Reformed believers is much less connected to Europe than in previous times, there remains among our churches, in general, a keen interest in the RCN. Ministers and other members of our churches continue to benefit from the scholarly labours of members of our sister churches in the Netherlands. We think, for example, of the Commentaar op het Nieuwe Testament (Derde Serie) which has been well received in Canada among those who can still read the Dutch language.

Even as we notice much faithfulness among the RCN, the apostolic exhortation to speak the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15) compels us to also express a number of serious concerns. We present them in humility and yet with the heartfelt desire that you would take heed to the matters we bring before you. Our rules for ecclesiastical fellowship state that “the churches shall assist each other in the maintenance, defence and promotion of the Reformed faith in doctrine, church polity, discipline and liturgy,” and shall be “watchful for deviations.” It is in this context of ecclesiastical accountability that we direct our exhortations to you.

To a great extent, our concerns revolve around the Theological University in Kampen (TUK). For some time, we have noticed the influence of critical scholarship upon the methodology and conclusions of some publications associated with the TUK. These concerns have been communicated on various occasions to the BBK Deputies and have also been expressed by our delegates at Synod Harderwijk 2011. An “Interim Report” of our Committee for Relations with the Reformed Churches of the Netherlands” was received by Synod Harderwijk which conveyed to you many of the details of our concern. In a recent letter to our Synod Carman 2013, the Deputies BBK assure us that the TUK is maintaining its character as an orthodox Reformed institution. However, there was no interaction in this letter with our specific concerns. Since we have not seen any indication that our concerns have been recognized and given a serious response, we feel the need at this time to intensify our exhortation to you. Indeed, we are appealing to you as our sister churches to return to the right path of faith in regard to the interpretation of Holy Scripture.

Specifically, we ask you as sister churches to indicate clearly that the views of Dr. Stefan Paas expressed in his dissertation, Creation and Judgment, are not in harmony with the Word of God and the Three Forms of Unity to which we subscribe as Reformed Churches. When Paas puts forward the notion that the people of Israel arose from migrant and Canaanite populations and when he calls into question the historicity of the exodus, this constitutes an attack on the trustworthiness of the Word of God. To us, it is inconceivable that a person holding such views could be appointed as a professor at the TUK. That Paas does not teach in the area of Old Testament studies is no reassurance for us. Introducing doubt about the historical veracity of the Word of God cannot be contained; eventually, it will permeate all the disciplines of theological study. It is our view that the Directors of the TUK ought to have dealt with this matter by not allowing Paas to teach at the TUK so long as he held to the views expressed in his dissertation. Failure to do so means that a foothold has been established at the TUK for the methods and conclusions of scholarship which does not take seriously the special nature of Scripture as the inspired and therefore infallible Word of God.

Similarly, we are deeply concerned about the methodology and conclusions expressed in the dissertation of Dr. Koert van Bekkum, From Conquest to Coexistence: Ideology and Antiquarian Intent in the Historiography of Israel’s Settlement in Canaan (2001). Methodologically, van Bekkum believes that the factuality of historical events in the Bible cannot be accepted without question. In evaluating the truth of statements in the Bible about historical events, says van Bekkum, scholarship must consider the evidence of archaeology and the findings of literary criticism. Only in this way can a scholar arrive at the “truth value” of a text. The end result of his methodology is that certain biblical data are not accepted at face value. For example, according to van Bekkum, the Biblical data in Joshua 10:12-14 cannot mean that the sun and moon actually stood still. Similarly, the straightforward historical statement of 1 Kings 6:1 is set aside by van Bekkum. What we observe in such scholarship is a diminished appreciation for the authority and accuracy of the Word of God. The fact that this was a dissertation promoted under the auspices of the TUK. and was awarded a cum laude designation augments our concerns. That van Bekkum was subsequently appointed to the faculty of the TUK creates grave concern among us for the future training of ministers of the RCN. Allowing such views to be presented and promoted undermines the orthodox Reformed character of the TUK and jeopardizes the training of future ministers of the Word. For the safeguarding of the RCN, we urge you as yet to deal with this matter in a way that honours the Holy Spirit who has breathed out for us the living and abiding Word of God.

In short, we believe that we are witnessing the acceptance of higher-critical scholarship in the Theological University of Kampen which is under the governance of the RCN. In our own North American context, we have observed the disastrous spiritual and numerical decline of various church federations due to the inroads of historical criticism of the Bible. Out of our love for you, we beseech you to take our concerns seriously and to be resolute in refuting opinion and scholarship which does not honour the infallibility, clarity and sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures (Article 7, Belgic Confession).

We would also like to communicate our dismay about developments in your federation of churches in regard to the matter of women in office. While your Synods have thankfully not made a decision allowing for women office-bearers, we are concerned about the process that has been set in motion. When a Committee appointed by Synod Amersfoort-Centrum 2005 developed a manual to facilitate reflection on the role of women in the church, it failed to direct the membership of your churches to what Holy Scripture says on this matter. Instead, what Scripture clearly reveals in regard to this matter became merely one option to be considered among others. Synod Harderwijk 2011 appointed deputies with a mandate to answer the question of whether Scripture permits the appointment of women to the offices of deacon, elder or minister. In our opinion, this gave evidence of a diminished regard for the plain teaching of the Bible that these offices are to be filled by faithful men who are chosen in agreement with the instructions provided through the Holy Spirit by the apostle Paul (1 Timothy 2:11-14, 1 Corinthians 14:33-35). In the RCN, as in any faithful church of the Lord Jesus Christ, the matter of women in office should not be framed as an open question. When the unambiguous teaching of the Word of God about male leadership in the church becomes a matter of debate, then we fear that a new and dangerous hermeneutical approach is showing its influence. We urge you in the Lord to defend the Biblical truth that God calls men to give leadership in the churches and we ask you to encourage your churches to resist the inroads of egalitarian thinking in regard to offices in the church.

Finally, we express our concerns about the ongoing relationship between your churches and the Netherlands Reformed Churches (NRC). As you know, the NRC allows women to be ordained to the offices of minister, elder and deacon and has recently mandated a study into whether practising homosexuals may fill the office of elder or deacon. A further reason for alarm is that full subscription to the confessions is not required of office-bearers in the NRC. When there is such deviation in the NRC from Scripture and the Reformed confession, it seems impossible to us that churches in your federation could amalgamate even with NRC churches which do not have women in office since each NRC church is part of a federation of churches and thus co-responsible for the direction of the whole. We urge you in the Lord to turn back from ecumenical relationships which are not built squarely on the truth of God’s Word as confessed in the Three Forms of Unity.

Brothers, in addressing you as we have, we do not imagine for a moment that we are above reproach or that our churches do not also face many challenges. Both your churches and ours are involved in a deep spiritual battle for the preservation of the truth of God’s Word. In this battle we need each other. We appreciate and thank the Lord for all the help you can give us to stay true to the Word of God as confessed by all of us in the ecumenical creeds and the Three Forms of Unity. In the same way, we hope and pray that you will hear our concerns and consider our admonitions and turn back from the wrong path on which you have set out in recent years. Should you stay on your present course in regard to the matters we have raised in this letter, we fear that the relationship of ecclesiastical fellowship which we have with you will be jeopardized. We urge your Synod and your churches to stand firm in confessing the whole truth of the Word of God and to defend this truth boldly and vigorously even when it is denounced and hated by the world. We hope and pray that our concerns may one day be put to rest and that our churches and yours may remain faithful until the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ in glory, majesty and power.

We look forward to your response to our next General Synod via our Subcommittee for Contact with the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands Liberated. With Christian greetings, on behalf of General Synod Carman 2013,

(Signed by the chairman and second clerk of Synod Carman 2013)

 ADOPTED

GS 2013 – Article 193

A motion was tabled to formulate a Dutch translation of the English letter to the RCN previously adopted by Synod Carman 2013 (see Article 165) in order to be also sent to the RCN. This will be done by a committee of brothers fluent in both the Dutch and English languages and will be placed in the Appendices of these Acts.  [See Appendix 21].

ADOPTED.

GS 2019 – Article 112

2. Observations

2.4    In 2017, the committee received a notice from the HRC Church Correspondence Committee that their General Synod had instructed them to “contact the Canadian Reformed Churches to discuss the possibility of entering into official ecclesiastical fellowship” with the CanRC at their Level One Correspondence (Informal Contact):

1. This informal level allows relationships to develop with like-minded churches or denominations without requiring a formal tie. This level includes only informal communication with various churches and denominations around us, both in our local community as well as beyond.
2. There is no obligation or commitment except for us to witness the Reformed Biblical truth to them.
3. Meetings with their representatives are to be held by the Church Correspondence Committee in order to determine if there is sufficient ground to bring a request before Synod that this denomination/congregation ought to be considered eligible to move to the second level of correspondence. Synod must approve of this request before any other level of correspondence can be carried out. These meetings would seek to determine the doctrinal position of the denomination or congregation and whether or not they uphold the Three Forms of Unity and/or the Westminster Standards.

3. Considerations

3.2    Engaging in contact and dialogue with the Heritage Reformed Church (HRC) is equivalent to HRC’s Level One correspondence.

3.3    On the basis of the CCCNA report and the input from the churches it would seem right to accept the offer of a Level One relationship of the HRC.

4. Recommendations

That Synod decide:

4.1    To accept the invitation of the Heritage Reformed Congregations (HRC) to enter into their Level One correspondence;

4.2   To mandate the Committee for Contact with Churches in North America (CCCNA):

4.2.1    To explore further what we have in common with the HRC and to assess if and when a decision can be made regarding Ecclesiastical Fellowship (EF) with this church;

4.2.2    To keep the churches with which EF has already been established informed of our relationship with the HRC and consult with them concerning the HRC;

4.2.3    To submit its report to the churches 5 months prior to the convening of next general synod.

ADOPTED

GS 2004 – Article 29

2. Observations

2.1   Synod Neerlandia 2001 mandated the CCCA “to further investigate the IPCM.”

2.2   The committee made numerous attempts to fulfill its mandate, but it was unable to establish any real, meaningful contact with the IPCM.

3. Consideration

The committee has fulfilled its mandate but with little or no results.

4. Recommendations

Synod decide:

4.1   To thank the committee for the attempts made to investigate the IPCM.

4.2   To declare that at this time there is no reason to pursue actively an ecclesiastical relationship with the IPCM.

GS 2001 – Article 37

Synod adopted the following:

3. Observations

3.1   Regional Synod East decided to propose to General Synod to further investigate the federation of IPCM as requested by Classis Ontario North and the Church at Toronto.

3.2   The Church at Toronto has maintained contact with the IPCM since the fall of 1996.

3.3   C.VanDam has made several visits to the Churches of the IPCM and held guest lectures at the Juan Calvino Seminary.

3.4   The IPCM has attended the ICRC as a visiting church.

4. Considerations

4.1   The material submitted contains sufficient information to justify investigation of the IPCM.

4.2   In light of the decision of General Synod 1998 to give priority, in our contact, to churches located in the Americas (Acts of General Synod 1998 art. 72, III,B, p.64), it is pertinent to pursue this investigation further.

4. Recommendations

Synod decide:

5.1   To express thanks to the Lord Jesus Christ, the Head of the Church, for allowing us to find and interact with the churches of the IPCM unknown to us before.

5.2   To instruct the CCCA to further investigate the IPCM.

5.3   To serve Synod 2004 with a report to be sent to the churches at least six months prior to the beginning of Synod.

GS 2019 – Article 102

2. Observations

2.6    Smithville notes that while the IRCK does not have the resources to continue official contact with the CanRC, the CanRC has been blessed with resources to maintain contact with these churches, even though they may be unable to reciprocate. Smithville encourages Synod “to renew the mandate to the CRCA to continue contact with the IRCK where possible”.

2.7    Hamilton-Cornerstone suggests that the CRCA’s recommendation “to end official contact” is based on incomplete information:

2.7.1    In recent years several professors of CRTS Hamilton have given guest lectures at the Theological Academy (TA) of the IRCK in Seoul (Drs. Van Dam, De Visser, Van Vliet).

2.7.2    There is a Memorandum of Understanding between CRTS Hamilton and the TA Seoul that is intended to facilitate exchange of students and lecturers. Further, two students (Sungmin Hong, Jaeyong Jung) of the TA Seoul are currently studying at CRTS Hamilton, and with their families, are members of the Hamilton-Cornerstone CanRC.

2.7.3    The Rev. Heon Soo Kim (Principal of the TA Seoul) intends to send more students to CRTS Hamilton in the future.

Hamilton-Cornerstone, therefore, requests Synod to mandate the CRCA “to continue some form of contact with the IRCK.”

3. Considerations

3.2    It is clear that the IRCK values contact with the CanRC, evident from the invitations over the years to CanRC ministers and professors to give lectures at the IRCK Theological Academy, books by CanRC authors have been translated into Korean and published by their publishing house (Sungyak (Holy Covenant) Press), and the presence of Korean students at the CRTS.

3.3    For practical reasons, the IRCK is not seeking EF with the CanRC. While it is edifying to have contact with the IRCK, it is not necessary to maintain this on an official level.

4. Recommendations

That Synod decide to mandate the Committee on Relations with Churches Abroad (CRCA):

4.1    To continue contact with the Independent Reformed Church of Korea (IRCK) where possible;

4.2    To submit its report to the churches 6 months prior to the convening of the next general synod.

GS 2016 – Article 107

4. Recommendation

That Synod decide:

4.1    To encourage the Committee for Relations with Churches Abroad (CRCA) to continue contact with the Independent Reformed Church of Korea (IRCK) where possible.

 ADOPTED

GS 2013 – Article 157

3. Considerations:

3.2.      The delegate was informed that the IRCK has withdrawn their request for relations with the Canadian Reformed Churches. The reasons given were that they already have relations with the OPC and the Christian Reformed Church in the Netherlands and that their federation is too small for more relations. They also note the visit and lectures at their seminary by Dr. C. Van Dam in 2011 and the publication of his book The Elder in Korean.

3.3.      They have requested that Synod Carman 2013 correct two errors in the Acts of Synod Burlington 2010. It is stated in the Acts that they have adopted the Three Forms of Unity, even though they have not adopted the Belgic Confession. Additionally, Article 173, Consideration 3.2 states “…they do respect the KPCK seminary,” whereas their respect is for one of the professors and they have their own seminary.

3.4.      While the CRCA proposes that we encourage the IRCK to continue contact with the CanRC, it makes more sense for synod to encourage them to seek contact with the KPCK and the RCK.

4. Recommendations:

That Synod decide:

4.1.      To make note of the above-mentioned errors;

4.2.      To mandate the CRCA to thank the ICRK for their cooperation and discussions and to encourage them to seek contact with the KPCK and the RCK.

ADOPTED

GS 2007 – Article 127

3. Consideration

3.1   The suggestion of the church at Lynden is in line with the suggestion of the CRCA. At this point it would seem sufficient to leave the contacts with the IRCK to meeting at the ICRC.

4. Recommendation

Synod decide:

4.1   Not to accept their request for sister church relations.

4.2   To ask the CRCA to relay this to the IRCK.

ADOPTED

GS 2007 – Article 129

3. Considerations

3.1   Hamilton offers no grounds why Consideration 3.2 should be reconsidered.

3.2   Synod 1977 (Art. 95) received a request from the church at Calgary that “the Committee for Contact with the Orthodox Presbyterian Church receive… the mandate to seek contact with the Reformed Presbyterian Church, Evangelical Synod, with a view to determining whether church correspondence can be established with this church federation.” This request was turned down on the grounds that “minor assemblies when making a proposal for taking up contact with other churches should supply Synods with sufficient information as it appears from decisions made by General Synod Hamilton 1962, Acts, Article 82 and General Synod Edmonton 1965, Acts, Article 141, sub II (see General Synod Toronto, Acts, Art. 64).”

3.3   Synod 1983 (Art. 150) received detailed information from the church at Ottawa regarding the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America, together with the request that synod “express its willingness to initiate contact with the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America” and appoint a committee to this effect. Synod decided not to grant the overture of the church at Ottawa and added, “The Church at Ottawa introduces a new matter which has not been dealt with at the minor assemblies and therefore has not adequately involved and prepared the churches re its overture.”

3.4   Hamilton provides no reasons why the IPB should be investigated, and no background information about the IPB. Further, the request to investigate the IPB has not come via the channel of the minor assemblies.

4. Recommendation

Synod decide:

4.1   Not to reconsider Consideration 3.2 of Article 28 of Synod Chatham 2004.

4.2   Not to charge the CCCA to study the Igreja Presbyteriana do Brasil.

ADOPTED

GS 2019 – Article 87

4. Recommendation

That Synod decide:

4.1    To express gratitude for the continued desire of the Reformed Churches in Brazil (IRB) to grow in knowledge and faithfulness;

4.2    To continue the relationship of Ecclesiastical Fellowship (EF) with the IRB under the adopted rules;

4.3    To mandate the Committee on Relations with Churches Abroad (CRCA):

4.2.1    To use every opportunity to have contact with the IRB and to provide encouragement to this federation of churches;

4.2.2    To visit the IRB at least twice prior to the next general synod;

4.2.3    To work in consultation and cooperation with the Aldergrove CanRC and Hamilton-Cornerstone CanRC (and their supporting churches), given their mission work in Brazil;

4.2.4.   To submit its report to the churches 6 months prior to the convening of the next general synod.

ADOPTED

GS 2019 – Article 79

4. Recommendations

That Synod decide to mandate the Committee for Contact with Churches in North America (CCCNA):

4.1    To continue dialogue with the Korean Presbyterian Church in America (Kosin) (KPCA-K) where feasible, with a view to getting to know the KPCA-K better over time;

4.2    To submit its report to the churches 5 months prior to the convening of next general synod.

ADOPTED

GS 2016 – Article 81

4. Recommendations

That Synod decide:

4.1    To continue Ecclesiastical Fellowship (EF) with the Kosin Presbyterian Church in Korea (KPCK) under the adopted rules;

4.2    To continue to work cooperatively with the Reformed Churches in The Netherlands (GKv) and the Free Reformed Churches of Australia (FRCA) in exercising our relationship with the KPCK in meaningful ways and continue to visit the annual General Assembly in turn;

4.3    To maintain regular communication with the KPCK as well as meet with their delegates at the 2017 International Conference of Reformed Churches (ICRC).

ADOPTED

GS 2013 – Article 155

4. Recommendations:

That Synod decide:

4.1    To continue the relationship of Ecclesiastical Fellowship (EF) with the Kosin Presbyterian Church in Korea (KPCK) under the adopted rules;

4.2    To mandate the Committee on Relations with Churches Abroad (CRCA):

4.2.1    To continue to work cooperatively with sister churches who have relations with the KPCK in exercising our relationship with KPCK in meaningful ways, and to take turns visiting the KPCK’s annual General Assembly;

4.2.2    To send a delegation to their assemblies at least once every three years;

4.2.3    To maintain regular communication with KPCK as well as meet with their delegates at the ICRC 2021;

4.2.4    To monitor the KPCK response to the GKv decision to allow women in all offices;

4.2.5    To submit its report to the churches 6 months prior to the convening of the next general synod.

ADOPTED

GS 2019 – Article 76

2. Admissibility

2.1    GS 2016 (Art. 53) agreed with GS 2013’s observation (Art. 62) that “The churches of the Canadian Reformed federation set the agenda for general synod. No church has asked us to address this issue. Synod also accepts correspondence received from churches with which we are in Ecclesiastical Fellowship. The letter from the LRCA does not fulfil either criterion.”

3. Recommendation

That Synod declare the appeal inadmissible.

ADOPTED

GS 2019 – Article 86

4.  Recommendations

That Synod decide:

4.1    To continue ecclesiastical fellowship (EF) with the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) under the adopted rules.

4.2    To mandate the Committee for Contact with Churches in North America (CCCNA):

4.2.1    To send a delegation to the general assemblies of the OPC at least once every three years;

4.2.2    To encourage neighbouring classes to interact with the new presbytery in Canada when it is formed;

4.2.3    To submit its report to the churches 5 months prior to the convening of the next general synod.

ADOPTED

GS 2019 – Article 111

3. Consideration

A similar request was made by the Hamilton-Cornerstone CanRC to GS 2013 (Art. 81), and Synod’s Consideration stated:

While Hamilton-Cornerstone’s suggestion may have merit, it would be appropriate and also helpful for Hamilton (or some other congregation so inclined) to first investigate the PCA further. If after investigation and evaluation of the PCA there is an apparent potential for fruitful ecclesiastical contact, the issue should be brought from the minor assemblies to the broader, where it may be placed on the agenda of the CCCNA for its attention. This course of action would be similar to that taken, e.g., by the church of Aldergrove with respect to the Free Reformed Churches of North America (see Acts of Synod Fergus 1998, Article 98, Consideration III.A).

4. Recommendations

That Synod decide that the above consideration serves as answer to the Flamborough-Redemption CanRC.

GS 2013 – Article 81

2. Observations:

2.1.      Hamilton-Cornerstone recommends that Synod Carman 2013 mandate the CCCNA to take up official contact with and conduct an investigation of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA).

(2.2 – 2.3 not reported)

3. Consideration:

3.1.      While Hamilton-Cornerstone’s suggestion may have merit, it would be appropriate and also helpful for Hamilton (or some other congregation so inclined) to first investigate the PCA further. If after investigation and evaluation of the PCA there is an apparent potential for fruitful ecclesiastical contact, the issue should be brought from the minor assemblies to the broader, where it may be placed on the agenda of the CCCNA for their attention. This course of action is similar to that taken, e.g., by the church of Aldergrove with respect to the FRCNA (see Acts of Synod Fergus 1998, Article 98, Consideration III.A).

4. Recommendation:

That Synod decide that the above consideration serves as answer to the letter of Hamilton-Cornerstone.

ADOPTED

GS 2007 – Article 125

From the CRCA Report

8.4. Observations

Our common membership in the ICRC was the motivation for the request for closer relations between the PCEA and the CanRC. While the CRCA delegates requested a meeting with the PCEA deputies, no meeting took place since their denomination was not represented at Synod West Kelmscott 2006.

Although there have been talks between the PCEA and the FRCA for many years, the FRCAdecided to end discussion at Synod 2006. The CRCA has taken direction from our sister churches in Australia because they have much knowledge and experience in their discussions with the PCEA.

From the Acts

3. Consideration

There are no considerations to add to the Report of the CRCA.

4. Recommendation

Synod decide:

4.1   Not to enter into relations with the PCEA.

4.2   To mandate the CRCA to inform the PCEA and the FRCA of this decision.

ADOPTED

GS 2019 – Article 101

2. Observations

2.7    Smithville notes that while the RCK does not have the resources to continue official contact with the CanRC, the CanRC has been blessed with resources to maintain contact with these churches, even though they may be unable to reciprocate. Smithville encourages Synod “to renew the mandate to the CRCA to continue contact with the RCK where possible”.

Note: the observations do not mention that the CRCA recommended discontinuing the contact as it would not result in EF.

3. Considerations

3.3    Although there are only two congregations left in the RCK, we may still be a source of encouragement to them, perhaps when delegates travel to Korea.

4. Recommendation:

That Synod decide to mandate the Committee on Relations with Churches Abroad (CRCA):

4.1    To continue contact with the Reformed Churches in Korea (RCK) where possible;

4.2    To submit its report to the churches 6 months prior to the convening of the next general synod.

ADOPTED

GS 2019 – Article 136

4. Recommendations:

That Synod decide:

4.1   To continue the relationship of ecclesiastical fellowship (EF) with the Reformed Churches of New Zealand (RCNZ) under the adopted rules;

4.2    To mandate the Committee on Relations with Churches Abroad (CRCA):

4.2.1    To express appreciation for the ongoing cooperation with the RCNZ in the mission in Papua New Guinea;

4.2.2    To send a delegation to the RCNZ Synod at least once every three years;

4.2.3    To submit its report to the churches 6 months prior to the convening of the next general synod.

ADOPTED

GS 2019 – Article 60

4. Recommendations

That Synod decide:

4.1    To continue the relationship of Ecclesiastical Fellowship (EF) with the Reformed Church in the United States (RCUS);

4.2    To mandate the Committee for Contact with Churches in North America (CCCNA):

4.2.1    To maintain contact with the RCUS according to the adopted rules;

4.2.2    To submit its report to the churches 5 months prior to the convening of the next general synod.

ADOPTED

GS 2019 – Article 80

4. Recommendations

That Synod decide to mandate the Committee for Contact with Churches in North America (CCCNA):

4.1    To engage in continued dialogue and contact with the Reformed Presbyterian Church in North America (RPCNA);

4.2    To submit its report to the churches 5 months prior to the convening of next general synod.

GS 2016 – Article 90

4. Recommendations

That Synod decide:

4.1    To express gratitude for the Reformed doctrine and practice evident in the Reformed Presbyterian Church in North America (RPCNA), evident through the contact between the Committee for Contact with Churches in North America (CCCNA) and the Inter-church Relations committee (IRC) of the RPCNA;

4.2    That the CanRC not enter into a relationship of Ecclesiastical Fellowship (EF);

4.3    That the CCCNA interact with the RPCNA at the North American Presbyterian and Reformed Council (NAPARC).

ADOPTED

GS 2013 – Article 76

4. Recommendations:

That Synod decide to mandate the CCCNA:

4.1.      To respond to the letter from the RPCNA.

4.2.      To investigate and evaluate the way in which the RPCNA understand ordination, the nature and root of the office of deacon and the authority of such an office in light of Scripture and the Reformed confessions.

4.3.      To investigate further the nature and status of the Testimony.

4.4.      To continue dialogue with the RPCNA at meetings of NAPARC.

ADOPTED

GS 2007 – Article 126

3. Consideration

3.1   The suggestion of the church at Lynden is in line with the suggestion of the CRCA. Considering the lack of familiarity, it would not seem useful to single out these particular churches for “prayerful support.”

4. Recommendation

Synod decide:

4.1   To decline the request for ecclesiastical fellowship, and thereby the request to sponsor the federation for membership of the ICRC.

4.2   To authorize the CRCA to convey synod’s decisions to Rev. Moses Ngunhlei Thang.

ADOPTED

GS 2019 – article 139

3. Considerations

3.1    Synod agrees with the considerations provided by the CCU-C as provided above in observation 2.7. It does not make sense to reappoint coordinators for unity and subcommittees when the URCNA is taking a “breather” from these matters.

3.2    Synod agrees with the analysis provided by the Subcommittee for Liturgical Forms and Confessions as provided above in observation 2.10. The same applies to the Subcommittee for Theological Education.

3.3    Synod wishes to express that the CanRC remain committed to the pursuit of unity with the United Reformed Churches and are looking forward to reengaging in this discussion when the URCNA is ready.

4. Recommendations

That Synod decide:

4.1    The Coordinators for the Committee for Church Unity (CCU-C) have completed their mandate given by GS 2016 to seek ways to facilitate the work of building unity on the local level, as well as visiting churches and Classes of the United Reformed Churches in North America (URCNA), particularly in the United States.

4.2    The CCU-C have completed their mandate given by Synod Dunnville 2016 to discuss with Committee for Ecumenical Relations and Church Unity (CERCU) of the URCNA how to make progress toward federative unity should Synod Wyoming mandate CERCU to pursue this.

4.3    The CCU-C have completed their mandate given by GS 2016 to monitor any developments in the URCNA with respect to ‘doctrinal affirmations.’

4.4    To not reappoint the Committee for Church Unity (CCU – including the coordinators, the sub-committees, and related committees (Church Order, Theological Education, Common Songbook, and Creeds and Forms).

4.5    To thank the coordinators and members of the various subcommittees for their work.

4.6    To continue Ecclesiastical Fellowship (phase 2) with the United Reformed Churches in North America (URCNA) under the adopted rules;

4.7    To mandate the Committee for Contact with Churches in North America (CCCNA):

4.7.1    To send a delegation to the synods of the URCNA;

4.7.2    To encourage the churches to continue to foster relationships with local URCNA churches. These activities could include, but are not limited to, pulpit exchanges, joint community and mission projects, and study opportunities;

4.7.3    To submit its report to the churches 5 months prior to the convening of the next general synod.

ADOPTED

GS 2016 – Article 120

1. Material

1.1    Letter from the Hamilton-Providence CanRC including 4 appendices (8.3.1.2)

2. Observations

2.1    Hamilton-Providence requests Synod to mandate the Committee for Relations with Churches Abroad (CRCA) to take up contact with the First Evangelical Reformed Church of Singapore (FERC).

2.2    Hamilton-Providence has documented its contact with the FERC.

2.3    The Free Reformed Churches of Australia (FRCA) and the FERC are sister-churches since GS-FRCA 2015

3. Considerations

3.1    The FRCA are better situated to have a sister church relationship with the FERC due to geographic proximity. The CanRC can be kept informed about the FERC through the FRCA.

3.2    Synod rejoices that the FRCA could recognize the FERC as a faithful church. Synod is not convinced that it would be beneficial for the CanRC to have Ecclesiastical Fellowship with the FERC because it is only one church.

3.3    Hamilton-Providence is free to continue its relationship with the FERC.

4. Recommendation

That Synod decide:

4.1    To deny the request of the Hamilton-Providence CanRC.

ADOPTED