Office Bearers

GS 1971 ARTICLE 93 – Declaration of agreement with Creeds

Committee IV presents:

Materials –  Agenda 8

  • K, 1 – Overture Church at Smithers, B.C.
  • K, 2 – Letter Church at Smithville, Ont.
  • K, 3 – Letter Church at Edmonton, Alta.
  • K, 4 – Communication Church at Burlington­ East, Ont.

Observations

  • 1.  The Church at Smithers proposes “to rescind the decision of the General Synod 1954, Art. 5 (“Het is niet nodig dat de afgevaardig­ den ter vergadering instemming betuigen met De Drie Formulieren van Enigheid …. etc.”) –  and requests Synod to decide that on the agenda of General Synods “is inserted as permanent point: that delegates declare their agreement with The Three Forms of Unity.”
  • 2. The Church at Smithers does not make any mention of the de­cision General Synod 1968, Acts Art. 58, “not to act upon” a similar proposal of Smithers.
  • 3.  New arguments not mentioned by Smithers in 1968, are:
    • a. “it is not an unknown practice in our Reformed Churches that agreement with the Confessions is requested more often”;
    • b. “in the history of our Reformed Churches this point of sub­scription (? Comm. IV) has always had a legal and first place on the Agenda of General Synods.”
    • c. “we can see out of the recent history” …  “that this state­ment (of Synod Homewood: ‘Its delegates subscribe themselves to the Three Forms of Unity by being delegated by churches who live on the same basis’) does not hold true”.
  • 4. The Church a.t Edmonton refutes the arguments sub 3 b. and c.
  • 5.  The Ebenezer Canadian Reformed Church at Burlington:
    • a.  criticizes Smithers’ silence about 1968;
    • b. questions the insistence of Smithers to “set apart” the General Synod from other broader assemblies in this respect;
    • c. stresses that delegates to major assemblies “come with their credentials, written by their “masters” and that it is not in the province of major assemblies, ”being a meeting of such author­ized delegates, to demand a declaration from the delegates that they are planning to obey their ‘masters’”;
    • d. questions Smithers’ argument sub 3 a.

Considerations

  • 1.  Smithers did this time indeed “relate the ground of Homewood 1954 correctly” (e.g. Acts, 1968, Art. 58 Consideration A);
  • 2. Smithers did not, in Its letter, touch the refutation of its arguments by Synod 1968. It is the opinion of your Committee IV that Smithers should have done so. Art. 46 C.O. demands that “decisions of pre­vious Synods touching these matters have been read, in order that what was once decided be not again proposed, unless a revision be deemed necessary.”;
  • 3. However, Smithers doe.1:, not ask for a “revision” of 1968, art. 58, but “to rescind’.’ 1954, art. 5. It goes around 1968 and back to 1954 with arguments different from those brought forward in 1968.
  • It is the opinion of your Committee that for that reason Art. 46 C.O. need not be applied by declaring Smithers’ request inadmissible. The new arguments against 1954 have to be considered as to their value and applicability:
  • 4.  As to the first argument (Observation 3, a), that declarations of agreement are requested “more often”, Smithers has overlooked the essential difference between:
    • a.  such a demand by consistories, addressed to brethren who start a new term of office. and to parents who received a new child (the consistory having authority and supervision over them)

and

  • b.  such a demand by general synods, “the servants of the servants of the servants” which are constituted by the delegates “with proper credentials” (C.O. art. 41).
  • The delegates to this Synod, now members of this Synod, have been charged by their delegating authorities “to deal with all matters … in submission to the Word of God, in accordance with the Confession of the Church and in adherence to the accepted Church Order” (Credential East) ; they “a1re bound by the Word of God, the Three Forms of Unity and the adopted Church Order” (Credential West). Such credentials mean, In fact, that the dele­ gates to this Synod have declared their agreement with their mandate to the r senders. It is not in the province of a (General) Synod to turn around and try to investigate the reliability of credentials and their bearers.
  • The ground of Homewood 1954 still stands.
  • 5.  As to the second argument (Observation 3, b) that ‘this point of subscription (? Committee does not understand this word in this context) has always had a legal and first place on 1the, Agenda of General Synods”, your Committee states:
    • a.  that Smithers has failed to prove this “always” (according to Kampen’s professor of Church History it started one century before  Homewood  1954 – “De  Reformatie”,  Jan.  15, 1967, p. 220)
    • b.  that Smithers has failed to prove that the introduction of such a declaration was agreed upon for the same reason as Smithers wants it introduced, i.e. to investigate whether delegates are willing in their synodical work to bind themselves to God’s Word, the Creeds and the Church Order.
  • A second possibility, that such a declaration of agreement is meant to demonstrate that the Churches agree with The Three Forms of Unity, has been refuted by Synod 1968, Art. 58 sub B, 4;
  • 6. The third argument (Observation 3, c) that the statement of Home­ wood 1954 (Churches stand on the foundation of God’s Word, ac­ cording to the Creeds and the Church Order, accept each other as such in the federation and bind their delegates to major assemblies ‘to the same) “does not hold true” in the light of “the recent history”, has quite upset your Committee. We wish to express this in the following remarks:
    • a.  a simple reference to what has happened “in recent history” is not sufficient to put two ‘cases’ properly on the table of this Synod;
    • b. if all that Homewood 1954 mentioned (see above) “does not hold true” in the light of “recent history” it goes beyond our under­ standing that a simple “formal” rising from their seats by the delegates to synod will put everything in order;
    • c.  if it had been the custom since 1954 to have the item of “decla­ration of agreement” on the (provisional) agenda, we would not suggest to abolish it. Such an action might give occasion to distrust;
    • d. but to suggest to introduce it now with a reference to “recent history” is more like, sowing distrust in the federation of the Churches which have in “recent history” shown to be able to withstand the evil of undermining the authority of Creeds and Church Orde1r;
    • e.  The Churches should stick to the soundly Reformed position of the first Synod of the Canadian Reformed Churches that the basis of the federation is the submission to the Word of God, In complete binding of all its members, specifically its officebearers and delegates to the Creeds and the Church Order.

Recommendation

Synod decide not to accede to this request of the Church at Smithers.

ADOPTED

The following motion, duly seconded and discussed was REJECTED:

  • Regarding the letter of the Church at Smithers, B.C. Synod decide that this letter be declared inadmissible since:
    • 1.  “In its letter, Smithers did not touch the refutation of its arguments by Synod 1968 (Art. 46 C.0.)”
    • 2.  Smithers does not ask a “revision” of the decision of Synod 1968, Art. 58, but asks “to rescind” the decision of Synod 1954, Art. 5.