Office Bearers

GS 1965 ARTICLE 183: Letter Winnipeg

Advisory Committee IV now proposes a final draft of its proposals in response to the letter from “The Canadian Reformed Church of Winnipeg,” address 729 Hoskin Ave., Winnipeg, MB.

The committee’s proposals are adopted as follows:

  • “The Synod has taken note of a letter dated November 13, 1965 from “the church council of the Canadian Reformed Church of Winnipeg”, address 729 Hoskin Ave., Winnipeg, Man.
  • Since the appellants did not, in their view, receive a satisfactory response from the Classis and Regional Synod, to which they turned with their appeals, they now turn to the General Synod with the request to judge, in an unbiased and serious manner, their appeal against the suspension of Rev. de Haan.
  • They express their hope that members may come to the conclusion with them that this suspension should be rejected. It is apparent from the oral explanation by Rev. de Haan of this letter, given at this Synod, that the appellants were forced, by lack of time, to refrain from extensively renouncing and contesting the judgments of the Regional Synod, but confined themselves to the suspension of Rev de Haan by the Church Council of Winnipeg.

The suspension decision taken by the Church Council dated 8/9 April 1965 was:

  • “The Church Council of the Canadian Reformed Church in Winnipeg has decided to ratify the decision of the Classis that the ministers will subscribe to the Three Forms of Unity at a Classis, in accordance with the Form referred to by the November Classis 1952 and expressly adopted by the March Classis 1963.
  • It has asked Rev. de Haan to express openly and heartily that he declares his willingness to subscribe before the church council and therein before the congregation and the sister churches, the form added in CO article 53, translated and adopted by the March-classis 1963.
  • Rev. de Haan then declared that he could not give the declaration of willingness requested by the church council for the sake of God and His Christ, for the sake of the Gospel and for the sake of the confession of the churches and the unity of faith.
  • Rev. de Haan was asked by the council to explain himself further, which he refused.
  • The council observes that Rev. De Haan states that he is unable to give the declaration of willingness requested by the Council, namely that he cannot sign the form of subscription placed before him as per CO article 53.

The church council decides:

  • a.    given its responsibility as overseers of the Church of Christ at Winnipeg, that Rev. de Haan may not and cannot continue under these circumstances in his ministry in the midst of the church;
  • b.    on the basis of the aforementioned, and after hearing the judgment of the church council at Carman, MB, as per CO article 53, to suspend Rev. deHaan from his office as Minister of the Word to art. 53 until such time as he has explained himself completely.”

I.    The first objection of the appellants is that the Church Council added to the ratification of the decision of the Classis, “that the ministers will subscribe to the Three Forms of Unity at a Classis, in accordance with the Form referred to by the November Classis 1952 and expressly adopted by the March Classis 1963”, the request to Rev. de Haan “to express openly and heartily that he declares his willingness to subscribe before the church council and therein before the congregation and the sister churches, the form added in CO article 53, translated and adopted by the March-classis 1963”.

According to Appellants, the Church Council should not have done this because:

  • 1.    The classical decision demanded signing at a classis, the consistory asked signing at the consistory.
  • 2.    In the classical decision and considerations was the, point of question the position of a minister in his relationship to the Sisterchurches in general.
  • On April 6. 1965 the position of the minister in the Church of Winnipeg was at stake.[1]

The Synod considers the following:

  • A.   Ratification of the relevant classis decision meant that the Council acknowledged the right of the Classis to request the ministers within the classis to sign the form adopted by classis for this purpose at a classis.
  • B.    It would have sufficed for the Council of the Church to inform the next Classis that it had ratified the classis decision in question, leaving it to the Classis to settle the matter of subscribing.
  • C.    Knowing the conscientious objections of its minster had to subscribe at Classis, and in order to meet the objections of Rev. de Haan, the church council asked whether he would be willing to subscribe the form for subscription adopted by the Classis.
  • D.   It is morally not proper, after the fact, to argue that Church Council’s request for a subscription – granted by the Church Council as a way to meet the conscientious objections of its minister regarding subscribing at Classis – is a reason for Rev. de Haan’s refusal to subscribe the form adopted by the Classis and to reject the suspension that followed.
  • E.    It is also legally not proper to do so. Rev. de Haan did not cite as a reason for his refusal to sign that the Church Council asked him to do so at the Church Council, or that with the willingness to do so[2] his position in the Church of Winnipeg rather than his position in the midst of the sister churches would be in question, but he refused, according to his own words, “for the sake of God and His Christ, for the sake of the Gospel, and for the sake of the confession of the Churches and the unity of faith.”
  • F.    The Church Council did not present its own form, but the form adopted by Classis, to Rev. de Haan for signing, and requested it be subscribed before the church council and therein before the congregation and the sister churches. The rights of the sister churches continued to be recognized, and thus the position of Rev. de Haan as minister in the midst of the sister churches remained in question.
  • G.   The position of Rev. de Haan as minister of the Church of Winnipeg was not jeopardized by the request for a declaration of willingness to sign the form adopted by the Classis at the Church Council, but by the refusal of Rev. de Haan to give this declaration of willingness.
  • On the ground of these considerations, the Synod rejects the first objection of the appellants.

II.  The second objection of the appellants is that the signing of the form adopted by the Classis saw the church council, which in the suspension decision speaks of this form as “the form added to CO article 53,” make this a matter of CO article 53, whereas the Classis, on the other hand, never based the requirement for subscription on CO article 53 but on the rights of sister churches.

The Synod considers the following:

  • A.   In the decision to suspend, the Church Council wrongly referred to the Dort Form as “the form, added in CO article 53”, since CO article 53 does not reference a form.
  • B.    The Church Council, however, was correct in treating subscribing as a matter of CO article 53. For this article speaks of the power of the Church Council or the Classis, to suspend de facto ministers from their ministry, when they refuse to subscribe to the Three Forms of Unity. This authority implies, pursuant to CO article 53, the right of the Church Council and of the Classis to draft, adopt, and present to the ministers its own form of subscription.
  • C.    The rights of the Churches, of which the Classis spoke, is therefore no different from the rights laid down in CO article 53 for the preservation of the unity of faith within the church federation.
  • On the ground of the foregoing considerations, the Synod rejects the second objection of the appellants.

III. The third objection of the appellants is that the use made of form of subscription, that is, by connecting suspension as per CO article 53 to the refusal to subscribe, this form of subscription “was made of at least equal value with the Word of God.” Appellants argue, that in the event of a suspension of a pastor “it must be clear that God does or can no longer speak through him.”[3]

The Synod considers the following:

  • A.   It was not the church council that connected suspension to the refusal to sign the form adopted by the classis, but CO article 53 links the suspension of a minister to his refusal to sign.
  • B.    The suspension of ministers who refuse to subscribe to the Three Forms of Unity, does not make the form for subscription of at least equal value to the Word of God, but underscores the absolute authority which the Word of God, to which the Form binds the ministers, ought to have in the midst of the Churches.
  • C.    Appellants have neither proved nor attempted to prove that the form for subscription adopted by the Classis promotes a subscription different from subscription to the Three Forms of Unity, and therein to the Word of God.
  • D.   The demand of CO article 53 that a minister, who refuses to sign the Three Forms of Unity, be suspended does not imply that God no longer speaks or can speak through him; it means that the Churches, who are bound to the Word of the Lord, may no longer receive as an envoy of the Lord a minister who, in the refusal to sign, refuses this binding.
  • On the ground of these considerations, the Synod rejects the third objection of the appellants.

IV. The fourth objection of the appellants is that the battle in Winnipeg was fought over signing the form adopted by the Classis, while the issue is actually objections to the preaching of Rev. de Haan, which existed with members of the Church Council.

The Synod considers the following:

  • A.   The question of signing at Classis has not been raised by or in the Church Council of Winnipeg, but arose at Classis. It was not raised at Classis because of objections to the preaching of Rev. de Haan or any other preacher, but because of the question of a newly arrived minister who asked whether he ought to sign a subscription form at Classis.
  • B.    The signing of the form at the Church Council was granted to Rev. de Haan to meet his conscientious objections regarding doing so at Classis.
  • C.    This willingness of the Church Council to meet objections of Rev. de Haan clearly shows that, even though there were objections to his preaching, the Church Council was by no means concerned with getting rid of its minister, but with maintaining the unity of faith with the sister churches.
  • On the ground of the foregoing considerations, the Synod rejects the fourth objection of the appellants.
  • The Synod declares that it cannot join the appellants in the conclusion that the suspension of Rev. de Haan should be rejected, since this suspension was applied as per CO article 53 in order to preserve the unity of faith within the church federation.”

Br L. Toet abstains from voting as per CO article 33.

The Synod also takes note of an announcement by Rev. L. Selles that some brothers will endeavour to send an English translation of this statement as an addition to the authentic Dutch Text.

Press Release version ARTICLE 33: Letter Winnipeg.

Re: Letter of Appeal from the “Canadian Reformed Church of Winni­peg, Man.”, address 729 Hoskin Avenue, Winnipeg 15, Man., the following decision is made.

  • “Synod has taken note of the communication dated November 13, 1965 from “The Consistory of the Canadian Reformed Church of Winnipeg, Man.”, address 729 Hoskin Avenue, Winnipeg, Man.
  • Inasmuch as complainants, in their opinion, did not receive a satisfactory reply from Classis and Particular Synod to their appeals, they now petition Synod to give an unbiased and sincere appraisal of their objections against the suspension of Rev. De Haan.
  • Complainants express their hope that the delegates may share their conclusions to hold the suspension of Rev. De Haan to be unjustified. Complainants were unable, by lack of time, to deal extensively with the decisions of the Particular Synod and they now appeal the suspension of Rev. De Haan by the Consistory of Winnipeg only.

The Consistory decided as follows:

  • “De Kerkeraad van de Canadian Reformed Church te Winnipeg heert besloten het besluit der Classis, dat de predikanten op een Classis de Drie Formulieren van Enigheid zullen ondertekenen, overeenkomstig het door de novemberclassis 1952 bedoelde en door de maartclassis 1963 uitdrukkelijk Vastgestelde formulier, te ratificeren. Hij heeft ds De Haan verzocht open en hartelijk uit te spreken, dat hij zich bereid verklaart ten overstaan van de Kerkeraad en daarin ten overstaan van de gemeente en de zusterkerken. het formulier, toegevoegd in artikel 53 K.O. en door de maartclassis 1963 vertaald en vastgesteld, te onder­ tekenen.
  • Ds De Haan heeft hierop verklaard de door de Kerkeraad gevraagde bereidverklaring niet te kunnen geven terwille van God en Zijn Chris­ tus, terwille van het Evangelie en ‘terwille van de belijdenis der kerken en de enigheid des geloofs. Aan ds. De Haan is door de kerkeraad verzocht zich nader te verklaren wat door hem geweigerd werd.
  • De kerkeraad constateert dat ds. De Haan zegt de door de kerkeraad gevraagde bereidverklaring niet te kunnen geven, namelijk niet te kunnen tekenen het ondertekeningsformulier naar artikel 53 K.0. door de kerkeraad hem voorgelegd.

De kerkeraad besluit:

  • a.    gezien zijn verantwoordelijkheid als opzieners van de kerk van Christus te Winnipeg, dat ds. De Haan onder deze omstandigheden zijn dienst in het midden der gemeente niet verder kan en mag verrichten;
  • b.    op grond van het bovenstaande en na gehoord te hebben het oordeel van de kerkeraad te Carman, Man., ds. De Haan naar artikel 53 K.O. te schorsen in zijn ambt als Dienaar des Woords, tot ter tijd toe dat hij zich geheellijk verklaard zal hebben.”[4]

I.    The first objection of complainants is that the consistory, as part of its decision to ratify the Classical decision “that the ministers at Classis subscribe to the Three Forms of Unity, according to the form, indicated by the Classis held in November 1952 and adopted by the Classis held in March 1963” made mandatory the request that Rev. De Haan “sincerely declare his complaisance to subscribe to the form. added in article 53 C.O., translated and adopted by the Classis held March 1963, before the consistory and as such before the congregation and the sisterchurches”.

Complainants protest this action of the consistory on these grounds:

  • 1.    The classical decision and considerations demanded subscription at Classis; the consistory, however, asked subscription at the consistory;
  • 2.    In the classical decision and consideration was the point in question the position of a minister in his relationship to the sisterchurches in general. On April 6, 1965 the position of the minister in the church of Winnipeg was alt stake.

Synod considers the following:

  • A.   The recognition of the, right of the sisterchurches that the ministers of the Classical resort at Classis subscribe 1o the Classical subscription form is a direct result of the ratification of the Classical decision concerned by the consistory.
  • B.    It would have been quite adequate if ‘the consistory had registered its ratification of the Classical decision at the next Classis, leaving it to that Classis to settle the issue of the subscription.
  • C.    The consistory, however, knowing the conscientious objections of its minister to sign at Classis and trying to accommodate him, requested his complaisance to subscribe to the Classical form at the consistory.
  • D.   It is unethical to use this concession from the part of the consistory as a belated argument for Rev. De Haan’s refusal to subscribe to the Classical subscription form and for 1the rejection of his suspension.
  • E.    It is also unjustified to do so. Rev. De Haan has, at no occasion, given any evidence that he refused subscription on the ground that the consistory requested him to do so at the consistory. Rev. De Haan has, at no occasion, stated that by his complaisance to sign at the consistory his position as minister of Winnipeg instead of his position as minister in the midst of the sisterchurches would be at stake. Rev. De Haan refused to sign “for the sake of God and His Christ, for the sake of the Gospel and for the sake of the Confession of the churches and the unity of faith.”
  • F.    The consistory did not request Rev. De Haan to subscribe to its own private subscription form, but to the form adopted by Classis: more­ over it requested Rev. De Haan to subscribe to that form before the consistory and as such before- the congregation and the sisterchurches. The issue at stake was not Rev. De Haan’s position as minister of the church of Winnipeg, but the right of the sisterchurches and Rev. De Haan’s position in the midst of the sisterchurches.
  • G.   Rev. De Haan’s position as minister of Winnipeg was not at stake when the consistory requested him to comply with their wishes to subscribe to the Classical subscription form at a meeting of the consistory. Rev. De Haan’s failure to comply with the request of the consistory jeopardized his position as minister of the church of Winnipeg.
  • On the ground of the above mentioned considerations Synod rejects the first complaint of appellants.

II.  The second complaint is that the consistory dealt with the subscription of the Classical subscription form as a matter ad Article 53 C.O. – the consistory refers to this subscription form as “the form added in Article E3 C.O.” – whereas Classis never founded its demand for subscription on Article 53 C.O. but on the right of the sisterchurches.

Synod considers the, following:

  • A.   The consistory erroneously refers to the form as “the form added in Article 53 C.0.”. This Article does not mention any subscription form specifically.
  • B.    The consistory, however, rightly dealt with the subscription as a matter of article 53 C.O. This article deals with the authority of the consistory or the Classis to suspend de facto a minister who refuses to sub­ scribe to the Three Forms of Unity. It is this article which provides the consistory and the Classis with the right to draw up their own subscription forms, to adopt the same and to request the ministers to subscribe to them.
  • C. The right of Classis. referred to in the Classical decision and considerations is the right, embodied in Article 53 C.O., and given for the sustenance of the unity of faith within the confederacy of churches (“kerkverband”).
  • On the ground of the above-mentioned considerations Synod rejects the, second complaint of appellants.

III. The third complaint is that the subscription form was “at least made of equal value with the Word of God” since suspension was made mandatory in case of refusal to sign this form. Appellants assert that when a minister is suspended “it must be clear that God does not and cannot speak any longer ‘through him”.

Synod considers the following:

  • A.   It was not the consistory which as part of the refusal to sign made suspension mandatory, but it is Article 53 C.O. which makes the suspension of a minister mandatory in case he refuses to subscribe to the Three Forms of Unity.
  • B.    The fact that Article 53 C.O. refers to a de facto suspension of a minister who refuses to subscribe to the Three Forms of Unity does not give this form a status equivalent to the Word of God; the de facto sus­ pension of a minister underlines the absolute authority of the Word of God. By the subscription form ministers are bound to the Word of God.
  • C.    Complainants have not proved nor endeavoured to prove that the Classical subscription form requires a binding different in nature from the binding to the Three Forms of Unity and as such to the Word of God.
  • D.   It does not consequently follow ‘that God does no longer speak through a minister suspended ad Article 53 C.O. Suspension ad Article 53 C.O. does, however, mean that the churches which are bound by the Word of God no longer may receive such a minister who refuses to be bound by the Three Forms of Unity and as such by the Word of God, as an ambassador of God.
  • On the ground of the above mentioned considerations Synod rejects the third complaint of appellants.

IV. The fourth complaint of appe1lants is that the issue at stake was not the subscription to the Classical form, but the objections against the preaching of Rev. De Haan. objections which existed in the bosom of the consistory.

Synod considers the following:

  • A.   The matter of subscription at Classis is not brought up by or in the consistory of Winnipeg, but it originated at Classis. It was not brought up at Classis because of objections against the preaching of Rev. De Haan or any other minister; it was brought up by an incoming minister who wondered whether he was not supposed to sign a Classical subscription form.
  • B.    Subscription at the consistory was a concession to Rev. De Haan from the part of the consistory; this concession was made in order to accommodate his conscientious objections against subscription at Classis.
  • C.    This concession from the part of the consistory to Rev. De Haan presents adequate proof that, though there might have been objections against his preaching the consistory never meant to do away with its minister, but tried to maintain the unity of faith with the sisterchurches.
  • On the ground of the above mentioned considerations Synod rejects this fourth complaint of appellants.
  • Synod decides it does not share the conclusion of appellants to hold the suspension of Rev. De Haan to be unjustified, since Rev. De Haan was sus­ pended according to CO Article 53 by a consistory intent to sustain the unity of faith with the sisterchurches.”

[1] Translator: These points 1 & 2 are inserted in English into the Dutch text, and thus have not been edited. For the sake of correctness, it should be noted that “consistory” should be understood, given the Church Order, to imply “consistory with the deacons”, for which these days the term “council” is commonly used.

[2] Translator: the vagueness here reflects the Dutch text. Toi make sense of the text, “willingness” should be understood to mean “willingness to refuse to subscribe”.

[3] Translator: in the original Dutch acts the two quotes in this paragraph are in English and have been left unedited.

[4] Translator: The English Press Release retained the Dutch original. As it has been translated in the Acts, it has been left in the Dutch here.