Office Bearers

GS 1965 ARTICLE 196: Appeal Cl.K. Oosterveld

The same advisory committee presents the final draft of the proposals to answer the objection of Br. Cl.K. Oosterveld of Winnipeg, MB. They were adopted by the Synod in the following form:

“The complaint of Br Cl.K. Oosterveld is:

  • that the church council of Winnipeg could not suspend Rev. de Haan on ground of C.O. article 53.

He bases this complaint on the fact that

  • I.     when Rev. de Haan in 1958 signed the form adopted by the church council of Winnipeg the requirements of CO article 53 were satisfied;
  • II.    the Winnipeg church council in 1963 informed Classis that it did not consider it necessary for Rev. de Haan to sign the Dort Form of Subscription “because the ecclesiastical position of a minister is a matter which can be adequately regulated by the Church, of which he is the minister”, but in 1965 the church council ratified the Classis decision, which required the signing of the Dort Form, and suspended Rev. de Haan, when he refused to sign the Dort Form.

The Synod considers

  • ad I. that Br. Oosterveld may state that with the signature of the form of subscription adopted by the Church Council of Winnipeg by Rev. de Haan, the requirements of C.O. article 53 were satisfied, but that Br. Oosterveld does not take into account that the Classis of the West in 1952 decided to adopt the Dort Form of Subscription, and the Classis of the West of March 1963 decided to present this form for signing to Ministers of the Word within its jurisdiction.
  • The Classis was allowed to do this. After all, C.O. article 53 grants the Classis, in addition to the church council, the authority to suspend Ministers of the Word who refuse to sign the Three Forms. This power implies the right of the Classis to adopt a form of subscription and to request its subscription from the ministers who serve and will serve within the Classis.
  • No church has proven that this decision is contrary to Scripture, confession, or church order.
  • Given this state of affairs, the requirements of C.O. article 53 were not satisfied until the form adopted by classis was signed.
  • The Synod concludes that Br. Oosterveld is in error when he states that the signing of the form adopted by the Church of Winnipeg by Rev. de Haan satisfied the requirements of C.O. article 53.

The Synod considers

  • ad II. that the Winnipeg Church Council in 1963 may have written to the Classis that it did not consider it necessary for Rev. de Haan to sign the Dort Form of Subscription “because the ecclesiastical position of a minister is a matter which can be adequately regulated by the Church, of which he is the minister”, but, given this communication, overlooked that the Church Order in Art. 53 also grants the Classis its own right with respect to the signing of the Three Forms by the Ministers of the Word within its jurisdiction.
  • Therefore, the Church Council should not have sent this communication, and the Classis should not have accepted this communication from the Church Council for notification.
  • This same Classis of March 1965 corrected this error by requesting the signing of the form Classis had adopted. And the Church Council of Winnipeg did so, by holding the decision of the Classis in April 1965 for settled and binding,[1] and by asking Rev. de Haan to sign the Form of Subscription adopted by the Classis.
  • When Rev. de Haan refused to sign, the Church Council had the right, as per C.O. article 53, to suspend Rev. de Haan de facto.
  • The Synod concludes that br Oosterveld incorrectly appeals to the dual attitude of the Church Council of Winnipeg, in order to show that the suspension of Rev. de Haan by the Church Council is contrary to the Church Order.
  • On the basis of all the foregoing, the Synod declares that the Church Council of Winnipeg not only did not act contrary to the Church Order when it suspended Rev. de Haan for his refusal to subscribe the Dort Form and to give further explanation about this provision, but that the Church Council acted in full compliance with CO article 53.
  • The Synod therefore decides to dismisses the appeal of Br. Oosterveld.”

Br. L. Toet abstains from voting as per C.O. article 33.

Press Release version ARTICLE 37: Letter Cl.K. Oosterveld

Re: Letter of Appeal of br Cl.K. Oosterveld, Winnipeg, Man.

  • “The complaint of br Oosterveld is that the consistory of Winnipeg could not suspend Rev. De Haan on the ground of Arttcle 53 C.O.

He founds this complaint on the fact that

  • I.     with the signing by Rev. De Haan in 1958 of the form, adopted by the consistory of Winnipeg, Article 53 C.O. was complied with;
  • II.    the consistory of Winnipeg informed Classis in 1963 that it did not deem it necessary that Rev. De Haan sign the Subscription Form of Dort, “because the ecclesiastical position of a minister is a matter which should be properly regulated-by the Church of which he is the minister”, but ratified in 1965 the classical decision which required the signing of the Form of Dort, and suspended Rev. De Haan when he refused to sign the Form of Dort.

Synod considers

  • ad I that br Oosterveld puts indeed that with the signing of the subscription form, adopted by the consistory of Winnipeg, Rev. De Haan had complied with Article 53 C.O.
  • but that br Oosterveld does not take into account that Classis ‘\Vest 1952 decided to adopt the Subscription Form of Dort, and that Classis West March 1963 decided to put this Form before the Ministers of the Word within its district, to be signed by them.
  • Classis had the right to do this. For, Article 53 C.O. ascribes to a Classis, beside the consistory, the authority to suspend ministers of the Word who refuse to sign the Three Forms of Unity. This authority implies the right of the Classis to adopt a subscription form and to request signing of it by the ministers who serve or shall serve in the classical district.
  • Not one of the churches has proved this decision to be contrary to the Scriptures, the Confession, or the Church Order.
  • With this state of affairs, only by the signing of the subscription form, adopted by Classis, Article 53 C.O. was complied with.
  • Synod comes to the conclusion that Br Oosterveld wrongly puts that with the signing of the form, adopted by the Church of Winnipeg, Rev. De Haan had complied with Article 53 C.O.

Synod considers

  • ad II. that the consistory of Winnipeg indeed in 1963 wrote to Classis not to deem it necessary that Rev. De Haan should sign the Subscription Form of Dort “since the ecclesiastical position of a minister is a matter which should be properly regulated by the church whose minister he is”, but – as appears from this information – overlooked that the Church Order in Article 53 ascribes to Classis also a separate right in respect to the signing of the Three Forms of Unity by the ministers of the Word within its district.
  • The Consistory therefore was not allowed to make that communication, and Classis was not allowed just to take note of that communication from the consistory.
  • The same Classis of 1963 rectified this mistake by requesting the signing at Classis of the form which it had adopted.
  • And the consistory of Winnipeg did it by holding for settled and binding the decision of Classis April 1965, and by asking of Rev. De Haan to sign the subscription form, adopted by Classis.
  • When Rev. De Haan refused to sign, the consistory, according to Article 53 C.O. did have the right io suspend Rev. De Haan de facto.
  • Synod comes to the conclusion that Br Oosterveld wrongly appeals to the “dual attitude” of the consistory of Winnipeg, to prove by this that the suspension of Rev. De Haan by the consistory is contrary to the Church Order.
  • On the ground of all the above mentioned Synod holds that not only the consistory of Winnipeg did not come into conflict with the Church Order when suspending Rev. De Haan upon his refusal to sign the Form of Dort, and his refusal to explain himself with regard to this refusal, but that the consistory acted in this in complete accordance with Article 53 C.O.
  • Synod therefore decides to dismiss the objections of Br Oosterveld.”

[1] Translator: in the Dutch text there is a switch here from the “synodical” language of “ratify” (ratus facere) to the “liberated” language of “hold for settled and binding” (ratus habere).