Office Bearers

GS 1965 ARTICLE 93: Rules for Correspondence.

As proposed by Advisory Committee II, the following is decided re the proposal from the Church at Barrhead, Agenda item 8 L i:

  • “[1]The General Synod has taken note of the request of the Church at Barrhead, AB, dated August 11, 1965, the rules for correspondence with foreign Churches, last established by the Synod Hamilton 1962 (Acts art. 139), in particular the provisions in points (a) and (e[2]).
    • A.   With regard to the judgment of the Church at Barrhead, that what is stipulated in the rules of correspondence under (a) may be removed (namely, paying attention to each other, that there is no deviation from the Reformed confession in doctrine, ministry/worship[3], church government and discipline), the Synod declares that no sufficient reasons have been given for revising the adopted rules for correspondence with foreign churches in this matter.
    • Grounds:
      • 1.    It has not yet been shown that this rule cannot be implemented in practice, as stated by the Church at Barrhead.
      • 2.    The Church at Barrhead has not demonstrated that it is not necessary for this rule to be observed for correspondence.
      • 3.    The judgment of the Church at Barrhead, that in God’s Word (e.g. in 1 Cor. 5 and Rev. 2 and 3) no indication is given of what is stipulated in line a., is not a sufficient ground for this rule to removed.
    • B.    With regard to the judgment of the Church at Barrhead, that what is stipulated in the rules of correspondence under (c) (second part) may be removed (namely: while the corresponding Churches undertake to expressly express their opinion on the acceptability thereof), the Synod declares that no satisfactory reasons have been given for revising the adopted rules for correspondence with foreign Churches in this matter.
    • Grounds:
      • 1.    The Church at Barrhead incorrectly argues that this rule entails interference with the ministry of another, since this rule deals with the ministry of its own Churches in connection with their recognition of foreign Churches as true Churches of our Lord Jesus Christ, with whom correspondence is maintained.
      • 2.    The Church at Barrhead incorrectly states that in this way foreign Churches determine what will be on the agenda of our General Synods. This is not a matter of foreign churches determining the agenda of the General Synod, as the fact of the matter is that the exercise of correspondence belongs to the agenda of the General Synod.

Press Release version ARTICLE 16: Correspondence Foreign Churches.[4]

The Free Reformed Churches of Australia informed Synod about their decision to change Article 70 C.O. which, in their Church Order, now reads, “Since it is proper that the marriages be solemnized or confirmed before the Church of Christ, according to the Form for that purpose, the consistories shall attend to it.”

Synod considers that this change is no reason why church-correspondence should no longer be maintained with these Churches, and declares that it considers this change acceptable with the Australian sister-churches.

Synod decided to grant the request of the sister-churches in South Africa to send them three copies of the reports of the Committees re: Creeds and Liturgical Forms.

Synod did not agree with the suggestion of the Free Reformed Churches of Australia to consult with each other beforehand in case changes in Confession, Church Order or Liturgy are deemed necessary and before they are effectuated (changes necessitated by the conditions of the own country excepted).

Synod rejects an overture from the Church at Barrhead to delete rule a. of the Rules for the Maintenance of Correspondence (a. to see to it that there be no deviation from the Reformed Confession in doctrine, liturgy, church government, and discipline}. Barrhead claims that this is an unworkable rule. Synod is not convinced by the arguments brought forward by the Church at Barrhead.

A proposal to delete the second part of rule c. (while the corresponding Churches bind themselves to expressing their opinion whether they deem these changes acceptable) is rejected.

Synod is convinced that this rule does not mean a busying oneself with someone else’s service, as is claimed, since this rule deals with the duty of the own Churches in connection with their acknowledgment of foreign Churches as sister-churches; further Synod considers that the matters concerning the church-correspondence belong to the synodical agenda and that for this reason it is wrong to claim that keeping this rule would mean that foreign Churches determine what shall be dealt with at a General Synod.

[1] Translator: Closing quotations are missing in the acts.

[2] Translator: the acts have (e) in the first reference and (c) in the second reference. Given the Press Release, the correct reference is “(c)”.

[3] Translator: The Dutch word “dienst” could apply to either.

[4] Translator: This article covers Articles 92 and 93.