Office Bearers

GS 1971 ARTICLE 47 – Correspondence Churches Abroad

Committee IV presents:

Materials –  Agenda 8 

  • L, 1 – Report of Committee on Correspondence with Churches Abroad.
  • L, 2 – Letter of Church at Burlington-West, Ont.
  • L, 3 – Letter of  Church at Brampton, Ont.
  • L, 4 –  Letter of  Church at Burlington-West, Ont.
  • L, 5 – Comment of Church at Lincoln, Ont.
  • L, 6 – Report C. Ouwersloot.
  • S, 5 – Letter  P. VanderSchaaf.
  • S, 1 – Letter J. DeKoning (partly).
  • T, 2 – Two letters of “Die Vrye Gereformeerde Kerk te Pretoria”.
  • T, 5 – Letter Rev. H. Scholten (partly).

Considerations

  • 1.  From the outset your Committee was faced with the decisive ques­tion, “Is there a Report of the ‘Committee on Correspondence with Churches Abroad’?” (This is the official name, see Acts 1968, art. 180, sub g).
  • Our answer is: “No”.
  • We do not wish to be “formalistic” but we do have to be “formal”. Synod 1968 appointed a “Committee” to maintain the correspond­ence according to the accepted rules; to keep the Churches posted, and to submit a report of this “maintaining the correspondence” to the General Synod on the basis of which this Synod would be able to make responsible decisions.
  • There is no such “Committee-report”.
  • 2.  There are communications of individual members of this Committee.
  • They are also conflicting.
    • a. L, 1 was signed by C. Ouwersloot and P. VanderSchaaf. The first impression is that L, 1 is a Report of the Committee because “due to illness, Rev. H. Scholten could not participate in pre­ paring this report.” (p. 1.)
    • b. This, however, is only the outward appearance.
    • By “preparing this report” we understand all the activities of this Committee since 1968. Only the last part of that period the Rev. Scholten was ill. Before that illness there were activities but not always of the Committee. (See L, 1, page 2: the convener writes letters without the knowledge of the secretary, although “no communications on behalf of deputies can be sent before all of them approved of them.”)
    • From the above mentioned individual communications, we get the impression that there was a near-total lack of cooperation between the Committee member. One illustration is that letters seem to have disappeared and misunderstanding to have been created between our Committee and the Committee on Corres­pondence with Churches Abroad in the Netherlands.
    • c. Then comes L, 6, an “additional report” by C. Ouwersloot, co­ signer (and partly-author) of L,1 (see footnote page 6 of L,1) informing Synod that part of the report L, 1 “did not have my approval”. Although he honours P. VanderSchaaf for his “work with ambition” he submits his own “report V. DID GEREFOR­ MEERDE) KERKEN IN NEDERLAND.” at the eleventh hour (May 17, 1971).
    • d. Finally, May 24th, the convener of the Committee, Rev. H. Scholten, writes Synod “dat van een rapport from ‘the Committee for Correspondence with Churches Abroad’ (C.R.M. May 29) niet kan gesproken worden.” Although Rev. Scholten indicates that he read both “Reports” (in any case L, 1) he states:
    • “Waar mijn naam onder geen der rapporten voorkomt behoef ik er niet nadrukkelijk op te wijzen, that ik part noch dee! heb aan een der beide rapporten.”
    • And as to L, 1 he adds:
    • “Wei wil ik met nadruk zeggen, dat ik me verre distancieer van het rapport dat u het eerst (in de kerken) hebt ontvangen.”
    • Our conclusion must be that there was not only lack of com­munication between the committee members, or lack of time and/or health, but also great disagreement.
  • 3.  We, Committee IV, do not consider it the task of an Advisory Com­mittee to create, during Synod, a “Report” from the “fragmoots” received from individual committee-members.
  • This Synod would be unable to enter into the matter of the Book of Praise, of Contact with the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and with the Christian Reformed Church, if there were no reports from the Committees appointed for these matters by previous Synods, which Reports would contain information about the activities of those Committees and the conclusions and recommendations to which they, as Committees, have arrived.
  • The situation is worse now than in 1968. Then, at the last minute, a majority and a minority report were submitted to Synod, but there was evidence that differences between committee-members had been discussed in the Committee.
  • There is no evidence that the Committee appointed by Synod 1968 has discussed its differences. The one member rejects (part of) the work of the other and the convener (chairman) states:
  • “van een rapport van de commissie kan niet gesproken worden.” We have to go one step further in order to point out that your Ad­visory Committee (IV) faces an impossible task; or rather: there is no task! One could imagine that in the sub 2 and 3 described situation we could have done what ‘the Committee for Correspon­dence was supposed to do, i.e. compose a report from the available material, this material being the result of two-and-a-half years of “maintaining the correspondence” or, in other words, if the pro­blems in Churches abroad had been analyzed, presented and weighed in such a way that sufficient grounds had been presented to Synod for taking decisions.
  • This, however, is not the  case. We give two illustrations.
    • a.  In L, 1 sub 1 (re: South Africa) we are told that much material came in. However, all this is “filtered” not “funneled” in one single statement which is presented as “the evangel of the new dispensation.” Not a word about what the Sister Churches in the Netherlands have done in this matter. We agree with Burlington-West (L, 4, sub 3) that the “scant data which go hidden in the commentary of deputies” do not warrant adoption of the con­clusions in “Report” L, 1.
    • b. C. Ouwersloot remarks (L 6, sub c) that “The Committee to be appointed by your meeting will undoubtedly check these matters, which are too extensive to report, even in its essentials.” N.B.!
  • The Committee for Correspondence did not fulfil its task: the matters are “too extensive” even to report; even in its essentials. Now Synod must do it.
  • This is turning things upside down.
  • We received all the archives re South Africa. We are supposed to scrutinize all the Acts of Synod Hoogeveen (670 pages). But that is not the task of an Advisory Committee, working during Synod time. We agree with Burlington-West (L, 4)
  • “it is not their (Consistory and Synod) task to scrutinize this ‘material on hand’ again to see whether the conclusions of deputies are warranted.”
  • We repeat the words of Rev. Scholten: there is no report of the Committee on Correspondence with Churches Abroad.
  • This being the case, incoming mail written in reaction to com­munications of members of the Committee on Correspondence can­ not be dealt with either.
  • 4.  Our Committee discovered among the correspondence a letter from the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Korea requesting to take steps for establishing correspondent relationship between this Church and our Churches.
  • It stands to reason that the new Committee will have to look into this matter at its earliest convenience.

Recommendations

1.  Synod state the fact that there is no report of “the Committee on Correspondence with Churches Abroad” on its table.

Ground: There are (conflicting) communications from individual members of this Committee, but the Convener states ‘that there is no Committee report.’

ADOPTED

2. Synod appoint a new Committee with the mandate to take up the Correspondence where the previous Committee left off, and to main­tain this correspondence according to the accepted rules.

ADOPTED

3.  Synod, noting that “‘two parties” in South Africa ask for continuance of the correspondence with our Churches, charge this Committee to advice the Churches as soon as possible concerning this double request.

Ground: There is no Committee report available in which the communications from these “two parties” have been properly analyzed and tested according to the Word of God, as confessed in our Creeds and Church Order.

In such a situation it is impossible for Synod to make a respon­sible decision and choice.   

ADOPTED

4.  Synod, having received a letter from Deputies for Correspondence, acting on behalf of the Gereformeerde Kerken in Nederland and in­ forming Synod that these Churches “ingrijpende beslissingen heb­ ben moeten nemen inzake de Belijdenis der waarheid, die dus recht­ streeks raken de Gereformeerde, leer, dienst, kerkregering en tucht,” on which basis they request our Churches to continue the corres­pondence with their Churches, decide to do so.

  • Grounds:
    • 1. This is the only request received from the Netherlands.
    • 2. No grounds have been submitted to Synod that not “cor­respondentie vrijmoedig en blijmoedig mag worden voortgezet” (Letter Deputies Netherlands) with these Churches. 

ADOPTED

5.  Synod decide to charge the new Committee on Correspondence with Churches Abroad to continue and maintain the existing corres­pondence with other Churches abroad.

ADOPTED

6.  Synod decide to charge the Committee on Correspondence:

  • a.  to gratefully acknowledge ‘the letter from the Presbyterian Church in Korea;
  • b. to examine and evaluate whether there are any obstacles which would prevent the Churches from recognizing the Presbyterian Church in Korea as a true Church of the Lord Jesus Christ and from entering into correspondence with this Church.
  • c.  to inform the Presbyterian Church in Korea about this decision.

ADOPTED

7.  Synod repeat the mandate of previous Synods that the Committee on Correspondence with Churches Abroad inform the Churches from time to time about that which is of interest in their correspondence with Churches abroad. (See Acts General Synod 1958, 1968).

ADOPTED