GS 1974 ARTICLE 181 – Appeal of br. L. Van Zandwijk at Burlington [2]

Advisory Committee III presents a Report on section A of the appeal of br. L. Van Zandwijk at Burlington, Agenda N 14.

Its Recommendations are adopted (see below).

The Reports on this appeal (section A and B) and the adopted Recommendations read thus:

A.

MATERIAL:

• Agenda N 14 – Appeal of br. L. Van Zandwijk at Burlington, sub A.

INFORMATION:

• 1.a.  Br. L. Van Zandwijk requests to Classis (December 13, 1972) to judge, “whether it has been established beyond a doubt (and also whether – if so – it is of such a nature that it should be proclaimed as THE TRUTH from the pulpit) that it is due to ‘slander’ (etc.) that the Church in this country does not have a very good name with the foreign Sister-Churches – not members, but Churches as presented by their assemblies.
  • b. And if it has indeed been established that the foreign Sister-Churches have lent their ear to slander and accepted such abomination, by whom this has been established. And under what authority, and how.
  • c. Whether an accusation of ‘slander’ can rightfully be made from the pulpit as long as at least in one instance the precepts of Matthew 18 and the Church Order have not been followed by the preacher himself (…  ). Also, whether ‘not mentioning names’ makes this ANY LESS a transgression from the Lord’s precept.
  • d. whether the Consistories of Burlington West and Fergus-Guelph acted in a brotherly way towards both the ‘accuser’ and the ‘accused’ by giving virtually no reasons for their decision, hence making the ‘accuser’ persist in his objections.
• 2. Br. L. Van Zandwijk complains to Regional Synod (September 25, 1974):
  • a.  “Classis has not dealt with my appeal in any way or form.”
  • b.  “Classis has stated not one single reason why …  “
• 3. Br. L. Van Zandwijk addressing General Synod:
  • a. complains that his questions 1 a, b, c to Classis were not answered.
  • b. requests “to judge and do justice in this matter”.

OBSERVATIONS:

• 1. Classis Ontario North informed br. L. Van Zandwijk that entering into question 1 a, b, c was outside the province of Classis.
• 2. Regional Synod, as far as question 1 a, b is concerned stated that Classis did not have to “establish” anything.
• 3. Regional Synod, concerning question 1 c, was of the opinion that the substance of an answer to his question was given when br. L. Van Zandwijk was referred back to the Consistory of Burlington West.
• 4. Br. L. Van Zandwijk in his appeal to General Synod insists that he should receive an answer to the question, (la) “whether it has been established beyond a doubt (… ) that it is due to ‘slander’ that the Church in this country does not have a very good name with the foreign Sister-Churches”.

CONSIDERATIONS:

• 1. It is the task of a Consistory to supervise the preaching of a minister and to see to it that it is conform the Holy Writ.
• 2. The Rev. W.W.J. VanOene, in his sermon, stated his opinion (on a certain matter), which was not contrary to the doctrine of Scripture.
• 3. It is not the task of a major assembly to judge, whether in the context of a sermon a general expression of opinion, which does not contradict the doctrine of Scripture, must be regarded as a fact that has been established “beyond a doubt”.
• 4. Therefore Classis was correct to answer that “it is outside the province of this Classis to enter into your request sub a, b, and c”.
• 5. Regional Synod (a) was correct in stating that Classis did not have to establish “whether it has been established beyond a doubt that it is due to ‘slander’ (etc.) that the Church in this country does not have a very good name with the foreign Sister-Churches”.
• 6. a. Regional Synod, (d) concerning the request of br. L. Van Zandwijk’s appeal to Classis 1 c, rightly stated that Classis was correct when it referred br. Van Zandwijk back to his Consistory, because it is the task of the Consistory to supervise the preaching, and not the task of a major assembly in a case like this (see Consideration 3).
  • b. Br. Van Zandwijk has not proven that the expression of a personal opinion directed to the congregation as a whole, is a matter of Matthew 18.
• 7, Regional Synod (e) stated that br. L. Van Zandwijk should have appealed (against the answer of the Consistory to the next Classis Ontario North, rather than to Regional Synod. However, br. Van Zandwijk complains that he in fact did appeal to Classis June 1973 (before Regional Synod October 1974), but that he did not receive a clear answer.
• 8. Classis June 1973, by only assuming that the Consistory received the Acts of the previous Classis, did not give a clear answer to br. L. Van Zandwijk’s request, namely “to urge the Consistory to act conform the Classical decision”.
• 9. It appears that Classis December 1972 did deal with br. L. Van Zandwijk’s request sub 1 d, and referred br. L. Van Zandwijk to the Consistory with regard to the question whether the statement of the Rev. VanOene can be based on a “well-known fact”.
• 10. Regional Synod (sub b) approved of Classis’ action to refer br. L. Van Zandwijk back to the Consistory (see above Considerations 2 and 3).

GENERAL SYNOD JUDGES:

• 1. that with regard to br. L. Van Zandwijk’s complaint that he never received an (official) answer from the Consistory as advised by Classis December 1972, the Consistory should as yet give br. L. Van Zandwijk a clear answer.
• 2. that it is not in the jurisdiction of Synod to deal with br. L. Van Zandwijk’s questions 1 a, b, c as submitted to Classis December 1972.
• 3. that br. L. Van Zandwijk’s question 1 d as submitted to the same Classis IS sufficiently answered by that Classis.

RECOMMENDATION:

Synod decide:

• A. that it is not in the jurisdiction of this General Synod to deal with the complaints and requests of br. L. Van Zandwijk (comp. Considerations a, 2, and 3).
• B.  to declare that the Consistory of Burlington West should as yet execute what was stated by Classis December 1972, and approved by Regional Synod (sub b), namely “that the Consistory of Burlington West should try to make clear, as far as is possible, to br. L. Van Zandwijk that its conviction concerning the “well­ known fact” is well-grounded”.

B.

MATERIAL:

• Agenda N 14 – Letter of appeal of br. L. Van Zandwijk, dated October 31, 1974, with the following enclosures:
  • 1. Letter of appeal to the Regional Synod of Ontario September 25, 1974, dated September 12, 1974.
  • 2. Letter of the Regional Synod, 1974 to br. L. Van Zandwijk, dated October 15, 1974.

OBSERVATIONS:

• 1. Under point B of his letter of appeal br. L. Van Zandwijk requests Synod to deal with his final request to Regional Synod of September 25, 1974 (Appendix 5 page 3, paragraphs 2 and 3), and to do so “in the light of the Scriptural objections submitted (briefly)” by himself and “(extensively) by the letter from Burlington East”.
• This request reads:
  • “To declare that Classis Ontario North of June 20/73 interpreted Article 31 of the Church Order in an un-Scriptural way and that any decision based on such misinterpretation should be reviewed.
  • Also, that Classis Ontario North of September 1973 showed in-excusable disrespect for the Lord and His Word in accepting a letter of objection containing Scriptural arguments “for information”. And that this action should be corrected by the next Classis Ontario North”.
• 2. With respect to point 3 of an appeal by br. J. DeKoning c.s., Classis Ontario North of June 20, 1973 declared that this point was inadmissible on the following ground:
  • “Classis has the duty to deal with an appeal of someone who ‘complains that he has been wronged’, but not with an appeal of someone who complains that someone else has been wronged. Article 31 C.O.” (Acts Article 6).
• 3. Classis Ontario North September 5, 1973 received a letter from the Church at Burlington East with regard to “some grounds for the decision of previous Classis in the matter of the Appeal of br. J. DeKoning et al.”, which letter was received by this Classis “as information” (Acts Article 6b).
• This letter contained a.o. a “warning” against the “general statement of principle” made in the ground of the decision of Classis Ontario North June 20, 1Q73.
• 4. a. In his letter of appeal to Regional Synod br. L. Van Zandwijk wrote that the decision of Classis Ontario North June 20, 1973 “contained a shallow mis­ interpretation of Article 31 of the Church Order which flies into the face of any and all Scriptural notions that we are obliged by God’s Law to stand up for our neighbour as much (if not more) as we stand up for our own rights”.
  • b. Br. L. Van Zandwijk is of the opinion that the letter of the Church at Burlington East should not have been “disregarded” or “ignored” by Classis, since it contained “a thorough refutation from the Scriptures, that the decision of Classis June 20, 1973 …  was not according to the Scriptures”.
• 5. In answer to the appeal of br. L. Van Zandwijk Regional Synod Ontario, 1974 made the following decision:
  • “Regional Synod, having received and read your appeal B, gives you the following answer:
    • From the Acts and Archives of Classis Ontario North of September 5, 1973, it appears that the Church at Burlington East sent a letter to Classis Ontario North of September 5, 1973, as a letter of Scriptural information. Since this letter was not an appeal against a decision, but only a letter of information, Classis Ontario North was correct in accepting this letter “for information”.”; and: “Regarding point 1, Synod cannot deal with it, since you did not provide any definite information or literal decision and the necessary information was not available to Synod from other sources either”.
• 6. Br. L. Van Zandwijk observes an inconsistency between the first part of the reply of Regional Synod, in which Regional Synod refers to the Acts and Archives of Classis Ontario North of September 5, 1973, and the second part in which Regional Synod states that the necessary information was not available to Synod “from other sources” than the appellant “either”. Br. L. Van Zandwijk qualifies this as “a case of manipulation with ‘diverse weights and measures’ “, and as an “irreconcilable dualism”.

CONSIDERATIONS:

• 1. Although Regional Synod in its decision spoke about “a letter of Scriptural information”, and the Church at Burlington East in this letter vented a warning against the general statement of principle made in the ground of the decision of Classis Ontario North June 20, 1973, br. L. Van Zandwijk did not prove that this letter of the Church at Burlington East was presented as a request for revision of the decision of Classis June 20, 1973.
• 2. According to the principle of our Church Order (I Corinthians 14:40) appeals and requests for revision ought to be presented in an orderly way. If a letter does not present itself as an appeal or a request for revision, it should not be called “formalism” when this letter is not recognized as such either.
• 3. From the words “From the Acts and Archives of Classis Ontario North of September 5, 1973, it appears”, does not necessarily follow, that for that reason other material from the Archives of Classis was available to Regional Synod as well.
• 4. Regional Synod was indeed right in its judgment that it could not deal with the appeal of br. L. Van Zandwijk, since the literal decision to which was objected was neither forwarded by the appellant nor was available from other sources.
• 5. The “brief information” given by br. L. Van Zandwijk may be generally true, but with respect to the specific case Classis Ontario North had to deal with, it should have been more defined to be relevant.
• 6. It has not been proven that the matter of the objection of br. L. Van Zandwijk against the decision of Classis Ontario North June 20, 1973 could not be finished by Regional Synod, if it had been presented in an orderly way to this Regional Synod.

RECOMMENDATION:

Synod decide:

• on these grounds not to grant the request of br. L. Van Zandwijk.

ADOPTED