Office Bearers | GS 1980 art 97

09 Jun GS 1980 art 97

Posted at 18:07h in CanRC, GS 1980 by Roy Janssen

GS 1980 ARTICLE 97 – Appeals – Article 91, Acts 1977

The discussion continues. Part Ill of the report of Committee IV is adopted.

The decision reads as follows: Committee IV presents:

Material – Agenda VIII,

I, 1 – Appeal of the Church of Burlington-West.
I, 2 – Appeal of the Church at Watford.
I, 3 – Appeal of the Church at Grand Rapids. I, 4 – Appeal of the Church at Lincoln.
I, 5 – Appeal of the Church at Smithville. I, 6 – Appeal of the Church at Chilliwack. I, 7 – Letter from br. W.C. VandenHaak.
I, 8 – Letter from the Church at Chatham (supporting part of the appeal of the Church at Burlington West).

I. A. Observations

1. The Appellants object to the fact that Synod Coaldale followed an incorrect procedure when it did not re-appoint some of the members of the Committee, appointed by Synod Toronto 1974, and when it did not allow the Committee to complete its mandate but rather gave it a “new mandate.”
2. The Appellants object to the fact that Synod Coaldale did not do justice to the Committee’s reply, and even appears to have removed this reply in order to come to the evaluation that the divergencies do not form an impediment (see Acts 1977, Article 91, II, h).
3. One of the Appellants objects to the fact that Synod Coaldale stated that the Committee was not able to react to the O.P.C. letter of April 14, 1976, since four meetings were held by the Committee and it submitted a draft reply to Synod Coaldale.
4. One of the Appellants further objects to the fact that Synod Coaldale stated that the Committee did not submit an evaluation of the O.P.C. letter of April 14, 1976, since the draft reply of the Committee does indeed give a critical evaluation of the O.P.C. letter.
5. One of the Appellants objects to the fact that Synod Coaldale stated that the Committee did not make a recommendation to continue the contact with the O.P.C., since Synod could not expect such a recommendation seeing that the Committee’s mandate was still unfinished.

B. Considerations

1. Although it happens, in many cases, that members of Committees which could not finish their mandates are continued, and that Committees, if necessary, are fortified, this does not mean that a Synod which decides to proceed differently, acts incorrectly or unjustly or unsatisfactorily, since there are no rules which bind Synods to a certain procedure with respect to its Committees.
Synod Coaldale considered that the mandate of Synod Toronto 1974 should be completed and instructed its Committee accordingly. In that way it heeded the mandate of the Synod of Toronto (see Acts 1977, Article 91, IV).
2. Synod Coaldale did not reject the drafts as study material for a reply, it only stated that ii could not use this draft as a reply to the O.P.C.
The fact that Synod Coaldale did not regard the contents of the draft reply as forming an impediment to recognizing the O.P.C. as Churches of our Lord Jesus Christ, does not prove that Synod rejected the draft, since this Synod considered that “further discussion on divergencies in confession and church polity is desirable” (Article 91, IV, Consideration 2).
It should be noted that the Committee appointed by Synod Coaldale used a substantial part of the draft reply in its letter of October 13, 1978, to the O.P.C. Committee.
3. The Church at Grand Rapids states that the Committee did “react” to the O.P.C. letter by holding four meetings and by coming to Synod with a draft reply. Synod Coaldale, however, states that the Committee was not able to react in the sense of sending a response to the O.P.C. Committee [cf. Acts 1977, Article 91, I, Observation 3, “The Committee was unable to react … but submits to synod a draft reply” (emphasis – Synod)).
4. In the draft reply, the Committee did give an evaluation of sections of the O.P C. letter of April 14, 1976. However, because it was incomplete it could not serve as a draft reply. The observation of Synod 1977, Acts, Article 91, I, 4, is a general statement, which though true, did not do full justice to the work done by the Committee.
5. Even though the Committee had not completed its mandate, it could have proposed to Synod Coaldale to continue the contact with the O.P.C. and asked for time to complete its mandate.

C. Recommendations

Synod decide:

1. Not to accede to the requests of the Churches: Burlington-West, Watford, Smithville, Grand Rapids
2. To declare that Synod Coaldale was incorrect in stating: “The Committee does not submit an evaluation of the letter of April 14, 1976.”

ADOPTED

II. A. Observations

(i) Objections to Considerations (a) to (I) of Synod Coaldale

1. The Appellants state that considerations (a) and (b) of Synod Coaldale 1977 which refer to Synod Edmonton 1965 have been used as a ground
for establishing and continuing the contact with the O.P.C. and can not be a basis for recognizing the O.P.C. as a true church according to Article 29 of the Belgic Confession. The fact that the divergencies had to be studied indicated that they were a stumbling block for such a recognition.
2. The Appellants state that consideration (c), taken from the letter of the O.P.C. Committee, dated April 14, 1976, namely that the divergencies stem from different origins, cannot be a ground for recognition, since the question is “whether the divergencies conflict with the Word of God”; furthermore, the appellants state that Synod Coaldale by passed the draft which contained a critical evaluation and that since 1971 the mandate to compare the divergencies “with the Word of God” was dropped before a clear evaluation was given.
3. The Appellants state with regard to consideration (d) and (e) that the evaluation of the Westminster Confession by the Dutch Sister Churches as “een voluit Gereformeerd belijdenisgeschrift” cannot be used by our Churches as a ground for recognizing the O.P.C., because it is not binding, not proven to be correct, is not a statement of Synod Amersfoort 1967, but only an opinion of certain deputies, and not a guarantee that the O.P.C. is a “pure” church.
4. The Appellants state with regard to consideration (f) that they object to the fact that Synod Coaldale used decisions (b) and (c) of Synod Orangeville 1968 as a ground for recognizing the O.P.C.; whereas Synod 1968 itself used these decisions as a ground for a further examination of the divergencies with the Word of God (cf. Acts 1968, Article 154).
5. The Appellants state that with regard to consideration (g) that the words “commit,” “wish” and “desire” used by the Synod of New West minster 1971 in the Acts (Article 92, Conclusion 1) do not prove that the O.P.C. practices what it “wishes” and “desires” to do. Furthermore, Synod New Westminster added that the “divergencies in confession and church polity are serious enough to remain the subject of further and frank discussions,” and requested the O.P.C. to terminate their relationships with Churches that have correspondence with the Synodical G.K.N. and are members in the R.E.S.
6. The Appellants state with regard to consideration (h) that they object to the fact that the O.P.C. letter of April 1976 confirms that the O.P.C. “wholeheartedly adheres to the Westminster Confession of Faith …,” does not prove whether this is actually practiced. The appellants further object that Synod Coaldale based the recognition of the O.P.C. on the letter of April, 1976, while by-passing the draft reply of our Committee with its criticism, without proving that the criticism was wrong.
7. The Appellants state with regard to considerations (i), (j), (k) that the fact that the O.P.C. broke their correspondence relationship with the Synodical G.K.N. and refused to enter into “ecclesiastical fellowship” with these Churches, as well as the fact that they used their membership in the R.E.S. in a positive way, is not a valid proof that the O.P.C. is a true Church.
The Church at Lincoln quoting from a letter of the O.P.C. Committee, remarks “it is clear that the O.P.C. cherishes their relationship with the synodical churches in the Reformed Ecumenical Synod and considers this a close relationship.”
The Appellants further object that Synod Coaldale ignored in its consideration the fact that the O.P.C. has close relations with the Christian Reformed Churches.
8. The Appeal/ants state with regard to consideration (I) that the length of time during which the Canadian Reformed Churches and the Orthodox Presbyterian Church have had contact, is not a ground for recognizing the O.P.C. as a true church, because it does not state that the marks of the true church are present in the O.P.C. and many important questions are still unsolved.

(ii) Objections to the Decision of Synod Coaldale

Several Churches object to this decision of Synod Coaldale to recognize the O.P.C. as a true Church according to Article 29 of the Belgic Confession: The Church of Burlington-West, Watford, Grand Rapids, Smithville, Chilliwack and Chatham, as well as br. W.C. vandenHaak. They charge that Synod Coaldale did not prove that the marks of the true Church are present in the O.P.C. They come with the following objections:

a. Preaching and Doctrine
- 1. The doctrine of the Church
  - The distinction between the Church visible and invisible teaches two Churches.
- 2. The doctrine of the Covenant
  - The Westminster Standards teach two covenants, one with the elect, and one with the believers and their seed.
- 3. The doctrine of Faith
  - The Westminster Standards teach that “assurance” is not an essential element of true faith. This is contrary to Scripture (Hebrews 11:1; Romans 4:18-21; Ephesians 3:12) and conflicts with Lord’s Day 7 of the Heidelberg Catechism.
- 4. The doctrine of the observance of the Law
  - The Westminster Standards teach that the Sabbath is also based on the law of nature. The omission of “schools” is not in harmony with the Heidelberg Catechism Lord’s Day 38.
- 5. The doctrine of the immortality of the Soul
  - This doctrine is not found in Scripture nor in our Confessions and has been refuted by our Churches when they rejected the decisions of Synod Sneek-Utrecht 1942.
- 6. The distinction between office-bearers and common believer:
  - The common believer is not bound by the Confession; where as the office-bearers are bound.
b. Sacraments
- 1. The dual conception of the Church and Covenant may lead to a two-fold meaning of baptism for a “double seed.”
- 2. There is the fear that the Lord’s Supper is not kept “holy” when people are admitted who (only) believe in Jesus as their Saviour and that the Lord’s Supper is “open.”
c. Discipline
- 1. The O.P.C. obstructs its own discipline because common believers are not bound by the confessional standards, and because they have an “open table,” and permits believers of “any” denomination to partake in the Lord’s Supper over whom the session has no authority.
- 2. The O.P.C. has contact with the Christian Reformed Church which includes pulpit exchange and joint worship services.
- 3. The O.P.C. does not take a firm stand regarding membership in Free Masons and Unions.
d. Church Polity
- It is incorrect to take as starting point for the government of the Church, the Church Universal of which the denominations and the particular Churches are “manifestations.” Speaking about “levels” of manifestations is objectionable because it leads to:
  - – elders receiving authority outside their local Church in the Presbytery;
  - – higher judicatories supervising the lower ones;
  - – higher judicatories doing that which belongs to the local Church:
  - – Presbyteries acting as “cooperate superintendent” instead of being the Council of a local Church according to I Timothy 4:14.

B. Considerations

(i) Objections to Considerations (a) to (I) considered

1. From Synod Edmonton 1965 to Synod Coaldale 1977, the divergencies have been discussed, studied and evaluated. In their Report to Synod 1971 the Committee for Contact with the O.P.C. concluded that the divergencies “are not of such a nature that they should prevent the Canadian Reformed Churches from recognizing the Orthodox Presbyterian Church as a true Church of the Lord Jesus Christ (see Acts, Synod 1971, Article 92, Observation 3 and Appendix Supplement V).
Synod New Westminster 1971 concluded: “To acknowledge grate fully, 1. that the Orthodox Presbyterian Church is a group of Churches that commit themselves to the Scriptures as the infallible Word of God, and that wish to maintain the Creeds, based on this Word of God; 2. that the Orthodox Presbyterian Church desires to regulate and order the government of the Church in accordance with the Scriptural confession, namely that ‘all its decisions should be founded upon the revealed will of God’ (Form of Government, Chapter I, 7).”
This conclusion was a positive response and general evaluation to Observation 3 of Synod 1971, Acts, Article 92, although this decision does not give a clear and detailed evaluation of the divergencies.
2. Since 1971, the mandate to compare the divergencies with the Word of God was no longer deemed necessary, because of the evaluating Report of the Committee to Synod 1971 and the Conclusions 1 and 2 of that Synod. Although ii is regrettable that Synod 1971 did not give a detailed evaluation.
In coming to the statement that the divergencies are due to different origins, Synod Coaldale indicated its disagreement with the critical evaluation as given by the Committee appointed by Synod Toronto and gave an evaluation in line with the Report to Synod 1971 and with the conclusions of Synod 1971.
When Synod Coaldale stated that “continued discussion” of the divergencies is “desirable,” it indicated that these divergencies are not of such a nature that they are an impediment for recognition; they are weaknesses and imperfections in the Westminster Standards and Form of Government of the O.P.C. which would benefit from a careful amendation.
3. The fact that Synod Amersfoort 1967 used the conclusion of the Deputies of the Regional Synod of Groningen, namely that the West minster Confession of Faith is “een voluit Gereformeerd belijdenis geschrift” as a ground in coming to correspondence with the Korean Presbyterian Church (Koryu-pa) shows that this statement was taken over by Synod Amersfoort.
Although this statement, which was taken over by Synod Amersfoort, is not binding as such on the Canadian Reformed Churches, they can and may use the Synodical considerations of Churches with which they have correspondence.
4. Since the divergencies have been studied, examined and evaluated after 1968, the statements of Synod Orangeville 1968 (Acts, Article 154. B, C) can also be used for recognition of the O.P.C.
5. The fact that Synod New Westminster 1971 did not give a detailed evaluation of the divergencies as dealt with in the Report of the Deputies for Contact with the O.P.C.. but at the same time made certain very positive statements about the O.P.C. appears contradictory; nevertheless, the statements of Synod 1971 cannot be interpreted in such a way so as to deny the conclusions of the Report of the Deputies for Contact with the O.P.C. to Synod 1971.
6. The fact that the letter of April 1976 confirms that the “O.P.C. wholeheartedly adheres to the Westminster Confession of Faith … ” is not a statement of the letter of the O.P.C. Committee, but a conclusion of Synod Coaldale from this letter.
Although Synod Coaldale gave a positive evaluation of the letter of the O.P.C., it is regrettable that this Synod, in dealing with the draft reply of our Committee, did not give a clear and detailed evaluation of its criticisms of this reply.
7. In terminating their relationship with the Synodical G.K.N., the O.P.C. removed one of the impediments that lay in the way of our having correspondence with it (cf. Synod 1968, Article 154, E, 4) and Synod Toronto 1974 called this decision “a cause for gratitude” (Acts, Article 149, 3, a). On the other hand, the membership of the O.P.C. in the R.E.S. and the indirect contact that this implies with the Synodical G.K.N. continues to remain a cause for concern.
In this regard, it has to be admitted that while Synod 1971 re quested the O.P.C. “brotherly and urgently … to also terminate their relationship with Churches, that maintain correspondence with the (Synodical) Gereformeerde Kerken in The Netherlands, as well as membership in the Reformed Ecumenical Synod,” Synod 1974 and 1977 charged the Committee for Contact “to discuss and evaluate the relationships of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and with other Churches, as the Reformed Presbyterian Church (Evangelical Synod) and the Christian Reformed Church” (Acts 1974, Article 149. Recommendation 3, c; Acts 1977, Article 91, IV, d), thereby creating confusion as to our course of action as Canadian Reformed Churches with respect to the O.P.C. and their relationship with the R.E.S. and the Christian Reformed Church.
It can not be denied that the fraternal relationship which the O.P.C. has with the Christian Reformed Church continues to pose a problem; however, this matter has been given to our Committee for Contact with the O.P.C. for study and evaluation, a mandate which has yet to be completed.
At the same time, it must be acknowledged that in the exercise of these relationships, there is no proof given that the O.P.C. fulfills its responsibilities in such a way so as to produce compromise in its Scriptural and confessional position.
The membership of the O.P.C. in the R.E.S. and its relationship with the Christian Reformed Church. while being a cause for concern and a reason for further discussion, is not of such a nature that it prevents us from calling the O.P.C. a true Church.
8. Although the Appellants are right in remarking that the time element as such is no ground for recognizing the O.P.C., Synod Coaldale took into consideration the fact that during those 12 years Committees have given reports of their findings to several Synods and that Synods 1971, 1974, 1977 have come to certain conclusions regarding the con tact; however, it is regrettable that a detailed and clear evaluation has not been given.

(ii) Objections to the decision of Synod Coaldale considered

Regarding the objections mentioned under II, A, (ii) a, b. c, d, of the observations, the following must be considered:

1. Previous Synods of the Canadian Reformed Churches in their positive statements about the O.P.C. have acknowledged that the grace of God has also been given to these Churches (Galatians 2:9).
2. The Westminster Standards have traditionally been recognized as be longing to the Reformed Confessions. Also, our Sister-Churches in The Netherlands have since the Secession of 1834 recognized these Standards as Reformed and welcomed to their Synods delegates whose Churches had the Westminster Standards as part of their creedal basis.
3. The fact that a Church is called “a true Church according to Article 29 of the Belgic Confession” does not mean that it is a “pure” or “perfect” Church (cf. Revelation 2 and 3). A true Church can still have weaknesses but yet fight the good fight of faith and listen to the voice of the Good Shepherd.
4. Notwithstanding the fact that the Westminster Standards use ex pressions and distinctions that are absent in Scripture (invisible and visible church, covenant with the elect, assurance of faith is not essential, law of nature), it has not been proven that these expressions and distinctions warrant the evaluation that a Church that adheres to such Standards cannot be called a true Church.
5. Notwithstanding the fact that the Form of Government of the O.P.C. reveals a number of differences when compared with our Church Order, it has not been proven that this difference in church polity pre vents a Church from being called a true Church (cf. Article 85, Church Order).
6. That some Churches still have doubts and reservations, impressions and fears, does not prove that the O.P.C. violates the second mark of the true Church.
7. The Report of our Committee for Contact with the O.P.C. to Synod New Westminster 1971 “learned on inquiry that the Communion Table in the O.P.C. is neither ‘open’ in the sense that everyone who presents himself as a believer is admitted to the Lord’s Table, nor ‘closed’ in the sense that exclusively communicant members of the O.P.C. are allowed to partake in the Lord’s Supper. The officers of each local church decide whether or not one who is not a member of the O.P.C. on his request is to be admitted to the Table of the Lord.” Admitting non members, after an examination, to the Lord’s Supper is not a sufficient reason for denying that the O.P.C. is a true Church.
8. It has not been proven that the O.P.C. condones membership in Free Masons and Unions.
9. Because of the history of the O.P.C. and the help that it has received in the past from the Christian Reformed Church, it is understandable that it is difficult for the O.P.C. to sever all ties with this Church, and seeing that the contact between the O.P.C. and the Christian Reformed Church is still under investigation by our Committee, Synod is unable to say at this point that it forms an impediment to calling the O.P.C. a true Church.

C. Recommendations

Synod decide:

1. To express regret that the evaluation of the divergencies, as discussed in the letter of April, 1976, was not explained in detail by Synod Coaldale 1977, before stating that these divergencies “do not form an impediment to recognize the Orthodox Presbyterian Church as Churches of the Lord Jesus Christ” (Acts, 1977, Article 91, Consideration h).
2. To admit that this neglect may have given the impression in the Churches that this recognition was “premature.”
3. For the benefit of our Churches a detailed evaluation of these divergencies, showing them not to be an impediment in recognizing the Orthodox Presbyterian Church as a true Church, should yet be provided.
To incorporate this task in the mandate of the Committee for Contact with the O.P.C.
4. To declare that this does not imply that the statement made by Synod Coaldale 1977 re: the Orthodox Presbyterian Church as a true Church was wrong.
5. Not to accede to the requests of the Churches at Watford, Grand Rapids, Smithville, Lincoln and Chilliwack and of br. W.C. vandenHaak.

ADOPTED

III. A. Observations

1. The Appellants object to the fact that Synod Coaldale, in creating a new relationship called “ecclesiastical contact,” gave no grounds as to the need and desirability of such a relationship.
2. The Appellants also object because they are of the opinion that Synod Coaldale 1977 has undermined the norms for an ecclesiastical relation ship on the basis of Scripture and our Reformed Confessions, like our Churches had maintained them in the rules for correspondence, by establishing a form of ecclesiastical contact with Churches which allow indirect and direct relationship with other Churches that have become false or are deviating from the Reformed standards (see: Christian Reformed Church, the Reformed Ecumenical Synod, the Synodical Gereformeerde Kerken in Nederland).
3. The Appellants state that this relationship of ecclesiastical contact conflicts with the decision of Synod Toronto 1974, Recommendation 2, “Not to take a decision regarding the fraternal relationship since Synod does not know what exactly is the contents of such fraternal relationship.” Synod had to await a clarification from the Committee.
4. One of the Appellants fears that such a temporary relationship, as created by Synod Coaldale, may become a permanent one.
5. The Appellants object to the fact that “ecclesiastical contact” allows for a delegate of the O.P.C. to be present at our General Synods and to receive privileges of the floor, since this is only possible in a sister-church relationship; it conflicts with Article 33 and 50, Church Order and makes it possible for such a delegate to influence or rule our Churches and poses a danger because the O.P.C. has contact with the Christian Reformed Church and indirectly with the Synodical G.K.N.
6. The Appellants request Synod, on the basis of their objections, to declare that the decision of Synod Coaldale to “offer to the Orthodox Presbyterian Church a temporary relationship called ‘ecclesiastical contact'” is unfounded and ill conceived and/or “no longer effective” and to continue contact in the manner prior to 1977.

B. Considerations

1. In considerations a, b, c, of the Acts 1977. Article 91. Ill, Synod Coaldale expressed the need and desirability of a new temporary relationship, after having concluded that it could recognize the O.P.C. as true Churches, when it pointed at:
- (a) the prayer of Christ for unity;
- (b) the desirability of having official rules for practical use;
- (c) the need for an interim relationship, since a correspondence relation ship cannot be reached at this time.
The Appellants have not proven these grounds to be invalid.
2. Synod Coaldale, by establishing a new form of official contact (ecclesiastical contact) created a relationship with requirements different from the only relationship known in the Canadian Reformed Churches up until 1977 (correspondence). However, Synod Coaldale established this “ecclesiastical contact” relationship, not to conflict with or to under mine, but to lead to, a correspondence relationship (see Article 91, Ill, Consideration e, Recommendation c).
It is regrettable that Synod Coaldale did not give a clear evaluation of the relationship of the O.P.C. with other Churches, especially with the Christian Reformed Church and its membership in the R.E.S., before coming to a decision to establish a temporary form of contact (see II, B, 7).
Nevertheless, our Churches have the calling to recognize the grace of our Lord and Saviour in gathering and preserving His Churches also outside our own federation, where that grace is at work. Our Churches must not deny this grace of our Lord on the basis of existing differences. Our Churches, in humble awareness of their own shortcomings and imperfections, must also be patient with regard to relationships which the O.P.C. has with other Churches, since these relationships are the consequence of a different origin and/or a different history.
3. Ecclesiastical Contact is not in conflict with the decision of Synod Toronto 1974, since this Synod could not accept fraternal relations, because it did “not know what exactly is the contents of such fraternal relationship” (see Acts 1974, Article 149, Recommendation 2).
Ecclesiastical Contact is not identical with fraternal relations; since it is not permanent, does not include pulpit exchange, intercommunion, joint action, etc.).
4. Synod Coaldale 1977 in its decision regarding “ecclesiastical contact” states “with the hope and intent that eventually full correspondence, expressing the unity of the true faith can be established” and decided “to offer to the Orthodox Presbyterian Church a temporary relationship” (Acts 1977, Article 91, Consideration e, and Recommendation).
5. Up until 1977 our Churches promised in their rules for correspondence to admit delegates of our sister Churches to our Synods. This promise and its reality in 1974 (Ds. S.S. Cnossen of The Netherlands) was never appealed as conflicting with Article 33 and 50 of the Church Order.
The fact that Synod Coaldale included such a provision in the rules for “ecclesiastical contact” with the O.P.C. does not prove that it is in conflict with the Church Order (cf. Article 85, Church Order). Giving such a delegate the privilege of the floor, but no vote, has not been proven to be “ruling” or “influencing” the Churches.
6. Notwithstanding the fact that Synod Coaldale 1977 did not give a clear evaluation of the divergencies and the relationship of the O.P.C. with other Churches, it has not been proven that “ecclesiastical contact,” as a temporary relationship in order to come to correspondence, is of such a nature that it needs to be rescinded.
In any case, it would be difficult to un-do the decision of Synod Coaldale 1977 to offer “ecclesiastical contact” to the O.P.C. now that this form of relationship has been accepted by the O.P.C. and is functioning, and whereas the Dutch sister-Churches have also adopted this form of contact (see Acta, Groningen-Zuid, Article 139).

C. Recommendations

Synod decide:

1. Not to accede to the requests of the Churches: Burlington-West, Watford, Grand Rapids, Lincoln, Smithville, Chilliwack, Chatham.
2. Not to accede to the request of br. W.C. vandenHaak.

ADOPTED

Print page