16 May GS 1980 art 77

Posted at 22:41h in CanRC, GS 1980 by

GS 1980 ARTICLE 77 – Appeal –  Orangeville

Synod meets in closed session. Committee I presents:

A. Materials – 

  • Agenda VIII, I, 10 –  Appeal of br. H.J. Endeman (et al.) of Orange­ville against a decision of the Regional Synod East June 1980, with enclosures:
    • a. Confidential letter of the Consistory of Orangeville to the Congregation (September 15, 1979).
    • b. Appeal to Classis Ontario North, March 20, 1980 against a decision of the Consistory, signed by 57 communicant and 11 non­ communicant members.
    • c. Acts of Classis Ontario North, March 20, 1980.
    • d. Letter of the clerk of Classis Ontario North, March 20, 1980.
    • e. Appeal of br. H.J. Endeman against a deci­ sion of Classis Ontario North, March 20, 1980.
    • f-k. Appeals of 8 brothers and sisters separately submitted to Regional Synod East, June 11, 12 and 19, 1980 against a decision of Classis Ontario North, March 20, 1980.
    • I. Acts of Regional Synod East, June 1980.
    • m. Letter of the Regional Synod East, June 1980 addressed to all appellants mentioned under f-k.
    • n – Appeal of br. and sr. J. VanOmmen of Orange­ville.

B. Observations

  • I. 1. Br. Endeman requests General Synod to declare that “the Regional Synod deviated from the Word of God (and His commandment to accept one another in love as He loved us, John 13:34) by their pragmatic solution of parting company. We also request that General Synod declare that Regional Synod should have accepted the proposal of Article 37 of their Acts. This article certainly being much closer to what Scripture teaches us about the great commandment” (Appeal p. 7).
  • He also requests General Synod to state “that the trouble in the Church of Orangeville was not: co-operation was impossible, but there was an outright refusal to co-operate by some members of the consistory” (Appeal p. 3).
    • 2. The appeal gives the following considerations for these requests:
      • a. The dismissal of the Minister was not in accordance with Article 11, Church Order, since this Article speaks of dismissal of a minister with his own consent and on the grounds mentioned in the Articles 10, 12, and 13 of the Church Order (call to another congregation; another vocation; incapacity – due to health).
      • The interpretation of Article 11 in the sense of decisions made by
      • Reformed Churches in the past is unlawful, since decisions made by the Churches in Holland since the Synod of Dort are not binding in the Canadian Reformed Churches (Acts, Synod 1968, sub P.S., p. 127).
      • The interpretation of Article 11 as applied by the Consistory of Orangeville is unlawful because “man is not allowed to make provi­sions for weaknesses or shortcomings of men, contrary to God’s command of unity” (Appeal pp. 2, 7).
      • b. The application of Article 11, Church Order in the sense of the Consis­tory and as upheld by the major assemblies, whereby God’s command of unity is paralyzed by the alleged right to part if no cooperation seems possible, leads to the dangerous conclusion that the Church at Orangeville also has the right to split, if the two parties cannot find a way to solve their differences.
      • c. A minister as a servant of God cannot be released from his God-given office, unless it is demanded by the Word of God. “All minor assemblies that dealt with this matter barely took this criterion into account” (Appeal, p. 1).
      • Regional Synod failed to apply the Word of God which demands members of one body to accept one another in love by the power of God. “who works in you both to will and to work” (Appeal p. 3).
      • d. Article 11, Church Order requires that the consistory represents the congregation when deciding to release the minister, while in this case the Consistory only represented a part of the Congregation (Appeal p. 4).
      • e. The Consistory failed to inform the Congregation of the motivations which led to its decision to dismiss the Minister. Matters were with­ held from the Congregation, like the contents of the two proposals dis­ cussed at the Consistory meeting of March 7, 1980 and the contents of the appeal of br. VanOmmen to Class is June/August, 1979 (Appeal p. 5).
      • f. Regional Synod should have considered the release of the Minister ac­ cording to Article 13, Church Order, since it was obvious that the Minister was physically incapacitated to do his work fruitfully, due to the dealings of the Consistory (Appeal p. 3 bottom).
      • g. Regional Synod in Ad. 5, consideration d., fails to recognize that co­ operation was made impossible.
      • Classis, June/August 1979 had decided that it could not be proved that the cause of disunity was the method of preaching.
      • However, br. VanOmmen and others kept dealing with this issue at Consistory meetings, instead of “dropping it,” in accordance with the Classis’ decision (Appeal p. 6).
      • h. Regional Synod failed to disclose what the basic problems were within Consistory and Congregation.
      • The alleged cause, the preaching, was never investigated; the true cause, the refusal of some members of the Consistory to cooperate, was never recognized or dealt with (Appeal pp. 6, 7).
  • II. 1. Br. and sr. VanOmmen request Synod that Rev. C. Olij be restored to his office in the Church at Orangeville and subsequently be released accord­ ing to Article 13, Church Order.
    • 2. The following grounds are adduced for this request:
      • a. the committee of investigation, appointed by Classis June 1979, failed to inquire at the addresses of members of the Church at Orangeville who supported Rev. Olij;
      • b. the Minister preached the Word of God faithfully for 20 years;
      • c. Scripture teaches us to show respect to God’s servants, in spite of their weaknesses and deficiencies.
  • Ill.  1. Regional Synod in its letter to appellants (June 1980) states the following:
    • a. The decision of the Consistory to release the Rev. Olij for the reason stated, is not contrary to Scripture, with reference to Acts 15:39 and to the reasons for release as adopted by Reformed Churches in the past (Groningen 1899, Article 122 – Letter Regional Synod p. 5, sub Ad. 6d, e).
    • b. Article 11, Church Order does not give opening to remove a minister from his office, but only from his service in a particular congregation (letter p. 6, Ad. 6b).
    • c. The provision of Article 11, Church Order is necessary, because through the weaknesses and shortcomings of men situations can arise where cooperation is no longer possible within a Consistory or congregation (Letter p. 6. Ad. 6a).
    • d. Neither the Consistory nor Classis have in any form spoken of an incapacity of the Minister which would make Article 13, Church Order applicable; any such incapacity cannot be deduced either from infor­mation given by Rev. Olij himself or by any of the Appellants (Letter p. 1, Ad. 1a, b, c).
    • e. Approbation by the congregation prior to the release of a minister according to Article 11, Church Order is not required by the Church Order (Letter p. 3, Ad. 4a, b).
    • f. Even one Appellant has agreed that “All the grounds mentioned in the confidential letters of the consistory to the congregation (July 12, 1979; September 15, 1979 and March 10, 1980) had already been made known to us in the years before” (Letter p. 3; Ad. 4a, b).
    • g. Appellants have stated but not proved that Classis did not take “the letter with signatures” (to Classis March 1980, against the request of the Consistory re the decision of releasing the minister) into consider­ation.
    • The Acts of Classis March 1980, in Article 13 and 17, show that this letter was read and discussed (Letter p. 4, Ad. 4 second a and b).
    • h. It was the lack of the ability to restore cooperation which finally led to the adoption of the proposal to release the Minister according to Article 11, Church Order (Letter p. 5, Ad. 5d).
    • i. The material presented by appellants fail to prove that the facts as established by Church Visitors and committees are false. On the contrary, the facts are clearly dated and confirmed by official docu­ments of Consistory and Classis (Letter p. 5, bottom, a, b).

C. Considerations

  • 1. By “Dismissal” Article 11, Church Order, from the time of its adoption in the Church Order (1618-1619 Dort) means the release of a minister from his congregation on grounds other than the ones mentioned in the Articles 10, 12, 13 and 79, Church Order. The appellant has failed to give proof to the contrary.
  • 2. By adopting this Article in their Church Order the churches have agreed that it is not contrary to Scripture to release a minister from his office in a particular church in situations for which this Article makes provision. As long as this Article of the Church Order has not been changed by the churches on Scriptural grounds, no Scriptural grounds need to be adduced for the release of a minister according to Article 11.
  • 3. The conclusion that a congregation has the right to split, if Article 11, Church Order gives the right to minister and congregation to part ways when cooperation has become impossible, ignores the duty of all the members of the Church to submit to the office bearers and to hold for settled and binding the decisions of the major assemblies (on the condi­tion stipulated in Article 31, Church Order). It also ignores the fact that release according to Article 11, Church Order concerns the release of an office bearer from function in the Church and not the dismissal of a brother from the communion of saints.
  • 4. The representation of the congregation by the consistory in Article 11 is restricted to the matter of providing for proper financial support of the minister.
  • 5. Article 13, Church Order, does not apply in the difficult situation in the Church at Orangeville. because the impossibility for Rev. Olij to work fruitfully in the Congregation was not caused by ill health (as a result of the difficulties in the Consistory), but by the inability of the Consistory to co-operate in unity and peace, as a result of a problem that was already there before the Fall of 1977.
  • 6. When the Consistory informed the Congregation of the grounds of its decision, it implicitly informed the Congregation of the motives leading to its decision. (Observation Ill, 11).
  • 7. The consistory is not supposed to inform the congregation about disci­plinary matters and other actions which the Consistory considers confi­dential (Observation 1, 2e).
  • 8. The decision of Classis June/August 1979 to reject the appeal of br. Van­ Ommen does not imply that Classis said that it could not be proven that the method of preaching was the cause of the problems in the Church at Orangeville.
  • Classis decided that br. VanOmmen had not submitted sufficient evidence for Classis to decide against the judgment of the Consistory. (Acts, Classis, Article 25).
  • Continued efforts in the Consistory to solve the basic problem cannot be considered to be in conflict with the decision of Classis June/August 1979 (Observation 1, 21).
  • 9. The major assemblies cannot be blamed for not disclosing and investi­gating the basic problem.
  • The Appellant himself states that Consistory and Church Visitors acknowledged that the basic problem was the method of preaching. The task of the major assemblies was not to investigate, but to establish whether the inability to solve this problem had led to such an extent of disunity, that cooperation within the Consistory and a fruitful ministry by the minister in the Congregation could still be considered possible.
  • The fact that part of the Consistory was not prepared to ignore this basic problem, cannot be qualified as refusal to cooperate, contrary to the commandment of love.
  • 10. The fact that the Classis did not act in accordance with the “letter with signatures” does not prove that this letter was not taken into considera­tion; the fact that Classis did not pronounce that the Minister at least could still work fruitfully in a larger or smaller part of the congregation, as the letter with signatures stated(“… could have worked in the largest part of the congregation”) (Appeal Endeman, p. 6) does not prove that either. The Appellant should have proven that the Minister could still work fruitfully in the Congregation as such, which is the calling of the Minister.
  • 11. If generally speaking lack of specific gifts needed in a congregation, or weaknesses incompatible with the character of a certain congregation, lead to intolerable tensions and disunity, there is no promise of God to cure the situation by His power.
  • It must be considered whether in such a case love does not demand humbly to admit the impossibility to cooperate and to part as brothers.
  • 12. Article 11, Church Order, which opens the way for the release of a minister, is not in conflict with the commandment of love, but is a special application of this commandment for the benefit of the congregation and the minister.
  • 13. The facts, as documented and accepted by all parties, show that the Minister, because of his method of preaching, was at least partly the cause of the tension.
  • The Minister has not been able to take this cause away.
  • 14. The endeavors of the Church Visitors by their advices and recommenda­tions to Consistory and Minister have not been able to take this cause away either.
  • 15. The Appellants do not prove their claim that the proposal recorded in Article 37 of the Acts of Regional Synod June 1980, which proposal was rejected, was more in accordance with the scriptural demand of love. This proposal did not point out a way to deal with the basic cause of the tensions, in order to come to a harmonious cooperation within the Con­sistory.
  • 16. The complaint of br. and sr. VanOmmen in their Appeal to General Synod, that the Classis-committee-of-investigation failed to hear those members of the Congregation who defended the Minister regarding his method of preaching, is unfounded. The Committee of Advice (June 1979) had to investigate the Consistory’s decision not to adopt the proposal to dis­ miss the Minister, which decision was appealed at Classis, and not to examine sentiments in the Congregation.
  • 17. Respect, according to Scripture, for the servants of God in spite of their shortcomings and deficiencies, does not exclude the release of these ser­vants, if these deficiencies lead to a situation in which their fruitful service is no longer possible, while keeping the way open for them to serve fruitfully in other congregations.
  • 18. Regional Synod June 1980 concluded, on valid grounds, that Article 13, Church Order is not applicable in this case. (See Letter Regional Synod June 1980 Ad. 1a, b, c, and Consideration 4 above).

D. Recommendation

Synod decide:

  • on the ground of above observations and considerations, not to grant the requests of Appellants.

ADOPTED

Once again the Rev. Cl. Stam and the Rev. M. van Beveren abstain from voting (See Article 74). The Rev. J. Mulder is absent.

Print page