Office Bearers | GS 1986 art 132

01 Dec GS 1986 art 132

Posted at 19:35h in CanRC, GS 1986 by Roy Janssen

GS 1986 ARTICLE 132

Report on Contact OPC (See Arts. 46, 53, 56, 67, 70, 124, 126, 128)

Discussion re point E continues.

A motion, duly seconded, reads: Replace Considerations by:

b. Although “the committee considers that the GA has not allowed deviation from their standards, nor has it sanctioned heresy such as would require us to break off our relations with the OPC,” its recommendation that “the Canadian Reformed Churches should use their ecclesiastical contact to address the OPC on this issue of fencing the Lord’s table” indicates that the matter of fencing of the Lord’s Supper is, indeed, a serious confessional divergency, which is a major issue of mutual concern.
d. Although guests are not specifically mentioned in Article 61, Church Order, the conclusion of the committee, Observation 5, cannot mean that Article 61, C.O., has no bearing on the admission of guests to the Lord’s Supper. Synod con siders that Article 61, C.O., is the rule which governs the admission of all those who seek to partake in the Lord’s Supper.
The motion is ADOPTED.
The amended point E reads now:
E. Synod 1983 gave the committee the mandate “to pay special attention to the new developments in the OPC, with respect to the so-called Shepherd case, the Hofford case, and the ‘fencing’ of the Lord’s Supper, and to come to the next synod with recommendations in this respect.”

Observations

1. The committee gives a substantial report on the “new developments” in the OPC as requested by the General Synod of 1983, to wit, the “Shepherd Case,” the “Hofford Case,” “fencing of the Lord’s Supper,” and has also included in their report information about the “Controversy at Blue Bell.”
2. Concerning the “Shepherd Case,” the committee reports that it had no access to official information because it was a matter dealt with by a Theological Seminary which is independent from the OPC and that ” Prof. N. Shepherd voluntarily resigned from the Presbytery and the OPC” (p. 8, 9).
3. Concerning the “Hofford Case,” the committee gives four areas concerning which they would like to see the OPC addressed, and “considers that the GA has not allowed deviation from their standards, nor has it sanctioned heresy such as would require us to break off our relations with the OPC” (p. 19, top).
4. Concerning the ” fencing of the Lord’s Supper,” the committee with reference to Blue Bell states that “the Church at Blue Bell adhered to distinctive doctrines and practices which we as churches share with them. It is our conviction that these teaching, confessions, and practices are clearly derived from Scripture. However, it was precisely because of these distinctive, reformed principles that the church life was made intolerable for them by the interim Session. Ultimately, they saw the need to secede from the OPC in order to survive as a reformed church” (p. 19).
5. Concerning our own practice of admission to the Lord’s Supper, the committee concludes ”that our churches never adopted a general rule (in the Church Order) for admission of guests to the Lord’s Supper, and that we therefore cannot ask this from the OPC either.”
6. The committee recommends:
- a. To pass on the report about fencing of the Lord’s table (including the sections A, B, and C) to the OPC through its Committee for Ecumenicity and Inter-Church Relations.
- b. To ask the OPC to study this report and to respond to it. This response should pay attention to the related doctrinal subjects which were listed in the section dealing with the controversy at Blue Bell.
- c. To invite their committee on Ecumenicity and Inter-Church Relations to have joint meeting(s) about this matter of mutual concern (p. 19, bottom).

Considerations

a. It is evident (Observation 2), that the “Shepherd Case” is not a matter of the OPC as such, but of an independent Theological Seminary and that Dr. N. Shepherd voluntarily withdrew his membership from the OPC.
b. Although “the committee considers that the GA has not allowed deviation from their standards, nor has it sanctioned heresy such as would require us to break off our relations with the OPC, its recommendation that “the Canadian Reformed Churches should use their ecclesiastical contact to address the OPC on this issue of fencing the Lord’s table” indicates that the matter of fencing of the Lord’s Supper is, indeed, a serious confessional divergency, which is a major issue of mutual concern.
c. The practice in the Canadian Reformed Churches with respect to the admission to the Lord’s Supper is clearly regulated in Article 61 of the Church Order as follows: “The consistory shall admit to the Lord’s Supper only those who have made public profession of the Reformed faith and lead a godly life. Members of sister-churches shall be admitted on the ground of a good attestation concerning their doctrine and conduct.”
d. Although guests are not specifically mentioned in Article 61, Church Order, the conclusion of the committee, Observation 5, cannot mean that Article 61, C.O., has no bearing on the admission of guests to the Lord’s Supper. Synod con siders that Article 61, C.O., is the rule which governs the admission of all those who seek to partake in the Lord’s Supper.
e. The Canadian Reformed Churches have from the beginning of contact with the OPC considered the admission to the Lord’s Supper as an essential matter of discipline.

Recommendations

1. Synod expresses its thanks to the committee for the work it has done to make this report.
2. Synod concludes that since the “Dr. N. Shepherd Case” has not been dealt with by the ecclesiastical courts of the OPC, it is not a matter about which Synod can judge.
3. To pass on the report about fencing of the Lord’s table (including the sections A, B, and C) to the OPC through its committee for Ecumenicity, along with the above considerations of the General Synod of 1986 and invite the CEIR to have meetings about these matters.
4. To ask the OPC to study this report and to respond to it. This response should pay attention to the related doctrinal subjects which were listed in the section dealing with the controversy at Blue Bell.
5. To invite their committee on Ecumenicity and Inter-Church Relations to have joint meeting(s) about this matter of mutual concern” (p. 19, bottom).
The recommendations re point E are ADOPTED.

F. Synod 1983 gave the committee the mandate to “inform the churches about the progress made by means of press releases.”

Observation

The committee informs synod of the publications made.

Recommendation

Synod thanks the committee for having done this work.
The recommendation re point F is ADOPTED.

G. Synod 1983 gave the committee the mandate to “report on its activities and findings to the next general Synod.”