23 Dec GS 1986 art 186

Posted at 22:28h in CanRC, GS 1986 by

GS 1986 ARTICLE 186

Appeals re Edmonton

Committee 2 presents:

A.   MATERIAL

  • –   Agenda, VIII, H, 3, 5, 6, 7, 10.
  • Appeal of the Providence Canadian Reformed Church at Edmonton against Art. 166, considerations 4, 5, and 6 of the 1983 General Synod.
  • Appeal of br. J. Werkman against the same.
  • Appeal of the Canadian Reformed Church at Smithers against the same. Appeal of br. H. Noot against the same.
  • Appeal of br. and sr. T. & M. VanderZyl against the same.

B.  ADMISSIBILITY

  • The consistory of the Providence Church at Edmonton, the Church at Smithers, br. H. Noot, and br. and sr. T. VanderZyl of the Immanuel Church at Edmonton appeal Acts, Art. 166, Considerations 4, 5, and 6 of the 1983 General Synod. These ap­peals are thus properly placed before this General Synod and can be declared admissible.
  • The appeal of br. J. Werkman is against the same decision of the 1983 General Synod. However, br. J_ Werkman has withdrawn himself from the Immanuel Church at Ed­ monton and therefore is technically outside the jurisdiction of this General Synod. Nevertheless, since  he  withdrew  owing to difficulties  directly  related  to the issues of the appeal, General Synod declares this appeal admissible in the hope that it may help in reconciling br. J. Werkman with the consistory of the Immanuel Church at Edmonton.

C.    OBSERVATIONS

  • 1.     The consistory of the Providence Canadian Reformed Church at Edmonton re­ quests synod to “reconsider Considerations 4, 5, and 6 of Article 166 of the Acts of General Synod Cloverdale 1983, and revise the wording as necessary to provide the churches with a clear and unambiguous judgment regarding the allegations of br. J. Werkman” on the ground that “the judgment of Synod Clover­ dale is contradictory, ambiguous and confusing. It has not solved the local problem and placed the consistories confronted with the situation in an untenable position.”
  • 2.    Br. J. Werkman requests synod “to do justice to our previous appeal and to determine whether these teachings of Rev. DeBruin may be taught in our church­es.” His grounds are that the 1983 General Synod “did not deal with the substance of my appeal” and that the pronouncement in Consideration 6 con­tradicts and nullifies Considerations 4 and 5.
  • 3.    The consistory of the Church at Smithers requests this synod to judge that,
    • a.    Synod 1983 was correct in its judgment that the teaching that “all who have received a true faith become by virtue of that faith ‘a member of Jesus Christ and of His church’ … and as mutual members of the same body (Art. 28) they are therefore duty-bound to join themselves to Christ’s church” in fact nullifies what we confess in this very same 28th article.
    • b.     Synod 1983 was wrong in its judgment that statements and teaching that nullify and undermine the confessions do not constitute attacks on the con­fessions and do not touch the promise given in the Subscription Form.
    • c.     Synod 1983 should have confined itself to judging the teachings and statements of Rev. DeBruin in the light of God’s Word and/or the confes­sions and should have left the consequences of such a judgment to the parties involved.”
  • 4.    Br. H. Noot requests synod to judge that General Synod 1983 was correct in its judgments as found in Art. 165, C, 5 and 6, and in Art. 166, C, 4 and 5, and in the first part of Art. 166, C, 6, but that General Synod 1983 was wrong in its judgment as found in Art. 166, C, 6, that “nullifying and undermining statements and teachings do not constitute attacks on the confession or that this does not break the promise given when the subscription form was signed,” and that “the Immanuel Council stands behind teachings and statements that nullify and under­ mine the confession.” His basic ground is that the statement in Consideration 6 nullifies the preceding considerations.
  • 5.     In their appeal against Art. 166, C, 6, of Synod of Cloverdale of 1983, br. and sr. T. and M. VanderZyl request Synod “to make a clearcut decision . . . regard­ing the teachings of Rev. S. DeBruin.” Their basic ground is that the decision of the General Synod of Cloverdale, Acts, Art. 166, is contradictory. unclear and confusing. In a number of considerations the appellants try to indicate why the teachings of Rev. DeBruin are “against the Subscription Form” and why they “attack the confessions.”

D.    CONSIDERATION

The appeals are all answered in the decision of Synod 1986 regarding the appeal of the consistory of Immanuel Canadian Reformed Church at Edmonton.

E.    RECOMMENDATION

Synod decides, to send the answer to the appeal of the Immanuel Canadian Reformed Church at Edmonton to,

  • 1.     the Providence Canadian Reformed Church at Edmonton;
  • 2.    br. J. Werkman;
  • 3.    the consistory of the Canadian Reformed Church at Smithers;
  • 4.     br. H. Noot;
  • 5. br. and sr. T. and M. VanderZyl.

The recommendation is ADOPTED.

Print page