23 Dec GS 1986 art 187

Posted at 22:30h in CanRC, GS 1986 by

GS 1986 ARTICLE 187

Appeals re Edmonton

Committee 2 presents:

A.    MATERIAL

–   Agenda, VIII, H, 9 Appeal from H. DeJong of Edmonton.

B.   ADMISSIBILITY

The Regional Synod West of February 5-7, 1985, judged that br. H. DeJong has placed himself outside of the jurisdiction of general synod by the schismatic act of withdrawing from the church before the church-orderly way had been exhausted. 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. H. DeJong with the consistory of the Immanuel Church at Edmonton.

C.    OBSERVATIONS

  • 1.    In this appeal br. H. DeJong “makes a serious complaint on the grounds of Art. 31, C.O., regarding the way (his) objections were dealt with” by Regional Synod West of February 5-7, 1985. He requests that this General Synod make the follow­ing pronouncements:
    • a.    Regional Synod West of February 5-7, 1985, did not really compare the (10) complaints with Scripture, the confessions and the Church Order.
    • b.    That according to the adduced Scripture passages, br. H. DeJong and others answered the call of elder J. Werkman in order to remain true to the Scrip­ture, confessions, and Church Order, and at the same lime he made an ap­peal to the major assemblies.
    • c.     That the grounds used to answer the call of elder J. Werkman are similar to those given by the Blue Bell Reformation Church, which grounds were accepted by Classis Ontario South of Sept. 11-12, 1985.
    • d.    That Regional Synod West of February 5-7, 1985, used the pronouncements of the 1983 General Synod (Art. 166, C, 6) without really checking the points raised by br. H. DeJong in his appeal.
    • e.     That based on Scripture, confessions and Church Order, those who answered the call of elder J. Werkman acted rightly.
    • f.     That Art. 166, C, 6 of the 1983 General Synod conflicts with similar pro­nouncements made in Art. 166, C, 1-5, and must be dropped.
    • g.    That the appeal made by the consistory of the Immanuel Church at Edmon­ton is proof that it binds the congregation to un-scriptural doctrines and has therewith “placed itself outside of the Federation of the Canadian Reformed Churches.”
  • 2.    In his appeal, br. H. DeJong further observes that the above “Observation 1, f” is at the same time a request to revise the content of the pronouncement of the 1983 General Synod in Art. 166, C. 6.

D.    CONSIDERATIONS

  • 1.     Regional Synod West of February 5-7, 1985, considered that the act of br. H. DeJong, in answering the call of elder J. Werkman to withdraw from the church before the church-orderly way had been exhausted, was schismatic.
  • 2.     Regional Synod West of February 5-7, 1985, correctly pointed out that “if he cannot accept the decision of the 1983 General Synod, he should seek to have it revised by appealing to the next general synod.”
  • 3.    The appeal of br. H. DeJong ultimately deals with Art. 166 of the Acts of the 1983 General Synod of Cloverdale.
  • 4.     This 1986 General Synod has made a decision in connection with other appeals against Art. 166 of the Acts of the 1983 General Synod of Cloverdale.

E.    RECOMMENDATIONS

Synod decides,

  • 1.     to send its decision regarding the appeal (from the Immanuel Church at Edmon­ton) against Art. 166 of the Acts of the 1983 General Synod to br. H. DeJong;
  • 2.     to underline the admonition  Regional Synod West of February 5-7, 1985, made in one of its considerations to br. H. DeJong, namely, that he undo his schismatic act by reconciling himself with the consistory of the Immanuel Church at Edmonton.

The recommendations are ADOPTED. Synod is adjourned for supper.

Print page