Office Bearers | GS 1989 art 142

13 Nov GS 1989 art 142

Posted at 16:29h in CanRC, GS 1989 by Roy Janssen

Committee IV presents: Agenda Item VIII, D, 9

Letter from br. H. De Jong re art. 184 and 187 of Acts Synod 1986.

1. Br. H. De Jong requests Synod to make a revision to Art. 184 of Acts 1986, concerning section VI, Recommendation 3 as follows:
- a. that the consistory of the Immanuel Church of Edmonton, in an official decision of July 3, 1983, bound this rejectionable doctrine upon the congregation;
- b. that as a result of promoting and teaching this rejectionable doctrine, the office-bearers violated the Subscription Form, and are therefore to be suspended;
- c. that elder J. Werkman correctly called the congregation away from unfaithful office-bearers;
- d. that the churches in Classis Alberta/Manitoba have unjustly supported the rejectionable doctrine mentioned in 1, 2.a. and 2.b.
2. Recommendation 3 in section VI of Art.184 of the Acts Synod 1986 reads as follows:
- “that the appeal of the Canadian Reformed Church (Immanuel) at Edmonton is hereby answered. General Synod beseeches all the office-bearers of the Immanuel Church at Edmonton to bring their views, their preaching, teaching and ruling in harmony with the Scriptures and the Three Forms of Unity, and thus in line with their ordination vows and their signature under the Subscription Form.”

1. General Synod 1986 made specific considerations and decisions with regard to an appeal of br. H. De Jong (See Acts Synod 1986, Art.187).
2. The revision requested by br. H. De Jong in 1989 concerns the same matter raised by him in 1986.
3. There are no new grounds advanced by br. H. De Jong to support his request for revision (Art.33 C.O.).

Synod decide:

to declare REQUEST I of this submission inadmissible.

1. Br. H. De Jong requests Synod to rewrite article 187 of the Acts of Synod Burlington 1986, section E, Recommendation 2, in its entirety in this manner:
- Considering that the consistory of the Immanuel Church bound an unscriptural doctrine upon the congregation (see revised article 184), brother H. De Jong and others with him have correctly followed the call of a faithful office-bearer and have justly rejected the unscriptural doctrine, in accordance with article 32 BC and Recommendation 1 of article 184, section VI.
- To condemn this as a schismatic act is against Scripture (Rom.16:17,18; 2 Thess. 3:6; Tit. 3:10; 2 John 10), against article 32 BC, and against the Church Order.
2. In Recommendation 2 of Art.187, section E, Synod 1986 decided:
- to underline the admonition Regional Synod West of February 5-7, 1985, made in one of its considerations to br. H. De Jong, namely, that he undo this schismatic act by reconciling himself with the consistory of the Immanuel Church at Edmonton.

1. Br. H. DeJong complains that he has been wrongly accused of not going the way of the Church Order and of acting in a schismatic manner. He contends that the decision of Synod 1986 regarding the teaching of Rev. S. DeBruin on the doctrine of the church justify his action in 1983.
2. The decision of Synod 1986 does not justify the action of br. H. De Jong in 1983. For the point is that br. H. De Jong withdrew before the process of appeal had been exhausted and therefore committed a schismatic act accord- ing to Regional Synod West 1985.

Synod decide: