22 Oct GS 1989 art 94

Posted at 11:31h in CanRC, GS 1989 by

GS 1989 ARTICLE 94 – Committee I presents: Agenda Items VIII, F, 1, a – c, 2

A. MATERIAL:

  • 1. Report of the Committee for Contact with the OPC
  • 2. Letter from the Church at Attercliffe re OPC
  • 3. Letter from the Church at Chilliwack re OPC
  • 4. Letter from the Church at Smithville re OPC.
  • 5. Overture from the Church at Hamilton re OPC.

MOTION TO AMEND

The following motion to amend the Advisory Committee proposal was made and duly seconded:

To add to Consideration IV, 3: Ecclesiastical contact, since it is not permanent, does not include pulpit exchange, intercommunion, joint action, etc. (Synod Smithville 1980, Acts, p. 70, Consideration 3).

ADOPTED

The Advisory Committee report as amended reads as follows:

B. INTRODUCTION

  • Synod 1986 gave to the Committee for Contact with the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) the following mandate:
    • 1. To continue contact with the OPC, taking into account the rules for “ecclesiastical contact” which include “continued discussion” on “issues of mutual concern”, (p. 57, Recommendation 2).
      • The rules for ecclesiastical contact (Synod 1977 Acts, Art. 91, p. 42), are as follows:
        • a. To invite delegates to each other’s General Assemblies (G.A.) and to accord such delegates privileges of the floor in the Assembly or Synod, but no vote;
        • b. To exchange Minutes and Acts of each other’s General Assemblies and General Synods as well as communications on major issues of mutual concern, and to solicit comments on these documents;
        • c. To be diligent by means of the discussions to use the contact for the purpose of reaching full correspondence.
    • 2. To charge the Committee to continue the discussion on divergencies, which are an issue of mutual concern and to report on this to the next Synod, (p. 57, recommendation 3).
    • 3. That the Committee for Contact OPC continue the contacts about the relationships which the OPC entertains with others, expressing the following concerns:
      • a. That the relationship of the OPC with the CRC and their membership in the RES remain stumbling blocks in reaching full correspondence;
      • b. To inform the OPC that in the event the OPC joins and is received into the PCA, the official contact with the OPC is not transferable to the PCA.
      • The Committee should continue to solicit clear commitments from the OPC concerning these matters, ( p. 58, Recommendation 1).
    • 4. To pass on the Report about the fencing of the Lord’s Table, (including the sections A, B, C) to the OPC through its Committee on Ecumenicity and Inter-Church Relations (CEIR), along with the above considerations of General Synod 1986 and invite the CEIR to have meetings about these matters, (p. 60, Recommendation 3).
    • 5. To ask the OPC to study this report and to respond to it. This response should pay attention to the related doctrinal subjects which are listed in the section dealing with the controversy at Blue Bell, (p. 60, Recommendation 4).
    • 6. To invite their CEIR to have joint meeting(s) about this matter of mutual concern, (p. 59, bottom; p. 60, Recommendation 5).

C. OBSERVATIONS

  • I. Committee Report
    • 1. The Committee reports that it sent a delegate to the 53rd and 54th General Assemblies of the OPC, (pp. 2-3). Reports of these delegates are included in the Committee report.
    • 2. The Committee reports that it has received from the OPC an official statement that the OPC has withdrawn from the Reformed Ecumenical Synod (RES) on June 10, 1988. A copy of the “News Release” of the OPC and the Statement of Resignation of the OPC from the RES are attached to the Committee report.
    • 3. The Committee reports that it received a copy of the OPC’s statement “Biblical Principles of the Unity of the Church” sent at the instruction of the 54th General Assembly. A copy is attached to the Committee report.
    • 4. The Committee evaluated and responded to this statement at a combined meeting with the CEIR on January 24, 1989. The published response, “Some Remarks on the OPC statement”, is attached to the Committee report as Addendum 3.
    • 5. The Committee discussed the matters of fencing the Lord’s Table, the Blue-Bell situation, relations with the RES and CRC, at a meeting with CEIR on January 24, 1989.
    • 6. The Committee reports that a number of exchanges by mail and telephone took place.
    • 7. The Committee reports that in regard to the relationship with the PCA the CEIR understands that our official contact with the OPC is not transferable to another body.
  • II. Letter from the Church at Attercliffe
    • 1. The Church at Attercliffe, having considered the response of General Synod of Burlington 1986 re contact with the OPC decides not to appeal the answer of Synod 1986 at this time, but informs Synod that it reserves the right, if deemed necessary, to appeal this matter to the next General Synod.
    • 2. The Church of Attercliffe comes to this decision by considering that the mandate given to the Committee for Contact with the OPC now includes the doctrinal issues already mentioned in the appeal of 1980, and that waiting with an appeal is in accordance with the advice of Synod Burlington 1986.
    • 3. The Church of Attercliffe expresses a number of concerns regarding the relationship with the OPC. Attercliffe also suggests to address the General Assembly directly, besides continuing the contact through the CEIR.
  • III. Letter from the Church at Chilliwack
    • 1. The Church at Chilliwack proposes to discontinue the ecclesiastical contact with the OPC. The grounds are:
    • a. its assessment of all received information to date;
    • b. the name ‘ecclesiastical contact’ has created a lot of confusion and is misunderstood by the membership, and could be construed as a sister-church relationship. This is inconsistent with our Church Order, where no such contact is mentioned.
    • 2. The Church at Chilliwack proposes that Committee contact be retained in order to come to a full sister-church relationship.
  • IV. Letter from the Church at Smithville
    • 1. The Church at Smithville suggests that General Synod Burlington-West 1986 did not serve the churches well by “receiving” the report on the Evaluation of Divergencies rather than evaluating it. Smithville suggests that this evaluation should have weighed the evidence, and should have led to a conclusion whether or not the divergencies in doctrine and practice form an impediment.
    • 2. The Church of Smithville maintains that the churches should be diligent in the matter of the divergencies, and in the fundamental questions regarding the Westminster Confessions, the Catechisms, the Standards of Government, Discipline and Worship in the OPC.
    • 3. The Church of Smithville is of the opinion that a detailed evaluation of the practical consequences of maintaining the relationship in its present form with the OPC is required.
    • 4. The Church of Smithville feels that to date little progress has been made in resolving the issue of the fencing of the Lord’s table, and this is a cause for concern.
    • 5. The Church of Smithville expresses disappointment that the churches have received almost no information for more than two years concerning the work done by the Committee for Contact with the OPC.
    • 6. The Church at Smithville requests Synod to formally evaluate the divergencies in doctrine and practice between the OPC and ourselves.
    • 7. Smithville also requests Synod to mandate the Committee for Contact with the OPC to evaluate the doctrinal and church political statements which are binding in the OPC with a view to establishing whether these are an impediment to our stated desire to reach full correspondence with the OPC.
  • V. Letter from the Church at Hamilton
    • 1. The Church of Hamilton restates the decisions of Synod 1977 to Synod 1986, re contact with the OPC.
    • 2. The Church at Hamilton requests Synod to note with regret the lack of substantial progress toward unity.
    • 3. The Church of Hamilton states that full correspondence with the OPC appears presently to be out of reach.
    • 4. The Church of Hamilton overtures Synod to discontinue the ecclesiastical contact with the OPC. In its consideration 1, the Church of Hamilton quotes Art. 27, B.C. to support this overture.
    • 5. The Church of Hamilton proposes to continue contact with the OPC with the mandate to keep the churches informed by means of Press Releases and to report to the churches six months before the convening of the next Synod, as well as to report to the next Synod.

D. CONSIDERATIONS

  • I. Committee Report
    • 1. Synod notes several encouraging developments:
      • a. the withdrawal of the OPC from the RES means the removal of a great impediment to unity.
      • b. the recent OPC statement on “Biblical Principles on the Unity of the Church” gives hope for new and concrete discussions on church unity.
      • c. the OPC brothers especially at this time (after the OPC has rejected “to join and be received” with the PCA, and has withdrawn from the REC) plead for continuation of contact with our churches because they feel enriched by our Reformed background.
    • 2. Synod also notes several disappointing aspects:
      • a. the discussions of the divergencies have not received sufficient attention by the Committee and the CEIR.
      • b. the serious concerns expressed by Synod 1986 regarding lack of progress towards “uniformity of opinion” (Acts, Art. 128, C, Considerations) were not sufficiently addressed since 1986. This has resulted in growing unease about the lack of progress (see e.g. the submissions of the Churches at Attercliffe, Chilliwack, Hamilton, Smithville). The Committee for Contact with the OPC has not carried out its mandate in this respect.
      • c. the matter of fencing the Lord’s table, considered by Synod 1986 as “a serious confessional divergency which is a major issue of mutual concern” (Acts Synod 1986, Art. 132, Considerations B), should be treated and presented in this light. Although a beginning has been made, further discussion is mandatory.
      • d. the Committee for Contact with the OPC and the CEIR have only met once during the last three years. While our Committee may perhaps not be faulted for this, it remains imperative that the discussions of the issues with the OPC be prioritized and intensified. The OPC, from its side, must also demonstrate a greater sense of eagerness which corresponds with their plea to our churches.
    • 3. It would be unwise to terminate the “ecclesiastical contact” relationship with the OPC unless it is clear that this relationship no longer functions, is unfruitful, or dangerous. From the Report of the Committee it appears that this is certainly not the case at present. It is important that patience be exercised in recognition of the fact that the Canadian Reformed Churches and the OPC share the common bond of faith.
    • 4. Synod notes that the matter of the relationship of the OPC with the Christian Reformed Church is still of great concern for the Committee and Synod. It is inconsistent for the OPC to withdraw from the RES on the one hand, and maintain close relations with member churches of the RES on the other hand. In view of possible participation of the OPC in the ICRC, this matter should receive priority at the General Assembly of the OPC.
    • 5. Synod expresses its gratitude that the Committee on Relations with Churches Abroad of our Dutch sister churches voiced its willingness to work in “close deliberations” with the Canadian Reformed Churches in its contact with the OPC.
    • 6. Synod notes that the OPC, after having terminated the relationship with the RES, has decided to send observers to the ICRC to be held in Vancouver, BC, D.V., June, 1989.
  • II. Letter from the Church at Attercliffe
    • 1. Synod cannot deal with a statement concerning a possible future appeal.
    • 2. Although it is within the province of General Synod to place matters directly on the floor of the General Assembly this should be done only when the matter is urgent and requires by-passing of the appointed channels of communication. Attercliffe does not demonstrate the necessity of this action.
  • III. Letter from the Church at Chilliwack
    • 1. Chilliwack’s assessment of both official and non-official information ( or lack of it) does not warrant a discontinuation of ecclesiastical contact, cf. Report of the Committee for OPC.
    • 2. The Church at Chilliwack does not prove that the name ‘ecclesiastical contact’ has created a lot of confusion, or that it is misunderstood by the membership.
    • 3. The Church of Chilliwack does not prove that the relationship of ‘ecclesiastical contact’ is inconsistent with the Church Order. Synod Smithville’s 1980 statement on this contact implies that the rules for ecclesiastical contact are not necessarily in conflict with the Church Order, cf. Art. 97, III, B, 5, p. 69.
  • IV. Letter from the Church at Smithville
    • 1. Although the Committee for Contact with the OPC concluded in its Evaluation of Divergencies that the divergencies are not an impediment to recognizing the OPC as a true church, Synod 1986 in receiving this report did not make a judgment concerning this opinion of the Committee. Furthermore, although Synod 1986 received the Evaluation without making a judgment on it, it is clear that the Evaluation of Divergencies was received as a substantiation for the decision of General Synod 1977, cf. Acts Art. 126, B, Considerations (2) 1-4, p. 55.
    • 2. The Church of Smithville fails to distinguish adequately between impediments to the recognition of the OPC as a true church, and impediments to full correspondence with the OPC. The divergencies were not considered to be impediments to the former, (as per Synod 1977, and Evaluation of Divergencies, Acts 1986, pp. 142-147), but may be impediments to the latter.
    • 3. It is not in the province of General Synod 1989 to provide a detailed evaluation of the practical consequences of maintaining “Ecclesiastical Contact” with the OPC. The recognition of the OPC as a true church does not imply that our membership should act as if a sister-church relationship exists with the OPC. Ecclesiastical contact, since it is not permanent, does not include pulpit exchange, intercommunion, joint action etc. (Synod Smithville, 1980, Acts p. 70 Considerations 3).
    • 4. The matter of the divergencies, including the fundamental questions regarding the doctrinal and church-political statements binding in the OPC form an integral part of the ongoing mandate of the Committee for Contact with the OPC.
    • 5. According to the Report of the Committee for Contact with the OPC, the Committee was assured that the matter of fencing the Lord’s table has the continued attention of the OPC and the CEIR.
  • V. Letter from the Church at Hamilton
    • 1. In quoting Art. 27 Belgic Confession the Church at Hamilton neglects to quote the crucial words “with heart and will”. The willingness to unite is of primary importance in any relationship of ecclesiastical fellowship.
    • 2. Although Synod recognizes that progress has been slow, Hamilton has not proven that the OPC lacks the willingness to work towards full church unity, (Cf. the Committee Report, and the statement : Biblical Principles of the Unity of the Church” along with the statement: “Some remarks . . .”).

E. RECOMMENDATIONS

  • I. Committee Report Synod decide:
    • 1. to thank the Committee for Contact with the OPC for its work, and to continue the temporary relationship of “Ecclesiastical Contact” in the understanding that encouraging indications for progress are present.
    • 2. to acknowledge gratefully the Scriptural witness that the OPC delegates have given within the RES — especially with respect to the apostasy in the synodical Reformed Churches in the Netherlands — the exemplary way in which they have spoken the truth in love (Ephs. 4), and the clear manner in which they finally terminated the membership of the OPC in the Reformed Ecumenical Council.
    • 3. to convey this acknowledgment to the ICRC and to recommend to the ICRC that before admitting the OPC for membership, if so requested, it evaluate the relationship of the OPC to the Christian Reformed Church, in the light of the latter’s membership in the REC, and the OPC’s stated acknowledgment of concern regarding the REC.
    • 4. to remind the Dutch sister churches to work in such a way that we may continue to present a unified testimony as sister churches in our contact with the OPC.
    • 5. to continue the Committee for Contact with the OPC, with the specific mandate:
      • a. to maintain the contact with the OPC, taking into account the rules for Ecclesiastical Contact, with the understanding that the temporary relationship of “ecclesiastical contact” is designed to come to a full sister-church relationship in the unity of the true faith and is not intended to continue indefinitely, or become a relationship of permanent status.
      • b. to include in the “continued discussions” on “issues of mutual concern” (Acts, Synod 1977, p. 42) the statement on Biblical Principles of Church Unity.
      • c. to be diligent to continue the discussion on and the evaluation of the divergencies such as the doctrine of the covenant, visible and invisible church, the assurance of faith, the observance of the law, the fencing of the Lord’s Table, confessional membership, church-political differences, and the contact with the CRC.
      • d. to coordinate the discussion of the divergencies with the discussion concerning the Biblical principles on the unity of the church.
      • e. to serve the following General Synod with a report to be sent to the churches at least 6 months before the beginning of this Synod.
      • f. to keep the churches informed concerning its activities by means of interim reports and Press releases.
  • II. Letter from the Church at Attercliffe Synod decide:
    • to take note of the communication of the Church at Attercliffe in the formulation of Synod’s mandate to the Committee for Contact with the OPC, and to inform Attercliffe accordingly.
  • III. Letter from the Church at Chilliwack Synod decide:
    • not to accede to the proposal of the Church at Chilliwack to return from “ecclesiastical contact” to “committee contact”.
  • IV. Letter from the Church at Smithville Synod decide:
    • 1. not to accede to the request of Smithville re a formal evaluation by Synod of the divergencies.
    • 2. that the request of Smithville for evaluation of the doctrinal and church-political documents and statements of the OPC by Synod be denied.
  • V. Letter from the Church at Hamilton Synod decide:
    • to deny the overture of Hamilton.

DEFEATED

MOTION TO AMEND

The following motion to amend the Advisory Committee proposal was made and duly seconded:

  • 1. To delete the last sentence of IV, 1 from the Advisory Committee Report.
  • 2. To delete all of IV, 2 from the Advisory Committee Report.
  • 3. To replace IV, 3 of the Advisory Committee Report with the following: Although it is within the province of Synod to evaluate its Committee Reports, in view of the developments at Blue Bell and Laurel, it is wise to reserve judgment at this time because this situation involves the same doctrinal questions.
  • 4. To replace the Advisory Committee Report Recommendation IV, 1 as follows: Not to accede to the request of the Church at Smithville re a formal decision on the “Evaluation of Divergencies” at this time.
  • 5. To replace the Advisory Committee Report Recommendation IV, 2 as follows: To advise the Church at Smithville that the Committee on Contact with the OPC is mandated to continue discussing and evaluating the doctrinal matters which led to the situation at Blue Bell and Laurel.

The Committee Report, as amended is

ADOPTED

Print page