09 Aug GS 1992 art 72

Posted at 13:09h in CanRC, GS 1992 by

GS 1992 ARTICLE 72 – Contact with the OPC

Committee IV presents: Agenda item VIII F1-8,11

I. MATERIAL

  • A. Report from the Committee for Contact with the Orthodox Presbyterian Church.
  • B. Letter from the church at Burlington East, ON re report of Committee.
  • C. Letter from the church at London, ON re same and previous Synodical decisions.
  • D. Letter from the church at Grand Rapids, USA re same.
  • E. Letter from the church at Attercliffe, ON re same.
  • F. Letter from the church at Burlington South, ON re same.
  • G. Letter from the church at Blue Bell, USA re same.
  • H. Letter from br. W. De Haan, Wardsville, ON re same.
  • I. Letter from the church at Carman, MB re same.

II. INTRODUCTION

Synod 1989 gave the Committee for Contact with the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) the following specific mandate as recorded in the Acts, Article 94:

  • 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 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 six months before the beginning of this Synod.
  • F. To keep the churches informed concerning its activities by means of interim reports and press releases.

III. OBSERVATIONS

  • A. Report of the Committee for Contact with the Orthodox Presbyterian Church.
    • 1. Mandate Synod 1989.
    • With respect to fulfilling its mandate, the Committee reports:
      • a. It did not deal with all the divergencies listed in the Mandate from Synod 1989, for lack of time, and further by deciding to concentrate “on the major issues arising from the Blue Bell and Laurel cases,” namely, “the fencing of the Lord’s Supper” and “confessional membership.” (4.1.a.)
      • b. The Committee found it difficult to incorporate in the discussions the statement of the OPC, “Biblical Principles of the Unity of the Church” (3.3.a.) because the statement was “prepared by the OPC with a view to their contact with the PCA.”
      • The Committee does add, however, “the doctrine of the church was an important part of our discussions.”
      • c. The Committee addressed the OPC with respect to their relationship with the Christian Reformed Church and report the OPC has been critical of the course of the CRC, but also that “the OPC and the CRC continue to receive each other’s delegates at their assemblies or synods, pulpit exchange continues to take place by local option, and there are voices within the OPC which oppose severing ties with the CRC.”
      • d. The Committee reports that the 58th General Assembly of the OPC has appointed two committees “which are of importance for our contact,” being one “to examine the method of admission of guests to the Lord’s Supper,” and the other “to study the desirability and the feasibility of the OPC adding the Three Forms of Unity to its present confessional standards and of establishing a common Presbyterian and Reformed church order so as to provide a basis for unity into one church body of all those who are committed to one faith” (p.17b).
      • e. The Committee states that “in the matters discussed – the fencing of the Lord’s Supper and Confessional Membership – some misunderstandings have been taken away, some points have been clarified, but differences remain.” The question is asked, “Is it our task to continue to explain our position on these points and leave it at that? Does the OPC have to change its position in order to allow us to continue, or should we be satisfied with the progress made?”
    • 2. Developments re Blue Bell and Laurel.
    • The Committee notes that the developments with respect to Blue Bell, Laurel, (and “Denver”) make “the work of our committee, representing our churches, rather difficult.” The Committee places these questions before Synod (4.2.a,b,c.):
      • a. How shall the CEIR’s request regarding procedures to deal with receiving congregations and ministers that have been or are members of the OPC be answered?
      • b. What is our Committee’s role in situations such as these? In this connection, we refer to Synod 1986, Acts, Article 137, in which Synod requested a close cooperation between our Committee and Classis Ontario South with respect to the “Hofford” case. This decision seems to imply a role for our Committee in cases where churches seek affiliation with our federation, but it is not clear how our Committee can legitimately become involved.
      • c. At a more general level, how can we continue to speak about and aim for a sister church relationship with the OPC while we accept churches into our federation which used to be part of the OPC? We ask Synod for clarification, since this has a direct bearing on our relationship, and on the nature of the contact which we have with the OPC.
    • 3. The Committee’s mandate
    • With respect to its mandate the Committee makes the following requests:
      • a. In view of differing mandates of past Synods, the Committee asks for a mandate which is clear and specific (4.3) with respect to the divergencies, and in this connection raises the question “What is the status of the work done in the report submitted to Synod 1968,” (published in the Acts, Synod 1971, Supplement V); “and what is the status of the report Evaluation of Divergencies which was received by Synod 1986 (Acts, Article 126)?”
      • b. The Committee recommends that Synod 1992 decide:
        • i. to gratefully acknowledge the commitment of the OPC to be faithful to the Scriptures and defend the Reformed heritage, and to note with gratitude its warnings against the course taken by the Christian Reformed Church;
        • ii. to encourage the OPC to remain faithful to the Scriptures in their examination of the method of admission of guests to the Lord’s Supper, and in their study of the desirability and feasibility of adding the three Forms of Unity to its present doctrinal standards (see section 3.3.b);
        • iii. to respond to the question raised by the CEIR with regard to the problem of receiving congregations and ministers that have been or are members of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church while maintaining official contact (see section 2.2.c);
        • iv. to acknowledge that the issue of the fencing of the Lord’s Supper and confessional membership have been addressed, and that these discussions have led to clarification and better understanding, but also to a more focused articulation of the differences, preventing at this moment a closer relationship;
        • v. to acknowledge that there is a need for patience in our efforts to seek true unity in obedience to Christ’s command;
        • vi. to continue the committee for Contact with the Orthodox Presbyterian Church with the following mandate:
          • 1. to maintain the contact with the OPC, according to the rules for “Ecclesiastical Contact” as determined by Synod 1977;
          • 2. to continue the discussion of divergencies by focusing on the differences in ecclesiology (see 4.1.a);
          • 3. to continue to discuss and evaluate the current third party relationships of the OPC, and to urge the OPC to break contact with the Christian Reformed Church (see 4.1.b);
          • 4. to serve the churches with regular reports of the Committee;
          • 5. to serve General Synod 1995 with a report, to be sent to the churches at least six months prior to the beginning of Synod.
  • B. Various churches have written General Synod regarding the temporary relationship with the OPC. Their recommendations range from “rescinding the 1977 decision” and “terminating the temporary contact relationship” to continuing “the dialogue with the OPC.” The reactions, although questioning the present “temporary contact relationship,” do acknowledge the desire and responsibility to maintain contact with the OPC. The recommendations can be listed as follows:
    • 1. The church at Burlington East, ON:
      • a. is of the opinion that continued dialogue is necessary, especially in the matter of “confessional membership”;
      • b. wonders “if it is not now the right time and the task of General Synod to overture the 60th General Assembly (1993) to stimulate” a debate within the OPC at the local level re the relationship with the Canadian Reformed Churches;
      • c. states “any action on the part of the Canadian Reformed Churches in accepting former OPC churches into our federation should not be construed as undermining the recognition of the OPC as true church”;
      • d. asks Synod to be very specific in its new mandate to the Committee which issues stand in the way of full sister church relationship with the OPC.
    • 2. The church at London, ON proposes that since the list of divergencies with the OPC is “a growing list,” in which “the obedience to the Word of God is at stake,” the decision of Synod 1977 is to be termed “premature.” Since the interpretations of the decision of 1977 are “creating more and more confusion,” it must be withdrawn.
    • 3. The church at Grand Rapids, USA requests Synod to rescind the decision of Synod 1977, to discontinue the relationship described as “ecclesiastical contact,” and to communicate to the OPC its shortcomings, and call it to faithfulness.
    • This request is based on Grand Rapids’ conviction that the OPC does not “purely administer the sacrament of baptism” since it receives members who oppose infant baptism.
    • The church at Blue Bell, USA sees here a “clergy/laity distinction” asking more of the office bearers than of the other members.
    • 4. The church at Attercliffe, ON questions the distinction made by Synod 1989 about the divergencies possibly being an impediment to full correspondence but not to recognition of the OPC as a true church (Acts, Art.94 D.IV.sub 2). The divergencies are of a principial and confessional nature, and therefore the decision of Synod 1977 should be re-evaluated.
    • The following grounds are given:
      • a. since 1977 no significant progress has been made;
      • b. since 1977 it has become increasingly clear that the divergencies are of a principial nature;
      • c. since 1977 local situations have come to light, namely in Blue Bell and Laurel, which show that the doctrinal and church political divergencies are of a serious nature.
    • 5. The church at Burlington South, ON is of the opinion that after 15 years the differences should have been resolved. Synod is urged “to give clear direction to the Committee for Contact with the OPC in order to come to a definite conclusion.”
    • 6. The church at Blue Bell, USA notes that the Committee does not report “any movement toward uniformity of opinion” nor that “our churches and the OPC are any closer than three, six, or fifteen years ago.” Instead there are “clearer articulations of the differences” and “the relationship is unfruitful.” Specific observations are made with respect to fencing the Lord’s table, confessional membership, and other divergencies, of which the church at Blue Bell, USA concludes, “It is clear that there are radical differences between our churches and the OPC regarding the doctrine of the church.”
    • The church at Blue Bell, USA proposes that due to the fact that “obedience to the Word of God is deficient in the OPC” the decision of 1977 be withdrawn and the temporary form of ecclesiastical contact be ended.
    • 7. Br. W. De Haan appeals to General Synod that due to “the lack of substantial progress toward unity with the OPC,” and the “growing divergencies in the American and Canadian Reformed churches because of the contact with the OPC,” to discontinue the ecclesiastical contact relationship with the OPC.
    • 8. The church at Carman, MB objects to the distinction of Synod 1989 regarding impediments to recognizing the OPC as true church and impediments to full correspondence with the OPC. Carman feels that this distinction “contradicts what the churches have agreed to in article 50 of the Church Order.”
    • Carman also requests a clarification of the status of the “Evaluation of Divergencies” as received by General Synod 1986.
    • Synod is requested “to make a clear statement where our contact is at with the OPC at this time,” and to judge that the following obstacles to full correspondence with the OPC remain:
      • a. The fencing of the Lord’s Supper and, related to it, confessional membership, is a serious confessional divergency.
      • b. The question of church relations as it is practised with the CRC and involvement in NAPARC involves the doctrine of the church.

IV. CONSIDERATIONS

  • A. The Committee report may be divided into three sections, namely:
    • 1. The fulfilment of the mandate of Synod 1989.
      • a. It is understandable that the Committee could not deal with all of the divergencies listed in the mandate from Synod 1989, given the scope of that mandate, but decided to concentrate on the matters of “fencing the Lord’s Supper” and “confessional membership.” From recent events, these items appear to be the most pressing and needful of discussion. The Committee may be thanked and commended for its approach in this matter.
      • b. The statement of the OPC entitled “Biblical Principles of the Unity of the Church” was not included in the discussions with the OPC. This document can be further discussed when the CCOPC and the CEIR focus on “the differences in ecclesiology” (see Committee recommendation 5 f.2), especially in the light of the Committee’s comments about the value of this statement (3.3.a).
      • c. It is regrettable that the OPC did not sever its relationship with the CRC as yet. This relationship becomes an increasing concern in the process of establishing ecclesiastical fellowship with the OPC. At the same time, the OPC’s warnings directed to the CRC must be thankfully noted.
      • d. The appointment by the OPC General Assembly of two committees (the first to examine the method of admission of guests to the Lord’s Supper; the second to study the desirability and the feasibility of adding the Three Forms of Unity to its present confessional standards, and of establishing a common Presbyterian and Reformed church order) may be seen as a positive development of great interest to the Canadian Reformed Churches. The CCOPC’s discussion papers on these points should be forwarded, via the CEIR, to the committees appointed by the General Assembly, for their information.
      • e. Gratitude may be expressed for the progress made in the taking away of misunderstandings and achieving clarification of some parts of the discussion regarding (i) “the fencing of the Lord’s table” and (ii) “confessional membership.”
        • i. It appears, in view of the OPC’s ongoing internal deliberation (see d.), that there is still reason to continue the discussion on this point. It is hoped that in time the OPC and the Canadian Reformed Churches may come to a common understanding and unified practice regarding the supervision of the Lord’s Table.
        • This is not to say that an identical practice is required with respect to the supervision of the Lord’s table to come to ecclesiastical fellowship. It should be agreed, however, that a general verbal warning alone is insufficient and that a profession of the Reformed faith is required in the presence of the supervising elders from the guests wishing to attend the Lord’s Supper.
        • ii. With respect to “confessional membership” the different situations in the OPC and the Canadian Reformed Churches must be taken into account as resulting in various practices (3.1.b.). It should be agreed, however, by the Canadian Reformed Churches and the OPC that all who profess their faith accept the doctrine of God’s Word as summarized in the confessions (standards) of the churches. This means that all members are bound by the Word of God in the unity of faith as confessed in the accepted standards.
    • 2. Questions regarding developments with respect to Blue Bell and Laurel.
      • It is evident that the involvement of the CCOPC with the developments with respect to Blue Bell and Laurel has indeed made the task of the Committee more difficult, to the extent that the original purpose and mandate of the Committee has been obscured by them. The changes in mandates through the years has not made the work of the Committee any easier. The questions of the Committee in this respect need to be clearly answered.
      • a. With respect to the CEIR’s question regarding our “receiving congregations and ministers that have been or are members of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church,” it should be noted the Canadian Reformed Churches have no uniform procedure in place, because the present relationship of “ecclesiastical contact” is of a temporary and undefined nature.
      • b. The Committee’s mandate should not include dealing with procedures of receiving individual congregations and ministers, but should promote the process of coming to full ecclesiastical fellowship. Requests and concerns about such individual cases should be referred to the appropriate ecclesiastical assemblies involved. It would be good to take away a contrary impression left by Synod 1986 (Art. 137) in this respect.
      • c. Concerning the receiving of former OPC churches, the following should be considered:
        • i. The question of the Committee “at a more general level, how can we continue to speak about and aim for a sister church relationship with the OPC while we accept churches into our federation which used to be part of the OPC?” indeed requires a response. The answer to the question is, however, not simple because in the Canadian Reformed Churches, local congregations are admitted via the minor assemblies, not via General Synods. Furthermore, the reasons why various churches left the OPC appear to focus on the same concerns which our churches have expressed to the OPC (see the list of divergencies, e.g. fencing of the table, and confessional membership).
        • It is also to be noted that complete unanimity does not exist within the Canadian Reformed Churches with respect to the relationship with the OPC. This helps explain the different judgments of various Classes regarding the admission of a former OPC minister and/or congregation.
        • The withdrawal of these churches from the OPC may have the positive effect of underlining the need for the OPC and Canadian Reformed Churches to resolve the matter of divergencies which are considered to be impediments to ecclesiastical fellowship.
        • ii. The “temporary contact relationship” implies that ecclesiastical unity has not yet been achieved. Therefore, in the interim, it is understandable that when requests for admission reach the Canadian Reformed Churches, these cannot be rejected simply by stating that the OPC has been declared a true church. Such situations may arise until substantial agreement is reached on the outstanding issues and the temporary contact relationship has led to “ecclesiastical fellowship.”
        • iii. It is to be noted that, when the Canadian Reformed Churches received the church at Blue Bell, USA, one of the grounds was that “The Reformation Church at Blue Bell does not demand that the Canadian and American Reformed Churches for their sake break the ‘temporary form of ecclesiastical relationship’ which the Canadian and American Reformed Churches have with the Orthodox Presbyterian Church” (Acts, Classis Ontario South, Sept.11,12, and October 2, 1985, Art.6,3,d).
        • iv. With respect to the subsequent Laurel situation, one of the decisions of Classis Ontario South was that “Classis judges that it is not within the province of Classis to make further pronouncements re: the OPC since it is a matter which ought to be dealt with by a General Synod” (Acts, Classis Ontario South, March 25-26, and April 1, 1987, Art.8B,ii,2).
        • Accordingly, these admitted churches are therefore under obligation to pursue, together with the Canadian Reformed Churches, unity with the OPC. This remains, in any case, the striving of the Canadian Reformed Churches and the CCOPC.
        • v. Whenever a congregation was received into the federation of Canadian Reformed Churches, this was done upon request, not on the initiative of the Canadian Reformed Churches, and always on the prerequisite of the adoption by such a congregation of the Three Forms of Unity and the Reformed Church Order. It was found difficult to refuse such requests of independent Reformed churches in this regard.
        • vi. It is to be recognized that the Canadian Reformed Churches, given their recognition of the OPC as true church – must exercise greater caution in considering admission of congregations which have separated themselves from the OPC, and first engage in open consultation with the ecclesiastical assemblies involved. Where this was not done, the assemblies of the Canadian Reformed Churches have lacked in following proper procedures. During this temporary relationship, individual departures should not be encouraged.
    • 3. The Committee’s mandate.
      • a. With respect to the mandate of the CCOPC, the status of the report submitted to Synod 1968 and the report “Evaluation of Divergencies” (received by Synod 1986) must indeed be clarified so that the Committee knows what has, and what has not been resolved.
      • b. From these reports it appears that the divergencies discussed are not considered to be an obstacle to recognition and the pursuit of church unity.
      • c. Synod 1971 (Acts, Art.92) decided that the impediments to enter into “correspondence” are (i) the relation with churches that maintain correspondence with the (Synodical) Gereformeerde Kerken in the Netherlands (i.e. the CRC), (ii) membership in the Reformed Ecumenical Synod, and (iii) preference for “fraternal relationship” instead of “correspondence.”
      • With respect to “divergencies in confession and in church polity,” Synod 1971 did not state that these are impediments, but “are serious enough to remain the subject of further and frank discussion.”
      • d. Regarding the report “Evaluation of Divergencies,” submitted to Synod 1986, it was decided, “Synod receives this report as the detailed evaluation of the divergencies which the General Synod of 1977 neglected to give for its decision to recognize the OPC as a true church of the Lord Jesus Christ” (Acts, Art. 126).
      • The report itself states that continued evaluation has confirmed the decision of Synod 1971 that the differences in confession and church polity “need not prevent the Canadian Reformed Churches from entering into correspondence with [the OP] Church.” Synod 1986 did not decide to rescind the decision of 1977 or terminate the ecclesiastical contact relationship with the OPC.
      • The word “received” used by General Synod 1986 with respect to the “Evaluation of Divergencies” does not state that the evaluation was adopted as final. Synod 1986 obviously felt that discussion on the divergencies should be continued. This is in keeping with the decision Synod 1971 which also spoke of “a further and frank discussion.”
      • It should also be noted that the “Evaluation of Divergencies” received in 1986, was neither refuted nor rejected. In the line of this report, “continual discussion of the divergencies” is possible within the framework of “permanent contact” (Acts, Synod 1986, p.151).
      • The conclusion may be that the divergencies in doctrine and church government, as specified in the 1971 and 1986 reports, should be further discussed, but need not be seen as impediments to ecclesiastical fellowship. Instead, it may be even more fruitful to continue the discussion of the divergencies mentioned in these reports from within a permanent relationship of ecclesiastical fellowship.
      • The matters which have come up since Synod 1983, especially “confessional membership” and “supervision of the Lord’s table” are of a more serious nature (see Acts, Synod 1983, Art. 55, Acts, Synod 1986, Art. 132, and Acts, Synod 1989, Art. 94).
      • e. Since the OPC, in 1977, was not comfortable with our rules for correspondence (Acts, Synod 1977, Art. 91) the Committee should enquire whether the present rules are acceptable to the OPC.
      • f. From all of the foregoing, it becomes clear that the impediments that still need to be removed are:
        • i. Lack of agreement on the meaning and application of “confessional membership.”
        • ii. Lack of agreement on supervision of the Lord’s table.
        • iii. Lack of agreement on the relationship of the OPC with the CRC.
      • These items must be addressed by the CCOPC with the OPC. Here, as the Committee itself suggests in its analysis, it may be helpful to discuss “whether these divergencies stem from ecclesiological and/or historical differences.”
  • B. In order to facilitate dealing with the matters raised by the churches and of br. W. de Haan, the objections can be summarized under the following headings:
    • 1. The decision of General Synod 1977 to recognize the OPC as true church is premature.
    • Synod considers that the objection on this point has been dealt with by a previous synod. (Acts, Synod 1980, Art. 97). No new grounds are given to deal with this objection again. (Art. 30. C.O.)
    • 2. The divergencies are of a serious principial and confessional nature. The status of the “Evaluation of Divergencies” (received by Synod 1986) must be clarified.
    • Synod considers that it should be borne in mind that the various “divergencies” were not considered to be of the same character and level of concern.
    • Synod 1986 received the “Evaluation of Divergencies” (see Acts, Art. 126) “as the detailed evaluation of divergencies which the General Synod of 1977 neglected to give for its decision to recognize the OPC   ” The report states “We hope that our evaluation has underlined this conclusion that truly Presbyterian churches acknowledge the Lord Jesus Christ as the only Head of the Church and accept His Word as the only rule for faith and order” (see Acts, Synod 1986, p.151). Synod 1986 did not refute the conclusions of this report (see also Consideration A3 iv).
    • The remaining divergencies have been included in the mandate from Synod.
    • 3. The list of “divergencies” has grown through the years instead of being resolved.
    • Synod considers that the list of divergencies has not really grown, but certain developments which occurred after 1977 brought to the fore some underlying concerns which may stem from ecclesiological and/or historical differences. Aside from the long-standing matter of the relationship with the CRC, there remain, in fact, two areas of major concern: confessional membership and the fencing of the Lord’s Table.
    • 4. The churches at Grand Rapids and Blue Bell, USA introduce a new “divergency,” namely the lack of “the pure administration of baptism” as added reason to rescind the decision of 1977, and to terminate the ecclesiastical contact relationship.
    • Synod considers that the documentation provided by Grand Rapids and Blue Bell makes it clear that the OPC does maintain the scriptural doctrine of the sacrament of baptism, even calling someone who does not present his child for baptism “delinquent in doctrine.” The issue is rather one of admitting persons as members who have not fully accepted the teaching of the Scriptures as summarized in the Standards. The matter of “confessional membership” and its application remain a topic for discussion (see Recommendation B2).
    • 5. The period of fifteen years (since 1977) has been long enough to come to a conclusion of the temporary ecclesiastical contact relationship.
    • Synod considers that the churches have never set a time limit to the temporary ecclesiastical relationship, but each time have looked at the progress that has been made. The report of the Committee contains every reason to maintain the contact with the OPC under the present rules. In this respect the Committee urges Synod “to acknowledge that there is a need for patience in our efforts to seek true unity in obedience to Christ’s command” (see report, CCOPC, recommendation (e)).
    • 6. The present relationship with the OPC is causing confusion and disunity within the Canadian Reformed Churches and for the OPC (e.g. in cases such as the receiving of Blue Bell, Laurel and “Denver”).
    • Synod considers that a certain degree of confusion and disagreement indeed exists within the churches as a result of the present relationship. However, Synod considers that termination of this relationship will not in itself take away whatever confusion exists. The confusion can be removed only through a proper resolution of the matters which still hinder full ecclesiastical relationship.
    • 7. The impediments to full sister church relationship are of the same nature as impediments to recognition as a true church (contra Acts Winnipeg, Art. 94,D,IV, sub 2). Recognition as true church implies sister church relations.
    • Synod considers that it is possible that churches, after having recognized each other as true churches, still need to remove through brotherly discussion, certain hindrances to full fellowship. Recognition as true churches does not in all instances imply immediate fellowship but does underscore the obligation to work towards this goal, all the while keeping in mind what we have agreed to in Art. 50 C.O.
    • 8. The ongoing relations between the OPC and the Christian Reformed Church continue to be a great obstacle.
    • Synod acknowledges this to be the case; see mandate for the CCOPC (see Recommendation B5c).
    • 9. It is suggested that Synod should overture the next General Assembly that debate at the local level should be stimulated.
    • Synod considers that more local contacts are already being pursued by Classis Alberta-Manitoba and the Presbytery of the Dakotas. Such local contacts might well be duplicated in other areas where feasible.

V. RECOMMENDATIONS

Synod decide:

  • A. to thank the Committee (and its retired members) for Contact with the Orthodox Presbyterian Church for the work done.
  • B. to conclude from previous Synods’ decisions that the divergencies evaluated in 1971 and 1986 have been sufficiently discussed to confirm that these are not impediments to ecclesiastical fellowship with the OPC, but may be discussed within the framework of church unity.
  • C. to continue the Committee for Contact with the Orthodox Presbyterian Church with the following mandate:
    • 1. to maintain the contact with the OPC, according to the rules for “Ecclesiastical Contact” as determined by Synod 1977, and to request comment on the rules of ecclesiastical fellowship to determine whether these are presently acceptable.
    • 2. to continue the discussion of divergencies which are considered to be impediments to ecclesiastical fellowship, and to see whether these divergencies stem from ecclesiological and/or historical differences (as outlined in IV,A3 vi above), with the purpose of having these impediments removed.
    • 3. to respond to the question of the CEIR to the problem of receiving congregations and ministers that have been or are members of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, as outlined by Synod under Considerations IV,A2a,b and c.
    • 4. to continue to discuss and evaluate the current third party relationships of the OPC.
    • 5. to inform the OPC that the matters which still require resolution for the establishment of full ecclesiastical fellowship are (see IV,A3v):
      • a. the matter of confessional membership.
      • b. the matter of supervision of the Lord’s table, and
      • c. the matter of the relationship with the Christian Reformed Church.
    • 6. to serve the churches with regular reports of the work of the Committee, and to serve General Synod 1995 with a report, to be sent to the churches at least six months prior to the beginning of Synod.
    • Synod expresses the fervent wish that these matters may be resolved so that the way to ecclesiastical fellowship, in accordance with the Rules for Ecclesiastical Fellowship, may be realized.
  • D. to send to the churches at Burlington East, ON, London, ON, Grand Rapids, USA, Attercliffe, ON. Burlington South, ON, Blue Bell, USA, Carman, MB, and to br. W. De Haan, the considerations of Synod as response to their submissions.

ADOPTED

Note:

A motion is made to delete from Recommendation B the words, “ecclesiastical fellowship with the OPC,” and replace them with, “recognize the OPC as a true church.” The chairman on behalf of the Executive rules that this is not germane to the entire report and therefore is inadmissible.

Print page