09 Aug GS 1992 art 94

GS 1992 ARTICLE 94 – Relations with Churches Abroad re ICRC

Committee I presents: Agenda item VIII G1a,b,6

I. MATERIAL

• A. Committee for Relations with Churches Abroad (CRCA) re ICRC.
• B. Letter from the church at Fergus, ON.

II. OBSERVATIONS

• A. Regarding the International Conference of Reformed Churches (ICRC) Synod 1989 gave the CRCA the following mandate: that the Committee overtures the ICRC to make discussion of the Constitution a matter of priority.
  • 1. that the mandate as expressed by Synod 1986, Art. 175, D, 2,a,b,c be maintained.
  • This mandate reads as follows:
    • “To advise the executive of the ICRC that the amendments as proposed by the General Synod of Burlington West 1986 be placed on the agenda instead of those proposed by Synod Cloverdale 1983, to wit:
      • a. that a stipulation be included in the ‘Basis’ of the ICRC that the delegates subscribe only to the standards of the churches of which they are a member.
      • b. that membership of the RES is an impediment to membership of the ICRC.
      • c. that “CONSTITUTION Art. V – Authority” be amended to read:
        • ‘The conclusions of the conference shall be advisory in character. Member churches are to be informed of these conclusions and are recommended to work towards their implementation.’ ”
  • 2. that the delegates keep the churches informed regarding the activities of the Conference by means of Press Releases (Acts 1989, Art. 128, D,2,3,4).
• B. The CRCA report indicates that the Committee asked that the amendments to the Constitution of the ICRC as proposed by General Synod of Burlington West 1986 were placed on the agenda of the ICRC at Langley.
• C. The first proposed amendment (that a stipulation be included in the “Basis” of the ICRC that the delegates subscribe only to the standards of the churches of which they are a member) was not accepted by the ICRC. The reason for this was that such a stipulation was unnecessary because the relationship of the member churches and the delegates to the Basis is not one of subscribing in the sense of a formal act of subscription, but one of subscribing in the sense of recognition.
• D. Regarding the second proposed amendment (that membership of the RES is an impediment to membership of the ICRC) the ICRC, Langley 1989, decided not to adopt such a change because it is already covered in the ICRC Constitution Art. IV 1,B (Those churches shall be admitted as members which are not members of the World Council of Churches or any other organization whose aims and practices are deemed to be in conflict with the Basis).
• E. The third proposed amendment (that the conclusions of the conference shall be advisory in character and member churches are to be informed of these conclusions and are recommended to work towards their implementation) was unanimously adopted by the ICRC, Langley 1989.
• F. The CRCA proposed to continue participation in the ICRC for the following reasons:
  • 1. the integrity of our churches is not jeopardized by our being a member of the ICRC.
  • 2. membership in the ICRC is voluntary and its conclusions are advisory and therefore the Conference does not undermine the Three Forms of Unity.
  • 3. our participation in the ICRC should be one of full cooperation and continued evaluation.
  • 4. the ICRC is not a super-synod but a conference.
  • 5. the ICRC is a suitable organization for sharing our wealth, experience and manpower with young churches in the “third world.”
• G. The CRCA recommends:
  • 1. that the CanRC continue to participate in the ICRC.
  • 2. that the CanRC be represented at the next meeting of the ICRC, Zwolle 1993.
  • 3. that the Revs. Cl. Stam and J. Visscher be sent as voting delegates and Profs. N.H. Gootjes and J. Faber as advisors.
  • 4. that the CRCA report to the next General Synod giving a report and evaluation of the ICRC, Zwolle, the Netherlands, (D.V.) 1993.
• H. The church at Fergus, ON questions why five delegates are suggested to attend the ICRC, Zwolle 1993. They suggest that three members would suffice, thus reducing the cost to the churches.
• I. The report of the CRCA does not give evidence that the delegates to the ICRC, Langley 1989, did inform the churches regarding the activities of the Conference.

III. CONSIDERATIONS

• A. The CRCA is to be thanked for all it has done in fulfilling its mandate.
• B. Noting the advisory nature of the ICRC, Synod accepts the explanation of the delegates regarding the proposed constitutional amendments which ICRC, Langley 1989 did not adopt.
• C. The CRCA is encouraged to continue to participate in the ICRC for the reasons given in Observation F, 1,2,3,4,5.
• D. The suggestion by the church at Fergus, ON to send three delegates to the ICRC, Zwolle 1993, has merit.

IV. RECOMMENDATIONS

Synod decide:

• A. that the CanRC continue to participate in the ICRC.
• B. that the CanRC be represented at the next meeting of the ICRC, Zwolle 1993.
• C. that two members of the CRCA be sent to the ICRC, Zwolle 1993, as voting delegates and Dr. N.H. Gootjes as advisor (with Dr. J. Faber as alternate).
• D. that the CRCA report to the next General Synod, as well as to the churches, giving a report and evaluation of the ICRC, Zwolle, the Netherlands, (D.V.) 1993.

ADOPTED