14 Jul GS 1995 art 115

Posted at 13:43h in CanRC, GS 1995 by

GS 1995 ARTICLE 115 – Appeals against Regional Synod West 1993, Art. 11

Committee III presents:

Agenda items VIII. A. 4, 10, 14, 22, C. 9, 23

Committee presents a majority report and a minority report. Majority Report:

I. MATERIAL

  • A. Appeal from the church at Cloverdale re Regional Synod West,1993, Art. 11
  • B. Appeal from the church at Taber AB re: same
  • C. Appeal by br. H. Van den Hoven, re: same
  • D. Appeal from the church at Barrhead, re: same
  • E. Appeal from br. J. Hoogerdijk, re: same
  • F. Appeal from church at Coaldale AB, re: same

II. ADMISSIBILITY

The appeals of the church at Barrhead and of br. Van den Hoven deal with a deci- sion of a Regional Synod held more than a year ago and were submitted beyond the dead line set by the Guidelines for Synod (Synod 1983, Art. 45). The church of Cloverdale and br. J. Hoogerdijk appeal the decisions of Regional Synod West 1993, Art. 11 and 12 respectively but do not include the text of the decision nor any of the documents pertaining to this decision. These appeals could be declared inadmissible on these grounds. However, they are declared admissible on the ground that they deal with an issue of major concern in the churches and to avoid the impression of not doing full justice to the matter.

III. OBSERVATIONS

  • A. The church at Barrhead asks Synod to judge
    • 1. That Regional Synod made the wrong recommendation in giving concur- ring advice to Classis AB/MB in light of the considerations which accompanied that recommendation. The considerations do not serve as grounds for the decision which was made.
    • 2. That the original decision of Classis AB/MB not to accept the American Reformed Church at Denver into the federation, was a right decision, in that this decision conveys similar sentiments to the subsequent Considerations of the aforementioned Regional Synod.
  • B. The church at Cloverdale requests General Synod to judge that the decision of Regional Synod West 1993 conflicts with our adopted Church Order and ignores the confession of Article 28 Belgic Confession of Faith.
  • C. The church at Coaldale requests Synod to judge that the decision of Regional Synod West, December 1993 to give concurring advice to Classis AB/MB October 1993 was irresponsible and lacked proper grounds in light of the considerations to which Regional Synod at the same time decided to draw the attention of the churches. Grounds:
    • 1. Regional Synod invalidated its concurring advice by warning that it was uncertain yet whether the admission of the church at Denver would have unacceptable consequences for the churches, as also whether its minister might be guilty of violating his vows in the POD. This advice was in conflict with Scripture (Rom. 14:23, 1 Tim. 3:10; 5:22) and C.O. (Art.5. A.1.a).
    • 2. Regional Synod did not prove that the request for admission to the federation was merited. Regional Synod failed to disprove the allegation that the admission of Denver promoted church pluriformity and failed to prove that it was pastorally unwise to refer the Christ American Reformed Church at Denver to the OPC.
  • D. The church at Taber requests Synod
    • 1. To declare Article 11 (specifically Consideration 7 and Recommendation) of the acts of Regional Synod West 1993, to be in conflict with what we confess regarding the holy catholic Christian Church in Articles 27, 28, 29 of the Belgic Confession.
    • 2. To declare that Article 11 of the Acts of Regional Synod West 1993 is self- contradictory and thus impossible to implement with integrity.
  • E. Br. J. Hoogerdijk requests Synod
    • 1. to judge that Regional Synod West 1993 was wrong in granting concurring advice to Classis AB/MB October 1993 regarding the request of the Christ American Reformed Church at Denver to join the federation of Canadian and American Reformed Churches;
    • 2. to reiterate to the churches the confessional norms of Art. 27-29 of the Belgic Confession – that believers must join the true church, and therefore, since the Church of Christ also includes the OPC, believers, if they find themselves in a place where there is an OPC congregation, are obliged to join it, and that this obligation extends to the individual as well as to the corporate body;
    • 3. to remind the churches that believers may not leave or refuse to join the true church of God on the basis of historical distinctives or any non-confessional distinctives;
    • 4. to warn the churches that we cannot elevate historical distinctives so they take precedence over scriptural and confessional requirements – otherwise we are in grave danger of becoming a sect – Christ has not restricted His Church gathering work to those churches of the Continental tradition;
    • 5. to resolve the problems with the OPC by offering it the same relationship our churches have with the FCS and the PCK.
  • F. Br. H. Van den Hoven requests Synod to find that Regional Synod West December 8-9 erred in its decision to grant concurring advice, because it did not rightly consider the mandate of God to maintain the unity of His church as we confess it in Reformed Confessions and further that they did not abide by the Church Order as agreed to by the churches.

IV. CONSIDERATIONS

  • A. The appellants see the decision of Regional Synod 1993, to give concurring advice in the matter of admitting the Christ American Reformed Church at Denver in conflict with the Art. 27 – 29 of the Belgic Confession. They feel that since the Canadian Reformed Churches recognize the OPC as a true church, the Christ American Reformed Church at Denver should have joined the OPC. Regional Synod West 1993 was, in their opinion, incorrect to uphold the decision of Classis AB/MB Oct.1993.
  • The appellants fail to recognize that the relationship with the OPC is in a interim situation. General Synod 1992 therefore considered: “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 to be 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 fellow- ship’” (Acts, Art. 72, IV.A.2.c.ii)
  • In addition, it must be kept in mind that the relationship between the OPC and the Canadian Reformed Churches has proceeded on two tracks during the last 15 years. On the one hand there is the acknowledgement of the OPC as true church (General Synod 1977), on the other hand there is the consideration that there is no pulpit exchange, intercommunion and joint Lord’s Supper celebration (General Synod 1980) as well as the ongoing discussion on the divergencies. Therefore the charge that the decision of Regional Synod is against God’s Word and the Reformed Confessions is in effect an appeal of Synod Coaldale 1977.
  • B. The appellants object to the decision of Classis AB/MB October 1993, upheld by Regional Synod 1993, on the basis that no new ground was brought for- ward which warrants to propose the matter again (Art. 33 C.O.).
  • The appellants are mistaken in applying Art. 33 C.O. to the decision of Classis AB/MB Oct. 1993 as upheld by Regional Synod West 1993. The matter of Denver’s requests had been reopened at the Classis March 1993 with as ground the decision of General Synod 1992. General Synod’s decision constitutes the new ground according to Art. 33 C.O. There is no proof that Barrhead, Coaldale and Taber, or the brs. J. Hoogerdijk and H. Van den Hoven appealed this decision. It can be concluded therefore that appellants accepted the March 1993 decision as settled and binding. Art. 33 C.O. is not relevant at Classis AB/MB Oct. 1993.
  • C. The appellants object to the considerations of Regional Synod West 1993. They feel that these considerations do not support the recommendation to uphold the decision of Classis AB/MB Oct. 1993.
  • The considerations of Regional Synod West 1993 are not very clear and do raise indeed several questions without clearly answering them. In light of the fact that the admission of the Christ American Reformed Church at Denver into the federation touches the heart of our relationship with the OPC it would have been better had Regional Synod 1993 given more substantiation for its decision. It goes too far however, to state that these considerations invalidate the decision or make the decision self-contradictory and impossible to be implemented with integrity. Regional Synod West 1993 interacted with the considerations of Classis AB/MB Oct.1993 to admit Denver and the reasons of deputies not to concur with this decision. It is regrettable that none of the appellants include in their appeals the decision of Classis AB/MB Oct.1993 – to admit Denver into the federation–, a decision which was upheld by Regional Synod West 1993.
  • Comparing the considerations of Regional Synod West 1993 and the decision of Classis as well as the advice of the Deputies, it can be noted that Regional Synod weighed both sides and in its considerations in several points (considerations 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 9) concurred with the Classis decision. Appellants fail to see the considerations of Regional Synod West 1993 in the light of the other documents.
  • To give examples:
    • 1. In consideration 4 Regional Synod suggested that the Christ American Reformed Church at Denver should consider whether its joining of the Canadian Reformed Churches would compromise its position. Denver, however, did so, as is evident from Classis Consideration I:
      • The CARCD is prepared to work within the framework of the CARC approach to the OPC. They see grave weaknesses in the OPC of Denver, but do not speak of the OPC there as a false church. Therefore, they are determined to seek further contact with the local OPC churches. They wish to take part in the CARC discussions with the OPC. Although CARCD seems to be in conflict with the Confession when it refuses to join a church not classified as false, this church argues that joining the OPC would inevitably involve it in the wrong and sinful practices alleged to exist in the OPC of Denver. Furthermore, the CARCD argues that the whole relationship between the OPC and CARC’s is in evolution and that until the issues being discussed in this interim state are resolved, it cannot in good faith join the OPC.
    • 2. Regional Synod also suggested that the Canadian Reformed Churches should consider whether they would compromise their official stand vis-a- vis the OPC. The Canadian Reformed Churches, however, did do so already in its consideration IV.A.2.c.ii–v of Acts Synod Lincoln 1992, Art. 72.
    • 3. Regional Synod also weighed the matter of Rev. Pollock’s vows. It considered that this is yet an open question. Appellants should have looked at this consideration in the context of the Classis consideration B on which Regional Synod based its consideration:
    • Rev. Pollock did take vows within the OPC. He has publicly stated that he was mistaken in doing so. Since the time of taking those vows, his views have changed through discussion and study. It remains an open question whether his vows in the OPC obliged him to follow a process of appeal within the OPC rather than remaining with his congregation which now pursued affiliation with the CARC’s. However, Rev. Pollock did seek the help and advice of the POD on this very point.
    • 4. The allegation that Regional Synod did not prove that the request for admission to the federation was merited is not correct. Considerations 5 and 8 of Regional Synod show that Regional Synod considered that the question was merited due to the local situation and the position of the congregation within the POD.
    • 5. The expression “promoting pluriformity” comes from the local situation in Denver which was such that the CARCD could not in good conscience join the local OPC congregation. Regional Synod recognized this as well in consideration 8. Regional Synod expressed itself too strongly when it considered that “[t]he Christ American Reformed Church at Denver is also firmly convinced that the OPC is an unfaithful church.” The majority report to Classis AB/MB Oct 1993 reports that some members considered the local OPC an unfaithful church, but for the consistory it was an open question whether or not the OPC is an unfaithful church. (Report V.G., see also consideration C.1 above, cq. evidence of Classis AB/MB consideration I). Regional Synod recognized that this is a sad reality which hopefully is temporary. To recognize is not the same as accepting it, as Coaldale and Taber state, witness the use of the words “temporary” and “hopeful.”
  • E. With regard to br. J. Hoogerdijk’s requests
    • 1. Request 2 is in effect an appeal against 1977.
    • 2. Requests 3 and 4 cannot be dealt with by Synod.
    • 3. Request 5 has been dealt with in Art. 106. of the Acts of this Synod.

V. RECOMMENDATION

Synod decide to deny the appeals.

ADOPTED

The following minority report:

MATERIAL, ADMISSIBILITY & OBSERVATION: same as majority Report

IV. CONSIDERATIONS

  • A. The appellants see the decision of Regional Synod West 1993 in conflict with Art. 27 – 29 BC. They feel that since the CanRC recognize the OPC as a true church, the Christ American Reformed Church at Denver should have joined the OPC. Regional Synod West was, in their opinion, incorrect to uphold the decision of Classis AB/MB.
  • Considerations 3, 8 and 9 of Regional Synod West 1993 show that the request of the Christ American Reformed Church at Denver was based primarily on that group’s belief that the OPC is an unfaithful church and that confessional concerns, local disunity and sinful practices at the local level were what kept them away from the OPC. Although there is some evidence to suggest that some of these considerations may have been overstated by Regional Synod West 1993, there is no doubt that a major reason the Christ American Reformed Church at Denver did not join the OPC in Denver was because of alleged sinful practices and unfaithfulness of the local OPC (lack of proper church discipline – see majority report Aasman/Schouten pp. 5,6; other sinful practices, i.e. admission to the Lord’s Supper and confessional membership – see majority report p. 9; local disunity – see majority report pp. 5,6).
  • The Canadian and American Reformed Churches have maintained steadfastly that the OPC is a true church, notwithstanding their method of fencing the Lord’s Supper and notwithstanding their practices re confessional member- ship. Therefore the Canadian and American Reformed Churches cannot in good conscience accept these as legitimate reasons for refusing to join a true church. Nor is it permissible to refuse joining a true church because of local disunity. For example, the Holy Spirit, working through the Apostle Paul encouraged the Corinthians to become united. It was not an option to split up the body of Christ, the true church in Corinth, because of local disunity or because of the sinful practices of the local church.
  • The Christ American Reformed Church at Denver may think that the OPC is an unfaithful church, but the Canadian and American Reformed Churches have said differently. Therefore we compromise the integrity of the Church of Christ by accepting groups on this basis. We also promote pluriformity of churches by doing so.
  • The Investigation Committee (Aasman, Schouten, Wielenga) was given the mandate to investigate the reasons why the Christ American Reformed Church at Denver was convinced that it could not be united with the Presbytery of the Dakotas of the OPC, and to do so also by addressing the Presbytery of the Dakotas of the OPC. The reports do not give sufficient rea- son why the Christ American Reformed Church at Denver could not be joined to the true church in Denver.
  • B. The appellants object to the decision of Classis AB/MB, upheld by Regional Synod West 1993, on the basis that no new ground was brought forward which warranted rescinding a decision made by a previous Classis according to Article 33 of the C.O.
  • The Deputies ad Art. 48 C.O., when they declined to give concurring advice, were wrong in applying Art. 33 C.O. at this stage. The matter of Denver’s request had been reopened properly and was properly on the table of Classis after General Synod Lincoln 1992. Nor was Art. 31 C.O. relevant at this time because once the matter was re-opened, Classis was free to come to whatever decision was correct at that time depending on the results of the investigating committee’s work. Therefore, General Synod 1995 does not agree with the churches and brothers who have raised this as an objection. Furthermore, General Synod does not have to make a ruling on whether the first Classis decision was correct.
  • C. The appellants feel that the considerations given by Regional Synod West 1993 do not support the recommendation to uphold the decision of Classis AB/MB. The church at Coaldale states the interaction between the considerations and the recommendation result in an irresponsible decision. The church at Taber states that the decision is self-contradictory.
  • The considerations given by Regional Synod West 1993 for its decision to give concurring advice reveal that there were numerous issues arising out of the Investigation Committee’s reports which Classis must consider prior to admit- ting the Christ American Reformed Church at Denver. However, it also concurred with Classis’ decision of October 1993 that the Christ American Reformed Church at Denver be admitted.
  • Given the seriousness of the issues identified by Regional Synod West 1993 and given the fact that most of these issues go to the very heart of our relation- ship with the OPC, it should have delayed giving its concurring advice until these issues were resolved. Having raised these warnings, Regional Synod West acted irresponsibly by granting its concurring advice. General Synod 1995 agrees with the churches and brothers who have presented this argument.

V. RECOMMENDATIONS

Synod decide:

  • A. To judge that the concurring advice of Regional Synod West 1993 promotes pluriformity of churches in violation of Art. 27, 28 and 29 of the Belgic Confession.
  • B. To judge that Regional Synod West 1993 did not fail to apply properly Art. 31 & 33 of the Church Order.
  • C. To judge that Regional Synod West 1993 acted irresponsibly by raising seri- ous concerns and warnings and then proceeding to give concurring advice without delay.
  • D. To grant the appeal of the church at Coaldale.
  • E. To grant the appeal of the church at Taber.
  • F. To deny the first part of the appeal of the church at Cloverdale and to grant the second part.
  • G. To grant the first part of the appeal of the church at Barrhead and to deny the second part.
  • H. To grant the first request of br. J. Hoogergijk. Synod cannot deal with requests 2 – 4. Request 5 has been dealt with in Art. 106 of the Acts of this Synod.
  • I. To deny the part br. H. Van den Hoven’s appeal referring to Art. 33 of the Church Order and to grant that part of the appeal dealing with Art. 27 & 28 of the Belgic Confession.

is considered

DEFEATED

Print page