05 May GS 2001 art 34

Posted at 12:42h in CanRC, GS 2001 by

GS 2001 Article 34 – CRCA: Free Church of Scotland

Committee 3 presented its proposal on the Free Church of Scotland.

1.    Material

  • 1.1.    Report of the Committee on Relations with Churches Abroad regarding the Free Church of Scotland (FCS).
  • 1.2.    Letters from the Churches at Burlington-Ebenezer, Lincoln and London.

2.    Admissibility

The letters of the Churches at Burlington-Ebenezer, Lincoln and London are declared admissible because they deal with the CRCA report, which was sent out to the churches.

3.    Observations

  • 3.1.    The report of the CRCA re the FCS, which is included as an appendix in the Acts, serves as Observations.
  • 3.2.    The CRCA recommends that synod decide to:
    • 3.2.1.  Continue the relationship of ecclesiastical fellowship with the Free Church of Scotland (Majority) under the adopted rules while continuing to monitor the situation with the Free Church of Scotland (Continuing) in order to come to greater clarity on the matter.
    • 3.2.2.  Remind the FCS of the rules for fellowship which include, among other things, that churches in ecclesiastical fellowship be consulted before entering into third party relationships.
  • 3.3.    The Church at Burlington-Ebenezer makes the following comment on the CRCA report, “Why should we wait until the ICRC makes a decision about the FCS? Surely it is not our intention simply to follow ICRC direction, or is it?”
  • 3.4.    The Church at Lincoln refers to the report of the CRCA regarding the FCS that recommends, “Continue the relationship of ecclesiastical fellowship with the Free Church of Scotland (Majority) under the adopted rules while continuing to monitor the situation with the Free Church of Scotland (Continuing) in order to come to greater clarity on the matter.” The Church at Lincoln expresses the desire that, “we should continue to encourage healing and reconciliation as mandated by Synod Fergus 1998.” The Church at Lincoln makes the recommendation, “that we treat both sides equally until the reasons for secession are clear or it becomes apparent that one or both are deviating from the truth.Our concern is that the present wording of recommendation 3.6.1 might leave the impression, perhaps inadvertently, that we are favouring the Majority church.”
  • 3.5.    The Church at London notes that Synod Fergus had the following statement in a consideration about the FCS, “The CRCA could, however, be instructed to seek further clarification on the practice of confessional membership, the doctrine of the church, and the position of the civil magistrate in relationship to the church” (Acts 119, IV,C). London requests Synod Neerlandia to include this as a part of the CRCA’s mandate. London states further, “This request, at least the part dealing with confessional membership, would bring this mandate in line with the one that the CRCA had received for the PCK.”

4.    Considerations

  • 4.1.     It is to be appreciated that the CRCA fulfilled its mandate by sending a letter to the FCS expressing, “prayerful support of the Canadian Reformed Churches for the FCS as it enters into what will hopefully be a time of healing and reconciliation.” Since the sending of this letter, a division took place within the FCS.
  • 4.2.    It is appreciated that the CRCA tried to make a thorough investigation into the reasons for the division within the FCS, which occurred on January 20, 2000. It is regrettable that as yet there is no clarity on all the issues involved which would allow the CRCA to make a clear judgment. It would be good still to gain more information.
  • 4.3.    The fact that the FCS established fraternal relations with the Free Reformed Churches of North America without consulting our churches is not in keeping with rule 3 for ecclesiastical fellowship, which states that, “The churches shall consult each other when entering into relations with third parties.” The FCS should be reminded of this rule.
  • 4.4.    The Church at Burlington-Ebenezer
    • The CRCA points out in 3.5.2,“it is not possible to fully evaluate the actions of those who seceded.” The committee makes clear that more information is needed to be able to make a clear evaluation of what is all involved in the division within the FCS.The committee anticipates that when the FCS (Continuing) presents itself to the ICRC as the legitimate continuation of the FCS and asks for its judgment, this would be an opportunity for gleaning information to come to a responsible conclusion. The committee expresses “the hope” that this will lead either to reconciliation or greater clarity. Thus the committee is not simply waiting for the ICRC to make a judgment, nor is it binding itself to follow the direction of the ICRC. Indeed, in its recommendation the committee states that it is the task of the committee to “continue … to monitor the situation with the Free Church of Scotland (Continuing) in order to come to greater clarity on the matter.” Thus the committee remains responsible for both monitoring and assessing the situation.
  • 4.5.    The Church at Lincoln
    • 4.5.1.   We learn from the CRCA report that in accordance with the mandate given by Synod Fergus, a letter was sent by the committee to the FCS expressing, “prayerful support of the Canadian Reformed Churches for the FCS as it enters into what will hopefully be a time of healing and reconciliation.”  This encouragement for healing and reconciliation referred to a situation before the Free Church experienced a split. Thus the committee fulfilled its mandate in regards to giving prayerful support. Of course, the committee could be mandated again to inform both FCS churches that they have our prayerful support with a view to reconciliation.
    • 4.5.2.  The Church at Lincoln’s concern “that we treat both sides equally” is also the concern of the CRCA. The committee, in writing about the division within the Free Church, affirms in 3.4.3, “Our task is therefore to determine if the Free Church deviated from its church polity in dealing with this matter.” Then it adds, “In all fairness to those who claim to be the Free Church (Continuing) this requires us to evaluate their ‘Declaration of Reconstitution of the Historic Free Church of Scotland.’” The committee is trying to be fair and open as it examines both sides of the controversy. This impartial approach by the committee is demonstrated further as it expresses concerns about actions on both sides. We read, for instance, in 3.4.6,“Even though the action of secession cannot be justified based on the information available, one is left to wonder if everything possible was done to remove the root cause, namely, the controversy surrounding Prof. D. Macleod.” However, within this context of looking at the issues from both sides in an equitable manner, the committee still comes to the consideration in 3.5.2, “While there are questions about the discipline process leading to a secession, there is no evidence at this point to conclude that we should discontinue our relationship of ecclesiastical fellowship with the Free Church (Majority). Further, while there may be concern about the appropriateness of the act of secession, at this time it is not possible to fully evaluate the actions of those who seceded.” So the point is that there is no reason to discontinue ecclesiastical fellowship with the Free Church (Majority), while keeping an open door to those who seceded. The CRCA is clearly taking the fairest and most reasonable approach to this sad situation: no reason to cease fellowship with the existing contact, while remaining open and fair to those who seceded, and waiting for further clarity on the entire situation.
    • 4.5.3.  The Church at Lincoln asks that “we treat both sides equally.” Under the circumstances that the FCS (Continuing) has seceded without a clear-cut justification for doing so, it would not be proper to show equality by continuing ecclesiastical fellowship with both. The CRCA has attempted to show equality in the best possible way under the circumstances.
  • 4.6.    The Church at London
    • 4.6.1.  The Church at London is correct that based on the consideration of Synod Fergus (Acts 119, IV,C), it is possible to mandate the CRCA with respect to the FCS: “to seek further clarification on the practice of confessional membership, the doctrine of the church, and the position of the civil magistrate in relationship to the church.”
    • 4.6.2.  The Church at London’s ground for including this in the mandate is to bring the CRCA’s mandate regarding the FCS in line with its mandate for the PCK. However, there is a difference in the decisions of Synod Fergus regarding these two churches. Synod Fergus was dealing with appeals of the Church at Grand Rapids, which asked to rescind the decisions to establish ecclesiastical fellowship with the FCS and the PCK. In both cases, Grand Rapids brought forth concerns about the supervision of the Lord’s supper and confessional membership. In the case of the PCK, Synod Fergus referred to a decision of Synod Abbotsford 1995 that, “Synod is not able to evaluate the situation with the information available to us” (Abbotsford Article 106,V,A,2; Fergus Article 108,III,B,2). It appears that this lack of information did lead to the new mandate to investigate the matters of supervising the Lord’s supper and confessional membership in the PCK. However, in the case of the FCS, Synod Fergus demonstrates that we do know more about the practices in the FCS and what is known is positive: “The Church at Grand Rapids … fails to observe that in the FCS the practices surrounding the admission to the Lord’s table are implied to be alike for members and guests” (Article 119,IV.B). It would appear that this is the reason that the CRCA was not mandated to investigate further a matter such as supervision of the Lord’s table, as in the case of the PCK. London does not prove that this still should be done in the case of the FCS.

5.    Recommendations

Synod decide :

  • 5.1.    To give the CRCA the following mandate:
    • 5.1.1.  To continue the relationship of ecclesiastical fellowship with the Free Church of Scotland (Majority) under the adopted rules while continuing to monitor the situation with the Free Church of Scotland (Continuing) in order to come to greater clarity on the matter;
    • 5.1.2.   To remind the FCS of the rules for Fellowship which include, among other things, that churches in ecclesiastical fellowship be consulted before entering into third party relationships;
    • 5.1.3.   To inform both the FCS (Majority) and the FCS (Continuing) that they have our prayerful support with the hope that they will, by God’s grace, come to reconciliation;
    • 5.1.4.  To communicate to the churches the need for prayerful support for the situation of the Church in Scotland.
  • 5.2.    To respond to the Church at Burlington-Ebenezer with Considerations 4.4 mentioned above.
  • 5.3.    To respond to the Church at Lincoln with Considerations 4.5.1, 4.5.2,and 4.5.3 mentioned above as well as recommendation 5.1.3.
  • 5.4.    To respond to the Church at London with Considerations 4.6.1 and 4.6.2 mentioned above and thus to deny their request.

The following amendment was proposed and seconded:

  • Add to Considerations: 4.6.3  “At the same time, numerous Synods have consistently declared that the differences between the Westminster Standards and the Three Forms of Unity are not impediments to ecclesiastical fellowship but need to be discussed within the bounds of it. A listing of such differences can be found in the Acts of Synod New Westminster, 1971,Appendix, pp 64 – 71; and Synod Burlington, 1986, pp 142-151.“Permanent contact in the unity of true faith and the continual discussion of divergencies may express the catholicity of the Church of God and enrich the body of Christ by the grace of the Holy Spirit, until we all attain to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ” (Acts 1986,p.151).
  • Add to the Recommendations: “To continue the discussion on the existing differences in confession and church polity as noted in Consideration 4.6.3.”

The amendment was adopted.

The amended proposal was adopted as follows:

1.    Material

  • 1.1.    Report of the Committee on Relations with Churches Abroad regarding the Free Church of Scotland (FCS).
  • 1.2.    Letters from the Churches at Burlington-Ebenezer, Lincoln and London.

2.    Admissibility

  • 2.1.    The letters of the Churches at Burlington-Ebenezer, Lincoln and London are declared admissible because they deal with the CRCA report, which was sent out to the churches.

3.    Observations

  • 3.1.    The report of the CRCA re the FCS, which is included as an appendix in the Acts, serves as Observations.
  • 3.2.    The CRCA recommends that synod decide to:
    • 3.2.1.  Continue the relationship of ecclesiastical fellowship with the Free Church of Scotland (Majority) under the adopted rules while continuing to monitor the situation with the Free Church of Scotland (Continuing) in order to come to greater clarity on the matter.
    • 3.2.2.  Remind the FCS of the rules for fellowship which include, among other things, that churches in ecclesiastical fellowship be consulted before entering into third party relationships.
  • 3.3.    The Church at Burlington-Ebenezer makes the following comment on the CRCA report, “Why should we wait until the ICRC makes a decision about the FCS? Surely it is not our intention simply to follow ICRC direction, or is it?”
  • 3.4.    The Church at Lincoln refers to the report of the CRCA regarding the FCS that recommends, “Continue the relationship of ecclesiastical fellowship with the Free Church of Scotland (Majority) under the adopted rules while continuing to monitor the situation with the Free Church of Scotland (Continuing) in order to come to greater clarity on the matter.” The Church at Lincoln expresses the desire that, “we should continue to encourage healing and reconciliation as mandated by Synod Fergus 1998.” The Church at Lincoln makes the recommendation, “that we treat both sides equally until the reasons for secession are clear or it becomes apparent that one or both are deviating from the truth. Our concern is that the present wording of recommendation 3.6.1 might leave the impression, perhaps inadvertently, that we are favouring the Majority church.”
  • 3.5.    The Church at London notes that Synod Fergus had the following statement in a consideration about the FCS, “The CRCA could, however, be instructed to seek further clarification on the practice of confessional membership, the doctrine of the church, and the position of the civil magistrate in relationship to the church” (Acts 119, IV,C). London requests Synod Neerlandia to include this as a part of the CRCA’s mandate. London states further, “This request, at least the part dealing with confessional membership, would bring this mandate in line with the one that the CRCA had received for the PCK.”

4.    Considerations

  • 4.1.    It is to be appreciated that the CRCA fulfilled its mandate by sending a letter to the FCS expressing, “prayerful support of the Canadian Reformed Churches for the FCS as it enters into what will hopefully be a time of healing and reconciliation.” Since the sending of this letter, a division took place within the FCS.
  • 4.2.    It is appreciated that the CRCA tried to make a thorough investigation into the reasons for the division within the FCS, which occurred on January 20, 2000. It is regrettable that as yet there is no clarity on all the issues involved which would allow the CRCA to make a clear judgment. It would be good still to gain more information.
  • 4.3.    The fact that the FCS established fraternal relations with the Free Reformed Churches of North America without consulting our churches is not in keeping with rule 3 for ecclesiastical fellowship, which states that, “The churches shall consult each other when entering into relations with third parties.” The FCS should be reminded of this rule.
  • 4.4.    The Church at Burlington-Ebenezer
    • The CRCA points out in 3.5.2,“it is not possible to fully evaluate the actions of those who seceded.” The committee makes clear that more information is needed to be able to make a clear evaluation of what is all involved in the division within the FCS. The committee anticipates that when the FCS (Continuing) presents itself to the ICRC as the legitimate continuation of the FCS and asks for its judgment, this would be an opportunity for gleaning information to come to a responsible conclusion. The committee expresses “the hope” that this will lead either to reconciliation or greater clarity. Thus the committee is not simply waiting for the ICRC to make a judgment, nor is it binding itself to follow the direction of the ICRC. Indeed, in its recommendation the committee states that it is the task of the committee to “continue … to monitor the situation with the Free Church of Scotland (Continuing) in order to come to greater clarity on the matter.” Thus the committee remains responsible for both monitoring and assessing the situation.
  • 4.5.    The Church at Lincoln
    • 4.5.1.  We learn from the CRCA report that in accordance with the mandate given by Synod Fergus, a letter was sent by the committee to the FCS expressing, “prayerful support of the Canadian Reformed Churches for the FCS as it enters into what will hopefully be a time of healing and reconciliation.”  This encouragement for healing and reconciliation referred to a situation before the Free Church experienced a split. Thus the committee fulfilled its mandate in regards to giving prayerful support. Of course, the committee could be mandated again to inform both FCS churches that they have our prayerful support with a view to reconciliation.
    • 4.5.2.  The Church at Lincoln’s concern “that we treat both sides equally” is also the concern of the CRCA. The committee, in writing about the division within the Free Church, affirms in 3.4.3, “Our task is therefore to determine if the Free Church deviated from its church polity in dealing with this matter.” Then it adds, “In all fairness to those who claim to be the Free Church (Continuing) this requires us to evaluate their ‘Declaration of Reconstitution of the Historic Free Church of Scotland.’” The committee is trying to be fair and open as it examines both sides of the controversy. This impartial approach by the committee is demonstrated further as it expresses concerns about actions on both sides. We read, for instance, in 3.4.6,“Even though the action of secession cannot be justified based on the information available, one is left to wonder if everything possible was done to remove the root cause, namely, the controversy surrounding Prof. D. Macleod.” However, within this context of looking at the issues from both sides in an equitable manner, the committee still comes to the consideration in 3.5.2, “While there are questions about the discipline process leading to a secession, there is no evidence at this point to conclude that we should discontinue our relationship of ecclesiastical fellowship with the Free Church (Majority). Further, while there may be concern about the appropriateness of the act of secession, at this time it is not possible to fully evaluate the actions of those who seceded.” So the point is that there is no reason to discontinue ecclesiastical fellowship with the Free Church (Majority), while keeping an open door to those who seceded. The CRCA is clearly taking the fairest and most reasonable approach to this sad situation: no reason to cease fellowship with the existing contact, while remaining open and fair to those who seceded, and waiting for further clarity on the entire situation.
    • 4.5.3.  The Church at Lincoln asks that “we treat both sides equally.” Under the circumstances that the FCS (Continuing) has seceded without a clear-cut justification for doing so, it would not be proper to show equality by continuing ecclesiastical fellowship with both. The CRCA has attempted to show equality in the best possible way under the circumstances.
  • 4.6.    The Church at London
    • 4.6.1.  The Church at London is correct that based on the consideration of Synod Fergus (Acts 119, IV,C), it is possible to mandate the CRCA with respect to the FCS “to seek further clarification on the practice of confessional membership, the doctrine of the church, and the position of the civil magistrate in relationship to the church.”
    • 4.6.2.  The Church at London’s ground for including this in the mandate is to bring the CRCA’s mandate regarding the FCS in line with its mandate for the PCK. However, there is a difference in the decisions of Synod Fergus regarding these two churches. Synod Fergus was dealing with appeals of the Church at Grand Rapids, which asked to rescind the decisions to establish ecclesiastical fellowship with the FCS and the PCK. In both cases, Grand Rapids brought forth concerns about the supervision of the Lord’s supper and confessional membership. In the case of the PCK, Synod Fergus referred to a decision of Synod Abbotsford 1995 that, “Synod is not able to evaluate the situation with the information available to us” (Abbotsford Article 106,V,A,2; Fergus Article 108,III,B,2). It appears that this lack of information did lead to the new mandate to investigate the matters of supervising the Lord’s supper and confessional membership in the PCK. However, in the case of the FCS, Synod Fergus demonstrates that we do know more about the practices in the FCS and what is known is positive, “The Church at Grand Rapids … fails to observe that in the FCS the practices surrounding the admission to the Lord’s table are implied to be alike for members and guests” (Article 119,IV.B). It would appear that this is the reason that the CRCA was not mandated to investigate further a matter such as supervision of the Lord’s table, as in the case of the PCK. London does not prove that this still should be done in the case of the FCS.
    • 4.6.3.  At the same time, numerous Synods have consistently declared that the differences between the Westminster Standards and the Three Forms of Unity are not impediments to ecclesiastical fellowship but need to be discussed within the bounds of it. A listing of such differences can be found in the Acts of Synod New Westminster, 1971, Appendix, pp 64 – 71; and Synod Burlington, 1986, pp 142151.“Permanent contact in the unity of true faith and the continual discussion of divergencies may express the catholicity of the Church of God and enrich the body of Christ by the grace of the Holy Spirit, until we all attain to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ” (Acts 1986,p.151).

5.    Recommendations

Synod decide:

  • 5.1.    To give the CRCA the following mandate:
    • 5.1.1.  To continue the relationship of ecclesiastical fellowship with the Free Church of Scotland (Majority) under the adopted rules while continuing to monitor the situation with the Free Church of Scotland (Continuing) in order to come to greater clarity on the matter;
    • 5.1.2.  To remind the FCS of the rules for Fellowship which include, among other things, that churches in ecclesiastical fellowship be consulted before entering into third party relationships;
    • 5.1.3.  To inform both the FCS (Majority) and the FCS (Continuing) that they have our prayerful support with the hope that they will, by God’s grace, come to reconciliation;
    • 5.1.4.  To communicate to the churches the need for prayerful support for the situation of the Church in Scotland;
    • 5.1.5.  To continue the discussion on the existing differences in confession and church polity as noted in Consideration 4.6.3.
  • 5.2.    To respond to the Church at Burlington-Ebenezer with Considerations 4.4 mentioned above.
  • 5.3.    To respond to the Church at Lincoln with Considerations 4.5.1, 4.5.2,and 4.5.3 mentioned above as well as recommendation 5.1.3.
  • 5.4.    To respond to the Church at London with Considerations 4.6.1 and 4.6.2 mentioned above and thus to deny their request.
Print page