01 Feb GS 2004 art 43

Posted at 16:36h in CanRC, GS 2004 by

GS 2004 Article 43 – CRCA re: The Free Church of Scotland (FCS)

Committee 3 presented its proposal on the CRCA report re: the Free Church of Scotland.  After several rounds of discussion, the following amendment was proposed and defeated:

To replace Recommendation 5.3 with:

  • To continue the relationship of Ecclesiastical Fellowship with the FCS under the adopted rules while, at the same time, holding on to our contact with the FCS(c) until greater clarity has been obtained concerning this situation.

Next the following was adopted:

1.    Material

  • 1.1.   Report of the CRCA re: The Free Church of Scotland (FCS)
  • 1.2.   Letter from the church at Grand Rapids
  • 1.3.   Letter from the church at Carman West
  • 1.4.   Letter from the church at Fergus
  • 1.5.   Letter from the church at London
  • 1.6.   Letter from the church at Lynden
  • 1.7.   Letter from the church at Orangeville
  • 1.8.   Letter from the church at Surrey
  • 1.9.   Letter from the church at Lincoln

2.    Admissibility

The report and letters are admissible.

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:
    • 3.2.1.     To continue the relationship of Ecclesiastical Fellowship with the FCS under the adopted rules;
    • 3.2.2.     To endorse the evaluation of the committee regarding the division which occurred in January 2000 and consider the matter to have been investigated sufficiently and therefore not to continue contact with the Free Church Continuing;
    • 3.2.3. To rescind the mandate regarding the discussion of divergences.
  • 3.3.   The CRCA gives as grounds for recommendation 3.2.2 above that it is not convinced that the Free Church of Scotland Continuing (FCS(c)) “truly exhausted the ecclesiastical process” and it is also not convinced that the struggle involves a heresy.
  • 3.4.   The CRCA gives as ground for recommendation 3.2.3 above, that when Synod Neerlandia charged the committee to “continue the discussion on the existing differences in confession and church polity,” it brought something new into the relationship that is foreign to it.
  • 3.5.   The churches at Carman (West), Surrey and Lincoln object to recommendation 3.2.2. Since the CRCA reported that the FCS(c) had not truly exhausted the ecclesiastical process and that the issue is not a matter of true or false church, it would be premature to discontinue the relationship at this time.
  • 3.6.   The churches at Grand Rapids, Carman (West), Fergus, Lynden, Lincoln and Orangeville object to recommendation 3.2.3 above. These churches feel that addressing the divergences fits within the relationship of Ecclesiastical Fellowship, even if this would bring something new into the relationship. The churches have always recognized that there are divergences.  Why then not discuss them for mutual benefit?  It is also felt that, as a matter of consistency, these divergences should be discussed with all Presbyterian churches with whom we have contact.
  • 3.7.   The church at London requests to keep the FCS and PCK informed about the progress of our discussions with the OPC regarding the evaluation of confessional divergences.

4.    Considerations

  • 4.1.   From the report it is evident that the CRCA fulfilled its mandate with regard to the FCS and FCS(c).
  • 4.2.   Re: Discontinuing Contact with the FCS(c).  The CRCA stated that those who formed the FCS(c) had not truly exhausted the ecclesiastical process and that the issue was one of a struggle between brothers, not a matter of true or false church.  The churches which object to this recommendation use these very same reasons to propose that we continue the relationship of Ecclesiastical Fellowship with the FCS(c) at this time.
  • 4.3.   In its letters to both the FCS and the FCS(c) the CRCA indicates that it is not convinced that the ecclesiastical process has been exhausted and that everything was done to prevent the separation. The CRCA even admits that it was not possible for the FCS to give all the details. Due to the lack of clarity with regard to the division between the FCS and FCS(c), Synod agrees with the churches that object to recommendation 2, and considers that it is our duty to continue to investigate the situation and to encourage both sides to reconcile. This can be done in conjunction with our other sister churches that have contact with the FCS and FCS(c) as well.
  • 4.4.   Re: Discussion of the confessional divergences with the FCS.  Synod notes that the CRCA addressed this matter with the FCS. The CRCA reports that no comments have been received from the FCS.
  • 4.5.   The CRCA is correct that Synod Neerlandia brought something new into the contact with the FCS. Synod Neerlandia did consider, however, that previous synods have consistently declared that the differences between the Westminster Confessions and the Three Forms of Unity need to be discussed within the bounds of Ecclesiastical Fellowship (see Rule #1). The Church at Carman (West) is correct that through continued discussion we may all “grow in the unity of faith” (Eph. 4:3-6, 13).
  • 4.6.   The request of the Church at London would help the churches to coordinate the discussions with the various church federations with whom we have fellowship about the differences between the Westminster Confession and the Three Forms of Unity. In our relationship with the OPC we have discussed these differences for many years. It would be helpful for the churches to have a synopsis of these discussions, so that we can share the information for the benefit of all involved.

5.    Recommendations

Synod decide:

  • 5.1.   To thank the committee for the work done re: the FCS and the FCS(c).
  • 5.2.   That due to the lack of clarity in this situation Synod cannot judge the division between the FCS and FCS(c) at this time.
  • 5.3.   To continue the relationship of Ecclesiastical Fellowship with the FCS and FCS(c) under the adopted rules.
  • 5.4.   To mandate the CRCA:
    • 5.4.1.     To continue to monitor the situation in the hope of gaining greater clarity and report to the next synod;
    • 5.4.2.     To assure both the FCS and FCS(c) that they have our prayerful support and to encourage both sides to reconcile;
    • 5.4.3.     To continue the discussion on the existing differences in confession and church polity in the light of Considerations 4.5 and 4.6.
Print page