27 Aug GS 2007 art 83

Posted at 14:45h in CanRC, GS 2007 by

GS 2007 Article 83 – Appeal from Attercliffe re Art. 86 of Synod Chatham

The advisory committee presented its second proposal:

1.      Material

  • 1.1     Letter from Attercliffe

2.      Observations

  • 2.1     Synod Chatham 2004 (Art. 86) answered a number of appeals against the decision of Synod Neerlandia (Art. 45) to establish ecclesiastical fellowship with the OPC.
  • 2.2     Attercliffe appeals to Synod Smithers 2007 to reverse Chatham’s decision to uphold the Synod Neerlandia’s decision. Attercliffe is convinced that Synod Neerlandia did indeed err in making its decision about the OPC, and asks that Neerlandia’s decision to remove the words Synod Fergus (Art. 130) inserted in the agreed statements for the OPC should be reinstated.
  • 2.3     Attercliffe bases its appeal on the ground that our practices (re Lord’s Supper) are based on the Church Order, which is in turn based on the Word of God.
  • 2.4     In Consideration 4.3 of Article 86, Synod Chatham quoted with approval a sentence lifted from the report of the CCOPC: “the amendment inserted by Synod Fergus goes beyond the wording found in the Reformed Confessions.” Attercliffe terms this quotation “a false assumption.”

3.      Considerations

  • 3.1     Attercliffe bases this appeal on its conviction that the how of supervising guests at the Lord’s table must be a condition for ecclesiastical fellowship. The churches, however, have said years ago that the how of supervising guests at the Lord’s table “cannot in the end be made a condition for Ecclesiastical Fellowship” (Abbotsford, 1995, Art. 106, V.B.3). Appeals against this decision have been disallowed, and Attercliffe now brings up no new grounds to revisit this decision.
  • 3.2     Synod Chatham correctly notes that a Church Order expresses how churches have agreed to carry out biblical principles in practical church life (Art. 86, 4.5). That the Canadian Reformed Churches have bound themselves to a specific Church Order (and hence a certain practice re supervising guests at the Lord’s table) does not mean that the practices described in this Church Order are the only way any church of God could ever supervise the table.
  • 3.3     Attercliffe does not prove that the statement, “the amendment inserted by Synod Fergus goes beyond the wording found in the Reformed Confessions” is, in fact, a false assumption.

4.      Recommendation

Synod decide:

  • 4.1     Not to grant Attercliffe’s appeal.

ADOPTED

Print page