24 Jul GS 2013 art 101

Posted at 14:00h in CanRC, GS 2013 by

GS 2013 Article 101 – Book of Praise – Forms

Committee 2 presented a proposal. After some discussion and a few minor changes, this was the result:

1.         Material:

  • 1.1.      Report from the SCBP, Section 9.0 (8.2.4);
  • 1.2.      Letters from the churches: Abbotsford (8.3.4.6), Cloverdale (8.3.4.14), Burlington-Ebenezer (8.3.4.15) and Grassie (8.3.4.21).

2.         Observations:

  • 2.1.      Forms of Subscription:
    • 2.1.1.   The SCBP submits (9.1) two corrections for the forms in the present APV:
      • [1.]       In the Form for use in the local congregation: the words “and the classis” need to be removed from the third paragraph of the form.
      • [2.]       In the Form for use at classis meetings: the words “consistory and the” need to be removed from the third paragraph of the form.
      • The SCBP considers that, due to an editing oversight, the forms presently do not reflect the approved versions adopted by Synod Burlington 2010.
    • 2.1.2.   The church at Abbotsford states that the SCBP “suggests changes to the Forms for Subscription” and Abbotsford “cannot agree.” Abbotsford advises that both forms be amended as follows: “We will first submit this to the church via her assemblies for judgment” (with reference to Article 29 of the Church Order where the assemblies are listed). Abbotsford argues that the SCBP’s proposal “causes confusion, as a minister signs both forms and is then bound to two different procedures” when questions arise concerning his doctrinal convictions.
    • 2.1.3.   The church at Cloverdale proposes that “a note should be added … that these are the forms of subscription in common use.” The church at Cloverdale argues that
      • [1.]       “the exact wording of the forms of subscription, until recently, has never been prescribed or codified”
      • [2.]       “If the churches have agreed to a prescribed set of forms for subscription, which some would argue is now the case, on the basis of recent synod decisions, we do not view this as progress; especially not since we strive as churches against being anti-hierarchical and anti-synodocratic.”
  • 2.2.      Forms for the celebration of the Lord’s Supper:
    • 2.2.1.   In the section “Assurance:”
      • 2.2.1.1.            The SCBP proposes (9.2) and recommends (9.2.1) to delete the word “saying” in “He declared saying….” This avoids doubling the verb and takes care of some “lingering RSV language.” The church at Burlington-Ebenezer supports this proposal.
      • 2.2.1.2.            The church at Burlington-Ebenezer goes further to request Synod Carman 2013 to direct the SCBP to change the statement of Assurance from “he declared” to “he taught us to understand that”; and to change the wording of the statement of Assurance to the third person. The church at Burlington-Ebenezer submits a re-wording for Synod’s consideration. The church argues that
        • 2.2.1.2.1.                                 the way it is written presently (in the first person singular, introduced by “he declared”) makes this section read as a direct quote from our Lord recorded in Scripture; Burlington-Ebenezer considers “it wrong to make something appear to have been spoken by the Lord that He did not actually say.”
        • 2.2.1.2.2                                  Our form is a translation of the form of our Dutch sister churches who have recognized the problem and have made the change in the wording in their form, some time ago.
        • 2.2.1.2.3                                  Burlington-Ebenezer submits the following rewording for consideration: He taught us to understand that as often as we eat this bread and drink from this cup, we are reminded and assured of His hearty love and faithfulness toward us. It is a sure pledge that He has given His body and shed His blood for us; otherwise we would have suffered eternal death. He nourishes and refreshes our hungry and thirsty souls with His crucified body and shed blood to everlasting life as certainly as this bread is broken before our eyes and this cup is given to us and we eat and drink in remembrance of Him.
    • 2.2.2.   Abbreviated Form for the Celebration of the Lord’s Supper
      • 2.2.2.1.            The SCBP recommends (9.2 and 9.2.1) that the words in the subtitle of this form be deleted, that is, “For the Second Service.” The SCBP argues:
        • 2.2.2.1.1.                                    One of the churches contacted the SCBP with this request and the committee concluded that the request deserved merit.
        • 2.2.2.1.2.                                    In today’s practice, few, if any, churches celebrate the Lord’s Supper in both services.
        • 2.2.2.1.3.                                    The addition of the words “For the second service” never was a SCBP proposal, nor did it come as a proposal from one of the churches. It was added via a motion from the floor at Synod Smithville 1980 (Article 136) as “for the afternoon service”; Synod Cloverdale 1983 changed this to “for the second service” (Article 145).
    • 2.2.2.2.            The church at Burlington-Ebenezer does not agree with this proposal of the SCBP and cites the consideration of Synod Smithville 1980 when that synod decided to add the subtitle: “…the Abbreviated Form is not meant as a replacement of the original Form, rather as a help to be used in the p.m. service when also a sermon is delivered” [Consideration 4, Article 136]. Burlington-Ebenezer notes that “If Synod decides to eliminate the subtitle from the Abbreviated Form, it would become a replacement Form and that is not in keeping with the original purpose of this Form.” Burlington-Ebenezer asks Synod Carman 2013 to decide either to retain the subtitle “For the Second Service” or delete the Abbreviated Form altogether if it is not needed in the churches for a second service.
    • 2.2.2.3.            The SCBP recommends (9.2.1) that the heading “Profession of Faith” be added after the “Prayer” and before the “Exhortation” in the Abbreviated Form for the Celebration of the Lord’s Supper.
  • 2.3.      Form for the Solemnization of Marriage:
    • 2.3.1.   The SCBP recommends (9.3 and 9.3.1) a change in the prayer of the marriage form in the second paragraph of the prayer, “We pray you, grant them your Holy Spirit” to be changed to, “We pray that you will grant them your Holy Spirit….” The SCBP argues this is to eliminate some awkwardness left over from the former “We pray thee.”
    • 2.3.2.   The church at Cloverdale proposes that in the vow of the bridegroom concerning his bride, the word “maintain” be changed to “support”, “provide for”, or “care for” (Ephesians 5:29). Cloverdale argues that although the word “maintain” can mean “to provide with livelihood, to furnish with means of subsistence,” this is a ninth definition of twelve in the Oxford English Dictionary. Cloverdale observes, “most of us don’t use that word, or understand it, that way”; and—to illustrate the more common usage—Cloverdale suggests “the Christian husband ‘maintains’ his vehicle, not his wife.”
  • 2.4.      Orders of Worship:
    • 2.4.1.   The church at Grassie states that in the Orders of Worship (p.584-5 of the APV Book of Praise), the “afternoon services still state that the Apostles’ Creed may be sung in Hymn 1A or 1B. This should be changed to Hymn 1 or 2.”

3.         Considerations:

  • 3.1.      Forms of Subscription:
    • 3.1.1.   The correction presented to Synod Carman 2013 by the SCBP reflects what Synod Burlington 2010 decided (Article 65) to be the correct formulation of the forms of subscription. The SCBP is merely correcting its own error. Therefore the church at Abbotsford is incorrect when it states that this is a suggested change coming from the SCBP. If the church at Abbotsford “cannot agree” with what the SCBP presents, Abbotsford’s disagreement is actually with Synod Burlington 2010. Nonetheless, Abbotsford’s proposed alternative has merit: “We will first submit this to the church via her assemblies for judgment.” This streamlines the process required of ministers whose doctrinal convictions are under scrutiny. Moreover, it is hardly conceivable that a consistory would not be involved in the process when a minister’s doctrinal convictions are under scrutiny at the classis level. The proposal of Abbotsford allows for immediate involvement of the consistory even if the scrutiny is initiated at the classis level.
    • 3.1.2.   The proposal of the church at Cloverdale that a note should be added to the forms, to the effect that these are the forms of subscription “in common use” in the churches, does not take into account the decision of previous synods. When a church asked Synod Chatham 2004 “whether it is the intent of these forms to be compulsory,” Synod considered, “When Synod adopts a Form of Subscription it is to be considered binding upon the churches” [Consideration 4.2.2.3, Article 115]. When this consideration of Synod Chatham 2004 was challenged by another church to Synod Smithers 2007, Synod (pointing to Synod Neerlandia 2001, Article 72) stated in its consideration: “Since the churches via regional synods had expressed a desire for such standardization, all the churches should use the standardized form. The word ‘binding’ used by Synod Chatham indeed indicates that a standardized form shall be used by all the churches” (Consideration 4.2, Article 67, Acts of Synod Smithers 2007).
  • 3.2.      Forms for the celebration of the Lord’s Supper:
    • 3.2.1.   While the proposal of the SCBP to change “He declared saying …” to “He declared …” is an acceptable change, the broader change proposed by the church at Burlington-Ebenezer (“He taught us to understand that …” and then change the following section of the form from the first person to the third person) is a better direction. Burlington-Ebenezer is correct: when written in the first person, this section of the form gives the impression that this is a word which the Lord spoke directly, which it is not. With this change the content (conveying the assurance we receive from the Lord) would not be lost, while the form gains a more accurate presentation in this section. The SCBP should be instructed to make a change and take into consideration the rewording suggested by Burlington-Ebenezer.
    • 3.2.2.   The proposal of the SCBP to remove the parenthetical “For the Second Service” at the head of the Abbreviated Form for the Celebration of the Lord’s Supper does not take into consideration the reasoning of Synod Smithville 1980. Burlington-Ebenezer correctly points out that removing the subtitle “For the Second Service” would present the Abbreviated Form as an alternative or replacement of the original form; the Abbreviated Form is not meant to be such, according to Synod Smithville 1980. If the SCBP wishes to pursue this further and is not convinced by this line of reasoning, it needs to interact with the decision of Synod Smithville 1980 (or a church should take up the way of appealing the decision of that Synod).
    • 3.2.3.   The recommendation of the SCBP to add a heading/section “Profession of Faith” in the Abbreviated Form for the Celebration of the Lord’s Supper does not come with any rationale.
  • 3.3.      Form for the Solemnization of Marriage:
    • 3.3.1.   The recommendation of the SCBP regarding the awkward wording “We pray you” in the prayer of the Form for the Solemnization of Marriage is valid. The recommendation to change this to “We pray that you will grant them your Holy Spirit…” is the sensible solution.
    • 3.3.2.   The church at Cloverdale makes a good point regarding the word “maintain” in the vow of the bridegroom regarding his bride. The word “maintain” as it is generally understood today is awkward in this place in the form. The SCBP should be instructed to consider a good alternative as suggested by Cloverdale: “support,” “provide for,” “care for” or something similar in line with a synod-approved translation of Scripture (Ephesians 5:29).
  • 3.4       Orders of Worship:
    • 3.4.1.   It is not evident what discrepancy the church at Grassie is referring to in the Orders of Worship (references to Hymn 1A or 1B instead of Hymn 1 and 2). Perhaps this is something that was an error in earlier printings of the APV Book of Praise. If so, then this has since been corrected.

4.         Recommendations:

That Synod decide:

  • 4.1.      Forms of Subscription:
    • 4.1.1.   To approve the recommendation of the church at Abbotsford regarding the wording of both Forms of Subscription and to instruct the SCBP to include the new wording.
    • 4.1.2.   Not to adopt the proposal of the church at Cloverdale regarding a note with the Forms of Subscription.
  • 4.2.      Forms for the celebration of the Lord’s Supper:
    • 4.2.1.   To approve the proposal of the church at Burlington-Ebenezer regarding the rewording of a part of the Assurance section of the form and to instruct the SCBP to make the necessary changes interacting with the suggestion of Burlington-Ebenezer (2.2.1.2.3).
    • 4.2.2.   Not to adopt the recommendation of the SCBP to remove the words “For the Second Service” from the Abbreviated Form.
    • 4.2.3.   Not to adopt the recommendation of the SCBP to add a heading/section “Profession of Faith” to the Abbreviated Form.
  • 4.3.      Form for the Solemnization of Marriage:
    • 4.3.1.   To adopt the recommendation of the SCBP to reword the relevant line in the prayer of the form to “We pray that you will grant them ….”
    • 4.3.2.   To approve the proposal of the church at Cloverdale to change the word “maintain” in the vow of the bridegroom regarding his bride and to instruct the SCBP to make the necessary change as per the suggestion of Cloverdale.
  • 4.4.      Orders of Worship:
    • 4.4.1.   To send consideration 3.4 to the church at Grassie.

ADOPTED

Print page