GS 2013 art 77

GS 2013 Article 77 – North American Presbyterian and Reformed Council (NAPARC)

Committee 4 presented a proposal on NAPARC. An amendment was proposed and adopted. The whole proposal was then voted on with this result:

1.         Material:

  • 1.1.      Report from the CCCNA (8.2.3)
  • 1.2.      Supplementary Report from the CCCNA (8.2.3.1)
  • 1.3.      Letters from the churches at Kerwood (8.1.17), Abbotsford (8.3.3.4), Burlington-Ebenezer (8.3.3.11), Fergus-Marantha (8.3.3.13), Glanbrook (8.3.3.14), Hamilton-Cornerstone (8.3.3.16), London (8.3.3.21), Spring Creek (8.3.3.26) and Calgary (8.3.3.27)

2.         Observations:

  • 2.1.      Synod Burlington 2010 gave the CCCNA the following mandate in regard to NAPARC (Acts, Article 52, Recommendation 4):
    • [4.2.1] To continue to represent the CanRC at NAPARC;
    • [4.2.2] To investigate the status and the implications of the “Golden Rule Comity Agreement” and the “NAPARC Agreement on Transfer of Members and Congregations” in order to determine whether or not these agreements interfere with the independence of the CanRC in regard to establishing relationships of EF with other federations.
  • 2.2.      The CCCNA attended meetings of NAPARC in 2010, 2011 and 2012. The CCCNA notes that the 2013 meeting of NAPARC will be chaired by the CanRC and the 2014 meeting will be hosted by the CanRC.
  • 2.3.      The CCCNA continues to see the benefit of being involved in NAPARC, as the annual meetings provide good occasion for interaction with the inter-church relations committees of the ERQ, OPC, RCUS and the RPCNA.
  • 2.4.      The CCCNA reports that NAPARC has established a review committee to improve the functioning of the Council. Furthermore, the language of the “Golden Rule Comity Agreement” and the “NAPARC Agreement on Transfer of Members and Congregations” is under review by the NAPARC Committee of Review.
  • 2.5.      The CCCNA investigated the status and the implications of the “Golden Rule Comity
  • Agreement” and the “NAPARC Agreement on Transfer of Members and Congregations”. It stresses that NAPARC has as the primary, foundational principle of its constitution that “all actions and decisions taken are advisoryin character and in no way curtail or restrict the autonomy of the member bodies” (emphasis added) and that the two agreements need to be understood in that context.
  • 2.6.      The CCCNA explains that the “Golden Rule Comity Agreement” was adopted following the recommendation of the representatives of the home missions agencies “that member-churches of NAPARC, when planning mission work, be sensitive to the presence of existing congregations and mission-work of other churches. Out of courtesy and for good working relationships, the home missions committees are encouraged to inform each other of their planned activities.”
  • 2.7.      The CCCNA explains that “The Agreement on Transfer of Members and Congregations” was adopted to “forestall a consistory or presbytery of a member-church from unintentionally receiving into its membership an ordained officer or member who is under discipline, thus creating tension between the churches. Like the Comity Agreement, it is intended to function as a ‘gentleman’s agreement’ for the sake of maintaining good communications and so, good relations. It has no binding authority upon any member-church of NAPARC.”
  • 2.8.      The CCCNA says, “these agreements are just asking for some sensible contact with neighbouring churches about the establishment of mission posts or the transfer of members. The point is not that we need to ‘honour’ these agreements (in the sense that they are binding upon us), but rather to take them into consideration in contact with NAPARC churches. NAPARC agreements do not supersede our own rules established in the Church Order.”
  • 2.9.      The CCCNA points out that it “should be recognized that our participation in NAPARC does not mean that we have recognized all its member churches as being true and faithful; rather, we have agreed to meet with them on the basis of an established constitution and bylaws.”
  • 2.10.    Burlington-Ebenezer raises questions about the implications of CanRC participation in NAPARC. Referencing the NAPARC Constitution, which states, “Those churches shall be eligible for membership which profess and maintain the basis for fellowship expressed in [Section] II and that maintain the marks of the true church (pure preaching of the gospel, the Scriptural administration of the sacraments, the faithful exercise of discipline),” and the fact that member churches may be suspended because of non-compliance with these constitutional requirements, Burlington-Ebenezer contends that NAPARC membership implies a mutual recognition of faithfulness between existing member churches (emphasis added). Burlington-Ebenezer asks for clarity on this point, whether “we [have] tacitly accepted all of the member churches to be true churches,” and whether we are bound “to make a determination that each of the member churches is a true church and to seek the expulsion of those that we determine are not?” Furthermore, it questions if it is “scripturally tenable to recognize a church as being a true church but to not establish a relationship of ecclesiastical fellowship with it?” Finally, Burlington-Ebenezer questions if we are meeting with the churches at NAPARC on the basis of its constitution and bylaws, or if we are simply ignoring these documents and defining membership in whatever way suits us.
  • 2.11.    Also citing the NAPARC constitution, Spring Creek wonders if the CCCNA is correct in its assertion that “our participation in NAPARC does not mean that we have recognized all its member churches as being true and faithful,” and askssynod to confirm or correct this understanding of the CCCNA. Spring Creek notes the relevance of the question in how some church members are making assumptions about a CanRC acknowledgement of all other NAPARC churches as true, based solely on the fact that we belong to the same organization, while the CanRC has not made the determination that all these churches maintain the marks of the true church. In fact, Spring Creek asserts, “membership in NAPARC is based mainly on a church’s self-testimony and presentation of its confessional documents,” and that the Constitution does not call for an investigation into whether a church indeed maintains or continues to maintain the marks of a true church nor does it even demand the sponsorship of existing members to verify the faithful character of the applying church. Spring Creek does not believe it is right for us to be bound to acknowledge all member churches as true and faithful and argues that this runs contrary to the advisory character of NAPARC. Spring Creek observes, “NAPARC is merely a discussion forum for churches who share the same Reformed confession. Sharing the same confession and coming together around the same table may be the starting point for bi-lateral discussions to bring church bodies in closer contact with one another on the road to mutual recognition and possibly developing unity—but it should not compel member churches to jump to conclusions about the others. Investigative work needs to be done first.”
  • 2.12.    Fergus-Marantha, Glanbrook and Kerwood seek clarity on the status and consequences of our membership in NAPARC. Kerwood suggests a withdrawal from NAPARC if in fact the two agreements are binding, as we cannot be compelled to recognize other churches as true and faithful.
  • 2.13.    London notes that the language of the two agreements is under review and recommends that the CCCNA monitor these changes to ensure that these documents retain a non-binding character. Furthermore, London urges that “all the local congregations in our federation … understand clearly that these agreements do not effectively put us into [EF] with every NAPARC church.”
  • 2.14.    In its Supplementary Report, the CCCNA quotes the Minutes of NAPARC 1977, “That we mutually recognize that the decision to enter into or withdraw from Ecclesiastical Fellowship with another Reformed church shall be decided by each church on an individual basis.”
  • 2.15.    Hamilton-Cornerstone suggests that concerns about the two agreements have been allayed and points out the benefits in NAPARC membership. Abbotsford points out that the “Golden Rule Comity Agreement” is non-binding and that its focus is on cooperation in mission fields.
  • 2.16.    Calgary recognizes the benefit of discussions at NAPARC and suggests that discussions be initiated at NAPARC concerning topics such as Bible translation, federational seminaries and women in office.
  • 2.17.    Observers from the FRCA, in their address to Synod Carman 2013, raised concern about the role of the CanRC synod in voting to admit new member churches into NAPARC. They questioned how this process works within the parameters of the CanRC Church Order.
  • 2.18.    The CCCNA recommends that Synod decide to mandate the CCCNA to continue to represent the Canadian Reformed Churches at NAPARC and to continue its active involvement in it.

3.         Considerations:

  • 3.1.      It is evident that the CCCNA has been active in fulfilling their mandate with respect to CanRC membership in NAPARC and has provided the churches with an explanation of “Golden Rule Comity Agreement” and the “NAPARC Agreement on Transfer of Members and Congregations”.
  • 3.2.      The intent of the two membership agreements needs to be remembered, that the agreements simply promote sensible contact with neighbouring churches about the establishment of mission posts or the transfer of members. The NAPARC constitution and bylaws and the two agreements do not supersede the rules agreed upon in the CanRC Church Order.
  • 3.3.      The committee’s conclusion with respect to the advisory character of NAPARC should be underlined: “Our participation in NAPARC does not mean that we have recognized all its member churches as being true and faithful; rather, we have agreed to meet with them on the basis of an established constitution and bylaws.” It is important that local congregations understand that these agreements do not put us into EF with every NAPARC church. The self-testimony required by NAPARC member churches is not sufficient basis for us to recognize them as true churches, but is sufficient basis for us to dialogue together with them at NAPARC as a discussion partner.
  • 3.4.      As members of NAPARC, we have agreed to participate in the functioning of the Council, such as when our synod would be requested to vote to admit new member churches. If the synod were to vote in favour of admitting a new member church to NAPARC, this would not constitute a recognition of such church as true and faithful, but would simply allow it to be admitted to NAPARC.
  • 3.5.      In connection with the function of NAPARC, the decision of Synod Chatham 2004 with respect to the CanRC participating at the ICRC bears citing (Acts, Article 52):
    • [4.4.]    …It must be kept in mind that the ICRC is not an ecclesiastical assembly but a conference. Synod Lincoln 1992 (Acts, Article 94, page 64) accepted the proposal to continue participation in the ICRC for the following reasons:
      • [4.4.1.] The integrity of our churches is not jeopardized by our being a member of the ICRC;
      • [4.4.2.] Membership in the ICRC is voluntary and its conclusions are advisory and therefore the Conference does not undermine the Three Forms of Unity;
      • [4.4.3.] Our participation in the ICRC should be one of full cooperation and continued evaluation;
      • [4.4.4.] The ICRC is not a super-synod but a conference.
  • 3.6.      Spring Creek is correct to observe that “NAPARC is… a discussion forum for churches who share the same Reformed confession. Sharing the same confession and coming together around the same table may be the starting point for bi-lateral discussions to bring church bodies in closer contact with one another on the road to mutual recognition and possibly developing unity.”

4.         Recommendations:

That Synod decide:

  • 4.1.      To thank the CCCNA for representing the CanRC at meetings of NAPARC;
  • 4.2.      To mandate the CCCNA to continue to represent the CanRC at NAPARC and to continue its active involvement in it;
  • 4.3.      To mandate the CCCNA to raise in discussion at NAPARC what may be perceived as a tension between Article 4 of the NAPARC constitution on “The Nature and Extent of Authority,” and the last sentence of 5.2 on “Membership,” namely, “Those churches shall be eligible for membership … [which] maintain the marks of the true church (pure preaching of the gospel, the Scriptural administration of the sacraments, the faithful exercise of discipline)”.

ADOPTED