15 Jul GS 2016 art 77

Posted at 13:12h in CanRC, GS 2016 by

GS 2016 Article 77 – URCNA (United Reformed Churches in North America) – Committee for Church Unity – Coordinators (CCU-C)

1. Material

  • 1.1    Report from the Committee for Church Unity – Coordinators (CCU-C) (8.2.5)
  • 1.2    Letters from the following CanRC: Orangeville (8.3.3.1), Fergus-Maranatha (8.3.3.2), Glanbrook (8.3.3.3), Hamilton-Blessings (8.3.3.4), Abbotsford (8.3.3.5), Lincoln-Vineyard (8.3.3.6)

2. Observations

  • 2.1    GS 2013 (Art. 129) gave the CCU-C the following mandate:
    • [4.2.1]   To discuss with CERCU the areas of concern or fear in the URCNA that seem to be hindering progress toward a merger with the CanRC;
    • [4.2.2]   To seek ways to facilitate the work of building unity on the local level, as well as visiting churches and classes of the URCNA, particularly in the United States;
    • [4.2.3]   To mandate the coordinators to discuss with CERCU how to make preparations for Phase 3, such as through the reappointment of the subcommittees for theological education, liturgical forms and confessions and a common songbook;
    • [4.2.4]   To seek clarification from CERCU on the authoritative status and definitions of the different categories of doctrinal statements adopted by recent URCNA synods and to encourage the URCNA to refrain from making further statements of this nature.
  • 2.2    Activities of the Coordinators
    • 2.2.1     The coordinators, especially the Rev. W. den Hollander as emeritus minister, were able to preach in many different URC, particularly in the United States. This often gave them the opportunity to also address the churches about the Canadian Reformed Churches. The Rev. den Hollander was able to engage in interim ministry in two URC in Ontario, Canada that served to solidify relationships locally between URC and CanRC.
    • 2.2.2     The coordinators attended numerous classes of the URCNA where they could officially address these assemblies and take opportunities of a less formal nature to address questions and hold discussions. This included the following classes:
    • –    Classis Ontario-East September 26, 2013 in Toronto, ON
    • –    Classis Michigan October 8, 2013
    • –    Classis Pacific Northwest February 25, 2014 in Ripon, CA
    • –    Classis Southwestern Ontario March 12, 2014 in Brantford, ON
    • –    Classis Southwestern Ontario November 26, 2014 in Hamilton, ON
    • –    Classis Southwestern Ontario March 25, 2015 in Listowel, ON
    • They attended and spoke at other events such as office-bearer conferences.
    • 2.2.3     In 2013 the coordinators met with the CERCU at the annual meeting of the North American Presbyterian and Reformed Council (NAPARC) in Flat Rock, North Carolina. They presented the URCNA brothers with a copy of the Acts of GS 2013, sought clarification about the authoritative status of the different categories of doctrinal statements adopted by recent URCNA Synods, explained why such statements are disliked in the CanRC, and discussed how to best move the merger efforts forward.
    • 2.2.4     By the spring of 2014, the coordinators had visited all of the American classes within the URCNA. Their overall impression was that among the classes in the USA the response, generally speaking, was somewhat ambivalent, lacking the interest and support one may expect for a federative pursuit of church unity with a federation of the same precious faith. They give several reasons for this:
    • –    There appears to be little sense of an ecumenical imperative toward union;
    • –    Some office-bearers have suggested that the URCNA federation has changed a lot since 2001, with the result that the effort toward merger is no longer supported as it was before 2001 when the federation was dominated by the URC in Canada;
    • –    The (perceived) Canadian Reformed view of the covenant. (The coordinators feel that that this matter was in many ways resolved by a colloquium at Synod Visalia 2014).
    • 2.2.5     The coordinators attended Synod Visalia 2014 for the duration of the synod.
    • 2.2.6     On September 24, 2014, the coordinators met with the Rev. J.A. Bouwers about how to move the relationship between the CanRC and URCNA forward after Synod Visalia 2014’s decision to “table indefinitely” the proposal to encourage CERCU to work on a formal plan leading to Phase 3A (merger).
    • 2.2.7     On November 11, 2014, the coordinators met with CERCU at the NAPARC conference in Grassie, ON, to discuss how to move the relationship between the CanRC and URCNA forward. They discussed:
    • –    How to practically implement the calling/principle regarding unity both locally in Canada and federatively in North America;
    • –    How Synod Visalia 2014’s decision is perceived in the CanRC;
    • –    Whether CERCU could go to URC congregations where resistance to merger is strong in order to promote the cause;
    • –    An overture from Classis Pacific Northwest October 14 and 15, 2014 of the URCNA calling on Synod Wyoming 2016 to discontinue all further action, advancement, processes, efforts or steps toward merger at this time.
    • 2.2.8     The coordinators met with CERCU during NAPARC in Quebec City from November 10-12, 2015. They noted that the slow but certain progress is encouraging. They discussed the wisdom of having a period of time in which there is no pressure of having Phase 3A on the immediate horizon during which efforts can be made to cultivate our relationship in the USA.
  • 2.3    Doctrinal Statements
    • 2.3.1     The coordinators sought and received clarification from CERCU on the authoritative status and definitions of the different categories of doctrinal statements in the URCNA. They reported the following:
      • 2.3.1.1    A “Doctrinal Affirmation” is an interpretation of the Ecumenical Creeds and the Three Forms of Unity on a specific point of their teaching (Acts of Synod Calgary 2004 Article 76.B.b., p. 29). A “Doctrinal Affirmation”:
      • –    Serves the churches by directing them to the Ecumenical Creeds and the Three Forms of Unity, applying them in response to doctrinal questions that have arisen in the churches;
      • –    Should be received by the churches with respect and submission, and may not be directly or indirectly contradicted in preaching or in writing (Church Order Articles 29 and 31; Form of Subscription). The Scriptures, Ecumenical Creeds, and the Three Forms of Unity alone may serve as grounds in matters of discipline (Acts of Synod 2007 Article 67.4, p. 36);
      • –    May be appealed as outlined in Church Order Articles 29 and 31 (Form of Subscription, Regulations for Synodical Procedure 3.4 and Appendix B).
      • 2.3.1.2    A “Pastoral Advice” is Synod’s application of the Scriptures, the Ecumenical Creeds and the Three Forms of Unity to particular circumstances in the life of the churches. A “Pastoral Advice”:
      • –    Expresses the collective wisdom of Synod to guide the churches in their pastoral care;
      • –    Should be received with respect. It would be unwise to disregard Pastoral Advice in preaching or writing. It may not, however, serve as grounds in matters of discipline;
      • –    May be appealed as outlined in Church Order Articles 29 and 31 (Regulations for Synodical Procedure 3.4 and Appendix B) (Acts of Synod Nyack 2012 Article 45, p. 37).
    • 2.3.2     The Fifteen Points adopted by Synod London 2010 were doctrinal affirmations. As such, they may not be directly or indirectly contradicted in preaching or in writing.
    • 2.3.3     The coordinators conveyed to CERCU the concern of the CanRC that “doctrinal affirmations,” by their very definition present a particular interpretation of the Scriptures and the Three Forms of Unity. As such, with each doctrinal affirmation there is a (potential) narrowing of the range of interpretation allowed.
    • 2.3.4     While conveying this concern, the coordinators also articulated two matters they regard as mitigating:
    • 2.3.4.1    There are also other ways in which doctrinal statements could be made which seek to define or interpret something in the Scriptures and the Three Forms of Unity. This too can result in narrowing the range of interpretation allowed. For example, when a CanRC ecclesiastical assembly is faced with an appeal about a doctrinal matter, the considerations leading up to the recommendation could consist of doctrinal affirmations involving the definition and interpretation of something in the Scriptures or the Confessions. The status of such considerations would not be equal to the status of the points adopted by recent URCNA synods, but the practice in such instances also amounts to articulating certain points of doctrine. The difference is that in the case of the points adopted by the URCNA the doctrinal statements are codified, whereas this is not the case when doctrinal statements are made in the considerations leading up to an ecclesiastical assembly’s decision. The coordinators mentioned this also with CERCU in order to be as fair and balanced as possible.
    • 2.3.4.2    Much could depend on how the Fifteen Points are understood. They cite as example point # 5 which affirms that “Adam was obligated to obey ‘the commandment of life’ in order to live in fellowship with God and enjoy His favor eternally (BC Article 14, HC Lord’s Day 3).” Does this mean that an office-bearer must hold to the existence of a covenant of works before the fall into sin? That particular language is not used, but what is the import of this statement?
    • 2.3.5     When the coordinators mentioned to CERCU the discomfort that many in the CanRC have with the language of “covenant of works” and read some quotations to that effect from a published work, this sparked considerable discussion. Partly because of this discussion CERCU felt that perhaps a colloquium should be organized to give a keener focus on whether our differences are within what we confess together in the Three Forms of Unity. The coordinators found that this discussion at Flat Rock, NC, underlines our concern about extra-confessional statements because it shows that doctrinal affirmations made to interpret the Confessions are themselves open to interpretation.
    • 2.3.6     The coordinators report that it is clear to them that the URCNA is committed to the doctrinal statements made by recent Synods and that these will not be reversed. They also point out that on the North American ecclesiastical scene, churches (including the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) and Reformed Church in the United States (RCUS)) make statements on various matters in order to further delineate where they stand on the theological issues of the day. They also point out that as reported to GS-CanRC 2013, the URCNA has assured the CanRC that the doctrinal statements about the Federal Vision were not directed against the CanRC, and that the colloquium at Synod Visalia 2014 indicated that there are no significant differences in covenant views between the URCNA and the CanRC. The coordinators opine that we should not consider doctrinal statements of recent URCNA synods as a threat, and should not pursue this matter further.
  • 2.4    Re: Synod Visalia 2014
    • 2.4.1     The coordinators reported that CERCU gave a very positive report regarding unity efforts with the CanRC to Synod Visalia 2014. This report noted that one third of the URC have discovered that the Canadian Reformed are dear brothers and sisters in the faith, while two thirds have not had the opportunity to discover this first hand. The report noted three types of concerns remain: theological (concerns whether we can live healthily side by side with how we teach the doctrine of the covenant), church political (fears of hierarchical tendencies in the Proposed Joint Church Order (PJCO)), and ecumenical (some are not convinced of the requirement to seek organizational unity). CERCU suggested that if the first two concerns can be addressed, then the third concern will also be alleviated. CERCU requested Synod Visalia to encourage CERCU to propose at Synod 2016 entering Step A – Development of the Plan of Ecclesiastical Union. With this plan the federations would construct a plan of ecclesiastical union which would outline the timing, coordination, and/or integration of the broader assemblies, the liturgies and liturgical forms, the translation of the Bible and the confessions, the song books for worship, the church polity and order, and the missions abroad.
    • 2.4.2     CERCU organized a colloquium during Synod Visalia 2014 on the issue of the covenant involving Dr. Robert Godfrey and Dr. Cornel Venema from the URCNA, and Dr. Jason Van Vliet and Dr. Theodore VanRaalte from the CanRC. The coordinators found that the colloquium served well to clear up misunderstandings: the four participants were on the same page regarding covenant views (cf. John A. Bouwers and Theodore G. VanRaalte, eds. The Bond of the Covenant within the Bounds of the Confessions: A Conversation between the URCNA and the CanRC (St. Catharines, ON: Church Unity Publications, 2015)).
    • 2.4.3     Synod Visalia decided:
      • 2.4.3.1    To “table indefinitely” the proposal of CERCU (see observation 2.12.1);
      • 2.4.3.2    That the churches seriously consider which, if any, specific articles or stipulations of the Proposed Joint Church Order (PJCO) they believe should be changed before the PJCO can be adopted for a united federation, and that the churches seek to bring such concerns to Synod 2016 by way of overture to their Classes (Article 73, Recommendation 10);
      • 2.4.3.3    To instruct the PJCO committee to wait with doing further work on the PJCO until after a decision to enter Phase 3A with the CanRC (Article 69, Recommendation 1). The ground for this decision is that the two federations are not yet in Phase 3A where such work belongs;
      • 2.4.3.4    To reiterate with Synod Nyack 2012 that each classis and consistory continue to engage the issue of an eventual merger between the CanRC and the URCNA by inviting CanRC ministers to fill pulpits, inviting CanRC representatives to classes, seeking open dialogue with CanRC brothers regarding any outstanding areas of concern, organizing joint events with CanRC congregations, attending joint conferences, and writing columns to foster our mutual understanding and affection (Article 26, Recommendation 12).
    • 2.4.4     Reflecting on these decisions of Synod Visalia 2014 the coordinators state the following:
      • 2.4.4.1    While “tabling indefinitely” the proposal of CERCU is disappointing, we can be thankful that the recommendations were not defeated.
      • 2.4.4.2    The decision reported in 2.4.3.3 above is a departure from the approach of previous Synods. While the point about Phase 3A is true, the PJCO committee had been working for several years already in anticipation of a future merger, thereby doing groundwork for such a merger.
      • 2.4.4.3    We realize that the process toward merger between the CanRC and the URCNA has been very slow, but we also realize that there has been a gradual but steady movement toward one another. The colloquium and the conclusions that can be drawn from it are another step on that road. Our increasing contact as coordinators with churches and classes in the USA has built relationships and deepened awareness of the CanRC.
    • 2.4.5     Synod Visalia also decided:
      • 2.4.5.1    To appoint the Rev. Richard Bout to serve as Missions Coordinator;
      • 2.4.5.2    To adopt a Psalm proposal of the 150 Psalms to be the Psalter portion of the new songbook for the URCNA. (About twenty of these Psalms are Genevans from our Book of Praise.) This Psalm Proposal was the joint effort of a URCNA committee and an OPC committee (Article 32, Recommendation 4). An OPC General Assembly meeting at the same time elsewhere also adopted this Psalm Proposal. The work on the Hymn section is ongoing and is expected to be completed in time for Synod 2016, the LORD willing (Article 32, Recommendation 7);
      • 2.4.5.3    To invite the OPC to hold its 2016 General Assembly at the same time and place as the next Synod of the URCNA (Article 32, Recommendation 11). The grounds are that this would be an expression of unity as sister-churches in Christ, an expression of appreciation for the OPC invitation to join them in the production of a new songbook, and an opportunity to hold a joint discussion on the songbook should both assemblies desire to do so. It was decided that Synod 2016 will be held in the Grand Rapids, Michigan area;
      • 2.4.5.4    That the URCNA remain in Ecumenical Contact (Phase One) with the Reformed Churches of South Africa (GKSA), the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands (GKv), the Free Church of Scotland (Continuing) (FCC), and the Calvinist Reformed Church (GGRC) in Indonesia;
      • 2.4.5.5    To discontinue Ecumenical Contact (Phase One) with the Free Protestant Church in Argentina;
      • 2.4.5.6    To enter into Ecumenical Contact (Phase One) with the Evangelical Reformed Church in Latvia (ERCLat) and the Evangelical and Presbyterian Church in England and Wales (EPCEW);
      • 2.4.5.7    To enter into Ecumenical Fellowship (Phase Two) with the United Reformed Churches of Congo (URCC) (Article 33 and 54).
  • 2.5    Developments since Synod Visalia 2014
    • 2.5.1     Classis Pacific Northwest October 14-15, 2014 (Article 30) adopted an overture “…to overture Synod Wyoming 2016 to direct CERCU to discontinue all further action, advancement, processes, efforts or steps towards unification with the Canadian Reformed Churches and specifically advancement to Phase 3, Step A.” The coordinators supply the following grounds:
      • 2.5.1.1    Ground #2 adduces that “…two-thirds of the federation does not approve of unification with the Canadian Reformed Churches and is resistant to CERCU’s proceedings.” The coordinators note that this is based on a misreading of CERCU’s report to Synod Visalia 2014.
      • 2.5.1.2    Ground #3 reads: “The URCNA’s current Phase II status of unity with the Canadian Reformed Churches is altogether satisfactory and effective and no compelling need to proceed to total union is presented”.
      • 2.5.1.3    Ground #6 states, “Phase II Ecclesiastical Fellowship with the Canadian Reformed Churches presently satisfies biblical requirements for pursuing Christian unity”.
      • 2.5.1.4    Ground #5 asserts that the process has been “significantly distracting” from other matters such as missions and evangelism and from “…the very unity that we now do share and appreciate with the Canadian Reformed Churches.”
    • 2.5.2     Commenting on this overture the coordinators point out that it does not close the door entirely on merger efforts because Ground #9 posits: “Staying in Phase II for the foreseeable future will in no way prejudice later initiatives to advance unity with the Canadian Reformed Churches.” At the same time this overture goes even further than the decision to “table indefinitely” of Synod Visalia, and if Synod Wyoming 2016 adopts this overture then that will spell the end of merger in the foreseeable future.
    • 2.5.3     Classis Pacific Northwest October 14-15, 2014 also adopted an overture for Synod 2016 “…to declare that the PJCO (a church order proposed for use in the prospective union of the United Reformed Churches with the Canadian Reformed Churches) is unusable for that purpose.” This overture asserts that the PJCO “vacates” a principle held dear by the URCNA, namely, that authority in Christ’s church resides with the local eldership and not broader assemblies. The overture maintains that this principle is violated by such stipulations as having to maintain a seminary, licensure by classis, counselors appointed for vacant churches by classis, the role of deputies of Regional Synod, having Regional Synods, admission to the pulpit, etc.
    • 2.5.4     That this overture is going to Synod Wyoming 2016 is seen by the coordinators as indication that we are still a long way from agreement on how a merged federation would operate.
    • 2.5.5     Classis Central US April 13-14, 2015 (Article 35) adopted an overture for Synod 2016 to change the mandate of CERCU. The current mandate of CERCU reads, “With a view toward complete church unity, the Committee for Ecumenical Relations and Church Unity shall pursue and make recommendations regarding the establishment of ecumenical relations with those Reformed and Presbyterian federations selected by synod and in keeping with Article 36 of the Church Order.” The overture proposes that it reads: “With a desire to pursue a broader unity with churches that share a common confession and faith, and acknowledging the desirability of union with churches of like faith and practice, where feasible, the Committee for Ecumenical Relations and Church Unity shall pursue and make recommendations regarding the establishment of ecumenical relations with those Reformed and Presbyterian federations selected by synod and in keeping with Article 36 of the Church Order.” In explanation, Ground #6 states: “The current terminology of ‘With a view toward complete church unity…’ appears to be used by the committee in a way which seems to keep driving toward organic union with the Canadian Reformed Churches without recognizing differences in like-faith, like-practice and the desire of churches in our federation to acknowledge them as a true church but not proceed further at this point.”
    • 2.5.6     About this overture, the committee comments that though it is not as far-reaching as the overture from Classis Pacific Northwest October 14-15, 2014, it is designed to put the brakes on unity efforts with the CanRC and seems to suggest a weaker commitment to efforts toward merger. Especially the words “where feasible” could potentially lead to a neglect of the calling to work toward unity. If adopted, the message to CERCU with respect to dealings with the CanRC will be clear. Even if not adopted by Synod Wyoming 2016, in the opinion of the coordinators the fact that it was adopted at a classis gives further evidence of discomfort in the URCNA with merger efforts.
  • 2.6    Reflecting on developments of the last number of years the coordinators note that while the future for unity efforts looks less hopeful, we have to await the outcome of Synod Wyoming 2016. They therefore urge prayer that the vision of Synod Escondido 2001, which agreed to the Phase Two relationship and looked beyond to eventual merger, may not be lost. The coordinators at the same time state that there has been a gradual but steady movement towards each other, and positive remarks were heard at a classis in the Eastern United States, “Why are churches holding to the Three Forms of Unity not united?” They also state that we should not lose sight of the many blessings that we enjoy in our relationship as Churches in Ecclesiastical Fellowship (EF), all of which are the result of a slow but steady growing together over a period of twenty years. The coordinators mention specific matters such as pulpit exchanges, working together on evangelistic efforts, care for the handicapped, and Reformed schooling.
  • 2.7    The committee recommends that GS 2016 decide:
    • 2.7.1     That the Coordinators for the Committee for Church Unity have completed their mandate given by GS 2013;
    • 2.7.2     To consider the matter of doctrinal statements finished;
    • 2.7.3     To reappoint Coordinators for the CCU;
    • 2.7.4     To give the Coordinators for the CCU a specific and well-defined mandate.
  • 2.8    Letters from the Churches
    • 2.8.1     A number of churches indicate by letter their appreciation for the extent of the efforts of the Revs. W. DenHollander and C.J. VanderVelde to interact with the URCNA churches in the United States and Canada.
    • 2.8.2     Orangeville, Glanbrook-Trinity, and Lincoln-Vineyard express disappointment with the lack of progress in moving to Phase 3 in the relationship with the URCNA.
    • 2.8.3     Orangeville considers that the Phase 2 relationship with the URCNA will not progress to Phase 3 in light of the decisions of Synod Visalia 2014 and recommends that the relationship should be described as EF and should be assigned to the CCCNA. This change would recognize the character of the current relationship while still extending the right hand of fellowship.
    • 2.8.4     Glanbrook-Trinity and Lincoln-Vineyard recommend the reappointment of the CCU and to mandate the committee to await the opportunities for ongoing interaction afforded by the decisions of URCNA Synod Wyoming 2016.
    • 2.8.5     Hamilton-Blessings observes that progress towards unity is stalled at the federative level and as such the CCU mandate should be suspended. They request synod to encourage the churches to pursue unity at a local level through local church interaction, which would be in keeping with the recommendations of recent URCNA synods to their member churches. These efforts could include “pulpit exchanges, joint projects supporting the community and promoting the gospel, joint catechism classes and Bible studies, and even the merger of URCNA and CanRC congregations where size and ministerial vacancies dictate that this makes sense.”
    • 2.8.6     Abbotsford reflects that they have experienced a fruitful relationship of sharing and understanding with the URCNA locally and offer this as a measure of encouragement to continue the work of the CCU.
    • 2.8.7     Fergus-Maranatha and Abbotsford encourage synod to reappoint the CCU as a meaningful gesture of commitment from the CanRC for unity with the URCNA.

3. Considerations

  • 3.1    The Coordinators for CCU fulfilled their mandate. The Coordinators are especially to be commended for their extensive effort to fulfill point 2.1.2 above. This is also reflected in a number of the letters from the churches.
  • 3.2    The CanRC continue to be encouraged and blessed by their fellowship with the URCNA. This is especially true where direct contact between local churches is possible, mostly in Canada.
  • 3.3    The clarification by the URCNA regarding Doctrinal Affirmations is helpful for understanding the role of such statements in the URCNA. It is regrettable, however, that the URCNA maintains Doctrinal Affirmations which are binding on office-bearers. To the CanRC these still appear to be extra-confessional statements, and as GS 2013 stated, “the CanRC does not want to be bound by ‘extra-confessional’ statements” (GS 2013 Art. 129 Cons. 3.4).
  • 3.4    Areas of concern and fear about the CanRC still remain in the URCNA. It is to be hoped that continued, sustained, intentional contact in local contexts and at the broader assemblies and through the committees will dispel these concerns and fears. Concern and fear should not, in itself, impede unification. Unification should only be impeded if a concern or fear can be substantiated and proved real. The discussion about covenant, which took place at Synod Visalia 2014 of the URCNA, demonstrates how it is possible to kindly and lovingly address concerns and fears about a particular point. This is the kind of event that can build bridges and transform relationships.
  • 3.5    It ought to be noted with gratefulness that Synod Visalia 2014 reiterated with Synod Nyack 2012 that each classis and consistory continue to engage the issue of an eventual merger between the CanRC and the URCNA (Obs. 2.4.3.4). At the current time, however, unification seems unlikely to take place in the near future. The following points can be noted:
    • 3.5.1     Synod London 2010 of the URCNA decided that the Theological Education Committee’s mandate had been fulfilled, and concluded the mandate of the Songbook committee to produce a common songbook with the CanRC for use in a united federation (GS 2013 Art. 129 Obs. 2.3 & Cons. 3.3);
    • 3.5.2     Synod Visalia 2014 of the URCNA “tabled indefinitely” the proposal of CERCU to move ahead with Phase 3A;
    • 3.5.3     Three overtures going to Synod Wyoming 2016 of the URCNA from two classes of the URCNA in the Unites States, if adopted, would go even farther than Synod Visalia 2014.
  • Love compels us to state honestly that these developments are disheartening in regards to future hopes for unification.
  • 3.6    Love, however, also compels us to continue to work towards merger. The teaching of Scripture in passages such as Psalm 133; John 17; Ephesians 1:10, 2:19-22; 4:1-3; Philippians 1:27, 4:2; Colossians 2:18, 19, 3:14, 15 is clear regarding the mandate to seek unification in Christ. This means that the CanRC continue to feel a genuine longing for unification.
  • 3.7    The suggestions from Hamilton-Blessings regarding local interaction provide a tangible way of building unity with the local URCNA congregations. Synod should encourage the churches to cooperate with neighbouring URCNA churches in the manner suggested in Obs. 2.8.5.
  • 3.8    The Coordinators should be reappointed to their mandate so that the process of unity and unification can go forward should the URCNA concur at the next Synod of the URCNA. This is also true of the CCU Subcommittees.
  • 3.9    Given the potential workload and the importance of the issues at stake, and the need for local engagement, the number of coordinators ought to be increased to 4 – two for the East and two for the West.

4. Recommendations

That Synod decide:

  • 4.1    That the Coordinators for the Committee of Church Unity (CCU-C) have completed their mandate given by GS 2013;
  • 4.2    To continue Ecclesiastical Fellowship (EF) (Phase 2) with the United Reformed Churches in North America (URCNA) under the adopted rules;
  • 4.3    To encourage the churches to continue to foster relationships with local URCNA churches. These activities could include, but are not limited to, pulpit exchanges, joint community and mission projects, and joint study opportunities;
  • 4.4    To reappoint the CCU-C, adding two additional coordinators, and mandating them:
    • 4.4.1     To seek ways to facilitate the work of building unity on the local level, as well as visiting churches and classes of the URCNA, particularly in the United States;
    • 4.4.2     To discuss with CERCU how to make progress towards federative unity should Synod Wyoming mandate CERCU to pursue this;
    • 4.4.3     To monitor any developments in the URCNA with respect to “doctrinal affirmations.”

ADOPTED

Tags:
, , ,
Print page