Office Bearers | GS 2019 art 130

08 Jul GS 2019 art 130

Posted at 13:25h in CanRC, GS 2019 by Roy Janssen

GS 2019 Article 130 – Hamilton Blessings re: RSE Nov. 2018 Art. 8 (amendment to CO Art. 55)

1. Material

1.1 Appeal to GS 2019 from the Hamilton-Blessings CanRC re: RSE Nov. 2018 Art. 8 (amendment to CO Article 55) (8.6.8.1)
1.2 Letters from the following churches: Grand Rapids (8.6.8.1.1); Lincoln-Vineyard (8.6.8.1.2); Chilliwack (8.6.8.1.3); Winnipeg-Redeemer (8.6.8.1.4); Guelph-Emmanuel (8.6.8.1.5).

2. Admissibility

2.1 Grand Rapids urges Synod to declare this submission inadmissible on the grounds that it was received “very late, only 7 days before the cut off date for material to be submitted to Synod. This request involves a substantial change to the Church Order. The consistory of Grand Rapids could not deal with this in a thorough manner, nor, do we believe, could any of the other churches.” The Guelph-Emmanuel church echoes the same complaint about not having enough time to consider the material properly.
2.2 Chilliwack believes that the desire of Hamilton-Blessings to see Article 55 of the Church Order amended does not constitute an appeal but is actually an overture and should therefore have been sent to the churches via Regional Synod 5 months prior to GS 2019.
2.3 GS 2019 notes that the proposed amendment did come to RSE Nov. 2018 from Classis Central Ontario (CCO), where it was denied. By appealing this decision to GS 2019, Hamilton-Blessings is simply continuing the discussion in the ecclesiastical way. Since this is an appeal against a decision of RSE Nov. 2018, and it was submitted within the given deadline, Synod deems this appeal admissible.

3. Observations

3.1 RSE Nov. 2018 received the following overture from CCO Sep. 2018, originating from the Fellowship Canadian Reformed Church of Burlington:
“Classis Central Ontario overtures the 2018 Regional Synod East to overture the 2019 General Synod to amend article 55 of the Church Order to read: The 150 psalms shall have the principal place in public worship. The metrical psalms and hymns adopted by General Synod, as well as songs approved by consistory that faithfully reflect the teaching of the Scripture as expressed in the Three Forms of Unity, shall be sung in public worship.”
3.2 RSE Nov. 2018 did not adopt the overture.
3.3 Hamilton-Blessings objects to the considerations brought forward by RSE Nov. 2018 as follows:
- [1.] In coming to its decision, RSE–Nov.18 considered: “The overture fails to address the historical reasons for why the churches have made the choice of songs for worship a matter for the churches in common” (Consideration 2).
  - a) RSE–Nov.18 underscores an absence of historical research into the rationale for status quo but does not indicate why this research is pertinent.
  - b) RSE–Nov.18 erroneously concludes that the overture denies that the choice of songs for worship is a matter for the churches in common. The overture clearly affirms a role for General Synod but not in a way to exclude consistorial freedom to select songs as well.
- [2.] In coming to its decision, RSE–Nov.18 considered: “General synod determines what the churches sing with input from all the churches, after hearing the advice of experts and only after careful deliberation. The proposed amendment would allow local consistories to add songs to what the general synod decides but it would be difficult for each local consistory to find access to both a panel of experts and wide-spread consultation. Out of mutual concern for one another as churches of one federation, it is better to honour the time-tested practice of cooperating together as churches in this matter” (Consideration 3).
  - a) RSE–Nov.18 alleges that it would be difficult for each local consistory to find access to a panel of expert and widespread consultation but it does not prove why this lack of access would necessarily hinder churches. To make this case, it would need to be demonstrated that such a policy is impeding the ministry and/or worship of those churches who have it, e.g., the United Reformed Churches in North America and the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (see the Overture Consideration 7).
  - b) RSE–Nov.18 alleges that it is better to honour the “time-tested practice of cooperating together as churches in this matter” but erroneously concludes that offering consistories freedom to choose some songs necessarily excludes the possibility of mutual concern or cooperation (see 4b below).
- [3.] In coming to its decision, RSE–Nov.18 considered: “A number of churches correctly point out the subjective nature of several observations and considerations in the overture. Assertions that the Genevan tunes are “too difficult to sing well in corporate worship,” that “there is a growing disconnect between the younger generations and the Genevan settings of the psalms,” that “the Genevan tunes are losing their cultural relevance,” that “Genevan exclusivity is becoming a hindrance to missional activity and church planting” and that there is a “lacuna of hymns” in the Book of Praise on certain events in Christ’s ministry, are all poorly supported. Several churches offer their own observations and experiences to assert the opposite. Such personal accounts and assertions (from either direction) in the end prove little, because they are simply subjective opinions” (Consideration 4).
  - a) By reducing the grounds of the overture to something “subjective,” RSE–Nov.18 failed to interact with the objective research mentioned in Observation 2 of the overture, the objective difficulty church plants and missional churches are having (see the Overture Observation 9) and the objective fact that fewer and fewer Book of Praise songs are sung at Canadian Reformed weddings and funerals (see the Overture Observation 5).
  - b) Further, RSE–Nov.18 failed to recognize that the overture did not intend to argue that everyone was unhappy with the Genevan tunes but that especially in missional churches (and other churches surveyed) some found many of them difficult to sing. The overture, in other words, nowhere disputes that the Genevan tunes are loved by some; it contends that the Genevan tunes are difficult to sing by others. Further, the overture does not seek to remove the approved songs in the Book of Praise (in which case the expressed affection of some is relevant); it seeks the liberty for consistories to select songs beyond those synodically approved (for which case the discontent of others is relevant).
  - c) RSE–Nov.18 claimed that the alleged “lacuna of hymns” in the Book of Praise on certain events in Christ’s ministry “is poorly supported” when the overture’s assertion is self-evident.
  - There are precious few hymns about the event of Christ’s birth and even fewer about the event of Christ’s death (compared to those about his resurrection [7 hymns] and ascension [7 hymns]). There’s only one hymn about the event of Christ’s birth (Hymn 21), besides a pre- natal hymn (Hymn 20) and a post-natal (Hymn 22) hymn. Only one of the hymns (Hymns 23, 26, 43, 57, 75) that mentions the cross is actually about the event of Christ’s death (Hymn 26).
  - The Trinity Psalter Hymnal, by comparison, has numerous hymns about both events. RSE– Nov.18 also failed to acknowledge the objective fact that some churches in Classis Central Ontario, in order to be able to sing many songs about Christ’s birth and death, must have Christmas and Good Friday programs instead of worship services (see Overture Observation 6).
- [4.] In coming to its decision, RSE–Nov.18 considered: “The overture observes that local consistories exercise more authority over which Bible translations they use than in choosing songs to be sung in worship services. However, the churches have long cooperated in carefully evaluating and recommending Bible translations (via general synod)” (Consideration 5).
  - a) RSE–Nov.18 mentions the incongruence but fails to acknowledge its relevance and in fact tries to diminish its import by indicating that churches still cooperate in the matter of Bible translations.
  - b) RSE–Nov.18 fails to recognize that the adoption of the overture could create a protocol that exactly parallels that of Bible translations—namely, mutual cooperation in the areas of song evaluation and recommendation but consistorial freedom in the area of approval.
- [5.] In coming to its decision, RSE–Nov.18 considered: “The scriptural injunction to be ‘singing a new song’ (Rev. 14:3) does not prove that new songs need to be continually added to existing collections” (Consideration 6).
  - a) Here RSE–Nov.18 seems to contradict Scripture outright by claiming that the command to sing a new song does not prove that new songs should be sung (in church at least). This begs the question: how then can this injunction be possibly obeyed in terms of worship songs sung in church if new songs are not continually added? It seems as if RSE–Nov.18 is recommending, at best, occasional obedience to Scripture.
  - b) Here RSE–Nov.18 ignores the observation that our churches, becoming increasingly intercultural, are increasingly less populated by Dutch immigrants for whom the songs of the Book of Praise are especially well-loved (see Overture observation 4).
- [6.] In coming to its decision, RSE–Nov.18 considered: “Although singing from the same song book does help give expression to our unity as churches, the deeper concern is, as Lincoln-Vineyard puts it, ‘that we maintain faithfulness and unity and uniformity in doctrine’ (emphasis added).”
- Hamilton-Blessings argues:
  - a) Here RSE–Nov.18 fails to prove how a prescribed songbook ensures faithfulness while consistorial freedom to choose songs for worship does not. There are many unfaithful churches still singing faithful hymns as there are faithful churches whose eldership are free to choose songs for worship. Further, RSE–Nov.18 neglects the precise wording of the proposed amendment—namely, that the songs approved by consistory must “faithfully reflect the teaching of the Scripture as expressed in the Three Forms of Unity.”
  - b) Finally, RSE–18 fails to recognize that a better safeguard for sound theology is located in office-bearers who have signed the form of Subscription.
- [7.] In coming to its decision, RSE–Nov.18 considered: “The overture asserts that “various churches have lost confidence in the process” of having new songs approved. Between 2001 and 2013 a number of new hymns were approved by general synod for testing in the churches and at the end of that process 19 new hymns were added. Although for some the process may be too slow, the church of Lincoln-Vineyard notes that for others the speed may be too fast” (Consideration 9).
  - a) Here RSE–18 unwittingly provides an argument for consistorial freedom in the selection of worship songs. The current process is judged to be too fast by some and too slow by others.
  - By providing consistories liberty in area enables each congregation could proceed as slowly or as quickly as one likes.
3.4 Hamilton-Blessings concludes its appeal in the form of two questions.
[1.] We therefore ask General Synod Edmonton-Immanuel (2019) to judge that Regional Synod East — November 14, 2018 erred in its decision to deny the overture from Classis Central Ontario— September 6–7, 2018 regarding amending Church Order Article 55.
[2.] We ask, secondly, that General Synod Edmonton-Immanuel (2019) weigh the Observations and Considerations of the overture from Classis Central Ontario-September 6-7, 2018 and that General Synod “amend article 55 of the Church Order to read: The 150 psalms shall have the principal place in public worship. The metrical psalms and hymns adopted by General Synod, as well as songs approved by consistory that faithfully reflect the teaching of the Scripture as expressed in the Three Forms of Unity, shall be sung in public worship.”
3.5 Grand Rapids indicates its agreement with the decision of RSE Nov. 2018 and is of the opinion that many of the arguments Hamilton-Blessings has brought forward are subjective.
3.6 Lincoln-Vineyard does not object to adding new hymns to the Book of Praise, but is of the opinion that Hamilton-Blessings does not prove this necessitates a change to Article 55. To agree to their appeal would be a move “in the direction of congregationalism.” Mutual concern for each other should mean recognizing the need to work together so that all the churches would be better equipped to be “missional.” The letter from Winnipeg-Redeemer points in the same direction, while also suggesting that “the adoption of the Trinity Hymnal would allow for a much broader song selection, as Blessings appeals for and as the overture proposes, but with the greater benefit of being adopted for use in all the churches of the federation, thereby continuing to promote both unity of song and doctrine in our worship service singing.”
3.7 Lincoln-Vineyard explains that some Psalms are not often sung can be because of the content rather than that the melodies are difficult.
3.8 Lincoln-Vineyard notes that if the text and tune do not correspond to each other, the problem “is not addressed or solved by having the congregation sing songs approved by the consistories.” There is a protocol for changes.
3.9 Lincoln-Vineyard deems the argument that consistories are free to choose Bible translations as irrelevant, since those have “been reviewed by the churches, and have been judged to be trustworthy translations. There is no such provision in this overture with respect to the songs which would be approved by local consistories.”
3.10 Grand Rapids states that the claim that Article 55 undermines the Church Order is an assertion without proof. Lincoln-Vineyard elaborates, “Article 55 does not cede consistorial authority to General Synod”; Hamilton-Blessings asserts that “the current practice in the Canadian Reformed Churches is not in line with the historic use of psalms in worship, or passages like Colossians 3:16,” but this misrepresents the provision of Article 55.
3.11 Lincoln-Vineyard notes that frustrations with the process for changing the Book of Praise do not require a change in the Church Order and that the process and the pace of adopting additional hymns are driven by the churches themselves. The concern is not “to develop and preserve liturgical uniformity for its own sake.” The concern as reflected in Article 55 of the Church Order is to “maintain faithfulness and unity and uniformity in doctrine.” In this regard, Lincoln-Vineyard also notes that the preaching and teaching of a pastor are not only subject to the consistory but are “also subject to the judgment of the broader assemblies.”

4. Considerations

4.1 Hamilton-Blessings indicates that RSE Nov. 2018 should have shown why historical arguments for the status quo in regard to Article 55 are relevant. This shifts the burden of proof to the wrong party. Someone who wishes to argue for change should be the one to investigate the grounds for the current situation and show why change is needed.
4.2 As Article 55 indicates, the churches have agreed to determine together what songs are to be used in the public worship services. Giving freedom to consistories to select songs next to the adopted Psalms and approved Hymns by route of an appeal instead of an overture does not give the churches sufficient time to process such a change according to CO Art. 76.
4.3 Hamilton-Blessings assumes that the different approach taken by the URCNA and the OPC in this matter (greater freedom locally) is superior, using their assumption as proof for why Article 55 should be changed. However, they do not show how it might be superior.
4.4 While Hamilton-Blessings states that “offering consistories freedom to choose some songs” would include “the possibility of mutual concern or cooperation,” they do not demonstrate that the current structure of collaboration as agreed to by common consent in Article 55 is inconsistent with Scripture.
4.5 Changing CO Art. 55 as suggested by Hamilton-Blessings opens the way for less balanced, less well-considered choices than would happen by a deliberative body representing the churches together.
4.6 The argument based on the freedom of local consistories to choose between various Bible translations does not prove the point Hamilton-Blessings is trying to make, since general synods give prior attention to Bible translations.
4.7 Hamilton-Blessings objects to Consideration 6 of RSE Nov. 2018 that “The scriptural injunction to be ‘singing a new song’ (Rev. 14:3) does not prove that new songs need to be continually added to existing collections” (Consideration 6). Revelation 14:3 is not an “injunction,” but a description of the singing of the redeemed in heaven. New phases in redemptive history are reflected in Bible passages that refer to or that call for the singing of a “new song.” Although the Consideration of RSE-Nov. 18 could have been worded better, it cannot be sustained that RSE Nov. 2108 is recommending occasional obedience to Scripture, as Hamilton-Blessings suggests.
4.8 Hamilton-Blessings contends that “RSE–Nov.18 fails to prove how a prescribed songbook ensures faithfulness while consistorial freedom to choose songs for worship does not.” As Hamilton-Blessings points out, neither of the two approaches can guarantee faithfulness. However, their argument leaves untouched the fact that a collective approach by a larger body such as synod can provide a safeguard against local decisions concerning which “new” songs to sing that may not be well thought out.
4.9 The addition of only 19 new hymns between 2001 and 2013 as indicated by Hamilton-Blessings is indeed a pace that is not satisfactory for various churches in our federation. However, this does not by definition suggest a need to change the Church Order. Rather, thought could be given to creative ways to address the needs expressed by the churches within the parameters of Article 55, which until now has proven to work well for the churches.

5. Recommendation

That Synod deny the appeal of the Hamilton-Blessings CanRC re: RSE Nov. 2018 Art. 8.

ADOPTED

Tags:

CO 55, RSE Nov 2018 art 8

Print page