Office Bearers

GS 2025 Article 135 – ARPC (Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church)

Committee 2 presented a majority report (draft 1) and a minority report (draft 1) re CER Report 3: Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church (ARPC). The Chairman read the Guidelines for General Synods regarding procedures when there is a majority and minority report from an advisory committee. The reports were discussed. The fraternal observer of the ARPC participated in the discussion. The majority report was voted on first (as per Guidelines for General Synods III.A.5).

1.   Material

  • 1.1    Committee for Ecumenical Relations (CER) Report 3: Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church (ARPC) (8.2.10.3).
  • 1.2    Letters from the churches: Barrhead (8.3.10.2), Guelph (Emmanuel) (8.3.10.11), Fergus North (8.3.10.19), Grassie (Covenant) (8.3.10.20), Hamilton (Providence) (8.3.10.21).

2.   Admissibility

  • 2.1    The report was declared admissible.
    • Grounds: It was mandated by the previous synod and was received on time.
  • 2.2    The letters from the churches were declared admissible.
    • Grounds: They interact with a report to GS 2025 and were received on time.

3.   Observations

  • 3.1    GS 2022 (art. 168) mandated the CER:
    • [3.1]    To mandate the Committee on Ecumenical Relations (CER):
      • [3.1.1]    To engage in continued dialogue and contact with the ARPC;
      • [3.1.2]    To submit its report to the churches six months prior to the convening of the next general synod.
  • 3.2    From the CER report, the following:
    • 3.2.1    The relationship with the ARPC continues to develop organizationally as well as organically.
    • 3.2.2    The ARPC has become known as a denomination that is sincerely committed to being confessionally Reformed.
    • 3.2.3    While the ARPC has taken a strong position against the ordination of women to the office of pastor and elder, a provision has been made in their Form of Government which allows local sessions to install women as deacons . . . with the understanding that their work was to be carried out under the supervision and authority of the session. At this time, at a rough estimate, less than 10% of sessions within the ARPC have elected to make use of this provision. Furthermore, the number of sessions making use of this provision appears to be declining.
    • 3.2.4    The existence of a local option which allows for women to serve as deacons has not proven to be a barrier to entering into EF with the Reformed Church in Quebec (ERQ).
  • 3.3 The CER recommends:
    • 3.3.1    To receive with thankfulness the offer of Fraternal Fellowship extended to the CanRC by the General Synod of the ARPC (2023).
    • 3.3.2    To enter into Ecclesiastical Fellowship (EF) Category B with the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church (ARPC) according to the adopted rules and to communicate that decision to the next meeting of the General Synod of the ARPC (2025).
    • 3.3.3    To mandate the Committee on Ecumenical Relations (CER):
      • 3.3.3.1   To convey this decision to the ARPC as soon as possible;
      • 3.3.3.2   To establish contact with the Canadian denomination of the ARPC when it comes into existence in 2025;
      • 3.3.3.3   To submit its report on its activities with respect to the ARPC to the churches 6 months prior the convening of the next general synod.
  • 3.4    The Barrhead CanRC objects to granting EF Category B to ARPC on the grounds that we rejected EF with the RPCNA in GS 2016 on account of women deacons.
  • 3.5    ​Guelph (Emmanuel) cautions against having personal and anecdotal experiences weigh on the federation’s ecumenical relationships, whether positively or negatively.
  • 3.6    Fergus North deems it imprudent to enter into EF while the ARPC retains provisions for allowing women deacons.
  • 3.7    Grassie (Covenant) suggests remaining in Ecclesiastical Contact to see how things progress with the ARP Canadian Presbytery. Waiting would also allow more clarity on the findings of their Synod on the work and scope of the diaconal office.
  • 3.8    Hamilton (Providence) observes among other things:
    • 3.8.1    The ARPC has given abundant evidence of its commitment to remaining faithful to the Word of God and to the Reformed confessions;
    • 3.8.2    Within southwestern Ontario there are a number of CanRC congregations that are enjoying regular and increasing contact with the ARPC congregations. This occurs both organically between members of our congregations and organizationally with our respective assemblies. These experiences are evidence of a real and growing mutual affection between our respective denominations.

4.   Considerations

  • 4.1    The CER has fulfilled its mandate.
  • 4.2    The Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church (ARPC) has given ample evidence of sincere and continued faithfulness to both God’s Word and the Reformed confessions. This is evidenced by:
    • 4.2.1    The faithful manner in which the fathers and brothers of ARPC have conducted themselves within the higher courts of the church;
    • 4.2.2    The sincerity of their Reformed conviction can also be seen in the doctrinal/positional statements which have been adopted by their General Synod;
    • 4.2.3    The way that the ARPC has steadily divested itself of ecclesiastical relationships with denominations that have progressed down theologically ‘liberal’ pathways;
    • 4.2.4    The ARPC has intentionally endeavoured to strengthen and establish ecclesiastical relationships with denominations/federations of strong historic Reformed conviction, including the OPC, the CanRC and the URCNA.
  • 4.3    There has been meaningful contact between our respective churches at both the grassroots and the federative levels. That contact warrants formalizing our relationship in this way.
  • 4.4    A relationship of Ecclesiastical Fellowship (EF) Category B is intended to function in circumstances where there is good reason for recognizing another federation/denomination as a true church of the Lord Jesus Christ, while simultaneously acknowledging that culture, distance, and history may limit the intensity with which that relationship can be exercised. Such is the case here. The bulk of the ARPC is located in the Southern US and the relative distance between our people will necessarily limit the degree of our regular interaction. Nevertheless, it would be a blessing to be able to demonstrate our unity in Christ when such occasions arise. As such, EF Category B would be the best ‘fit’ for our relationship with the ARPC.
  • 4.5    Establishing EF has immediate consequences (e.g. table and pulpit fellowship); the ARPC should be made aware of its existence as soon as possible.
  • 4.6    At the current time, the area of greatest contact between the CanRC and the ARPC is in Southwest Ontario. When the new Canadian denomination comes into existence, it would be a blessing to be able to continue that relationship. We may also be able to be of encouragement to our Canadian brothers and sisters as they undertake the hard work of instituting as a new Synod.
  • 4.7    The issue of women deacons raised by the Barrhead CanRC and the Fergus North CanRC is adequately answered in the CER report.
    • 4.7.1    In Women In The Life of the Church (Section VI – What May Women Do?), the ARP assert, “Scripture does not permit women to serve in the office of elder, and that the role of spiritually authoritative teaching and discipline in the church is reserved for male leadership.” As such the situation in the ARPC is unlike the situation with the GKv who employ a non-biblical hermeneutic.
    • 4.7.2    Sessions are permitted to ordain women deacons but are not required to do so. Relatively few sessions make use of this freedom.
    • 4.7.3    The ARPC states that deacons do not hold an authoritative or governing position. This view is the same as the ERQ with whom it was not an impediment to entering EF (cf. GS 2016 Art 59 Consideration 3.4). Within the ARPC, the office of deacon is necessarily different in nature and essence from the office of deacon within the CanRC, contra GS 2016 Article 90 Consideration 3.2.3.
  • 4.8    The Grassie (Covenant) CanRC does not adequately show what new information might come out that would substantially impact a decision to extend EF to the ARPC by waiting until a future synod.

5.   Recommendations

That Synod decide:                                                                          

  • 5.1    To receive with thankfulness the offer of Fraternal Fellowship extended to the CanRC by the General Synod of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church (ARPC) (2023);
  • 5.2    To enter into Ecclesiastical Fellowship (EF) Category B with the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church (ARPC) according to the adopted rules and to communicate that decision to the next meeting of the General Synod of the ARPC (2025);
  • 5.3    To mandate the Committee on Ecumenical Relations (CER):
    • 5.3.1    To convey this decision to the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church (ARPC) as soon as possible;
    • 5.3.2    To establish contact with the Canadian denomination of the ARPC when it comes into existence in 2025;
    • 5.3.3    To create more awareness within the CanRC about the ARPC practices (e.g. the nature of deacons within the ARPC);
    • 5.3.4    To submit its report on its activities with respect to the ARPC to the churches no later than six (6) months prior the convening of the next general synod.

ADOPTED

Rev. Rob Schouten read Ephesians 2:18-22 and led in thanksgiving prayer for this development.