29 Jun GS 1998 art 130

Posted at 15:05h in CanRC, GS 1998, Uncategorized by

Article 130 – Relationship with the Orthodox Presbyterian Church

Committee I presents their proposal.

I. MATERIAL

Re I.C, II.M, II.T, II.X, II.NN, II.TT, II.BBB, III.F, III.V, IV.E, IV.F, IV.L, IV.N, IV.Q, IV.S, IV.T9(re OPC), IV.V(re OPC), IV.Y, II.B, III.D, III.G, III.BB, II.SS, III.X

II. ADMISSIBILITY

Because this issue is of major concern to the churches, and to avoid the impression of not doing full justice to the matter, all the material above is declared admissible (cf. Acts Abbotsford1995, Article 106, II, p. 63)

III. INTRODUCTION

Synod Abbotsford 1995 gave the Committee for Contact with the Orthodox Presbyterian Church the following mandate:

  • A. to work towards formalizing the relationship of Ecclesiastical Fellowship under the adopted rules by using the statements of Synod Lincoln 1992 (Acts 1992, Art. 72, IV.A.1.e.i,ii) as a guideline to arrive at an agreement with the OPC on the matters of the fencing of the Lord’s Table and confessional membership;
  • B. to communicate to the OPC the discomfort in our churches with respect to their continued relationship with the CRCNA;
  • C. to communicate that there is a need to continue to discuss the differences in confession and church polity in accordance with the rules for Ecclesiastical Fellowship (Rule 6);
  • D. to serve the churches with regular reports of the work of the Committee, and to serve General Synod 1998 with a report, to be sent to the churches at least six months prior to the beginning of Synod. (Acts, p. 75)

IV. OBSERVATIONS

  • A. The CCOPC in its report to Synod Fergus 98 makes the following recommendations:
    • 1. In view of the positive developments mentioned in this report the Committee recommends that General Synod 1998 of the Canadian Reformed Churches decide:
      • a. To acknowledge gratefully the commitment of the OPC to be faithful to the Scriptures and to defend the reformed heritage.
      • b. To acknowledge thankfully that with the statements on the Fencing of the Lord’s Table and on Confessional Membership an agreement has been reached on the outstanding issues.
      • c. To note with thankfulness that the OPC, by terminating the Ecclesiastical Fellowship with the CRCNA has taken a clear stand in maintaining the truth and authority of the Word of God, and has removed another obstacle for the Canadian Reformed Churches to come to ecclesiastical fellowship with the OPC.
      • d. To invite the OPC to enter into Ecclesiastical Fellowship with the Canadian Reformed Churches, according to the adopted rules for this relationship.
      • e. To discontinue the Committee for Contact with the OPC, making the contact and discussion with the OPC part of the mandate of the Committee for Relations with Churches Abroad (CRCA).
  • B. Re IV. A. 1. b. above, the CCOPC came to the following Proposed Agreement for opening the way to Ecclesiastical Fellowship:
    • Concerning Fencing the Lord’s Table:
      • The churches of the Reformation confess that the Lord’s supper should not be profaned (1 Cor. 11:27, see Heid. Cat. Lord’s Day 30, Q&A 82; Westminster Confession ch. 29,8). This implies that the celebration of the Lord’s Supper is to be supervised. In this supervision the Church exercises discipline and manifests itself as true church. This supervision is to be applied to the members of the local church as well as to the guests. The eldership has a responsibility in supervising the admission to the Lord’s Supper.
    • Concerning Confessional Membership:
      • The churches of the Reformation believe that they have to contend for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3) and are called to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned (Rom. 16:17). Anyone who answers the membership vows in the affirmative is bound to receive and adhere to the doctrine of the Bible. The patristic church has summarized this teaching in the Apostles’ Creed and the churches of the Reformation have elaborated on this in their confessions. Every confessing member is bound to this doctrine and must be willing to be instructed in it.
    • The Committee also points out
      • “It may be added that these statements are not intended to prevent further discussions. Rather, it is agreed that there is need to continue to discuss the differences in confession and church policy which can take place within the relation of Ecclesiastical Fellowship. The intention of such discussions will be mutual upbuilding in the faith to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Eph.4:3).
  • C. In 1997 the CEIR thus reported to the Sixty-fourth General Assembly “that the relationship with the Canadian Reformed Churches has taken an important step forward. It reported in full detail the Proposed Agreement for opening the way to Ecclesiastical Fellowship between the Canadian Reformed Churches and the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. The CEIR report further stated:
    • “We look forward to the next General Synod of the Canadian Reformed Churches (in 1998) with the expectation that, in view of this agreement it will act to establish a bond of Ecclesiastical Fellowship with the OPC in which we can continue to discuss our differences as churches, and so, if God grants, arrive at a more perfect unity in doctrine, polity, and life.”
  • D. Numerous Churches have reacted to the Report of the CCOPC to Synod 1998.
    • 1. The Church at Yarrow, BC (II M) does not believe that the mandate given by Synod 95 was completed, since the guideline adopted by Synod 92 and referred to by Synod 95 (Article 106, IV D 1), namely, that “it should be agreed that a verbal warning alone is insufficient” was not adhered to. Yarrow states “We read nothing of any such specifics in the statement [Proposed Agreement]. Therefore Yarrow overtures Synod 98
      • a. not to invite the OPC to enter into Ecclesiastical Fellowship with the CanRC
      • b. and to mandate the CCOPC to continue discussions with the OPC on the matter of the fencing of the Lord’s Table.
    • 2. The Church at London, ON (II. T.) remarks that the 50th General assembly of the OPC, in dealing with the complaint of Rev. B. Hofford et al, submitted the Report of a special committee struck by the Presbytery of the Mid-Atlantic in 1971, which stated regarding methods of fencing the table: “The first and most common in the OPC, as well as in other Presbyterian Churches, is to have the minister make a statement at the beginning of the service, clearly setting forth the Scriptural qualifications for worthy participation, and then inviting those who meet these qualifications to participate, warning those who are not qualified of the consequences of partaking if not qualified, but leaving it to the individual to decide whether or not he is eligible. The second, and most common in the Reformed churches, is to require visitors who wish to participate to meet with the session before the service for questioning concerning eligibility. The session then either approves or disapproves the person for participation”(cf. Acts Burlington 1986, Appendix 2E, p.170 #4). The 50th Assembly also says, in reference to the complaint of Hofford et al that their approach to the fencing of the Lord’s table contains “dangers of a denominational exclusivism in practice if not in principle, an exclusivism that may compromise our witness to the Table as the Lord’s.” Furthermore, London also notes that “the 33rd General Assembly determined that members are not to be examined for membership according to the standards” (Minutes 1967, pp.92-6); they also refer to the 34th General Assembly which “decided that those who deny baptism to their children, as well as Arminians and other ‘evangelicals’ may be admitted to membership as the individual sessions see fit (Minutes 1968, pp. 135-6).”
    • London therefore asserts “firstly that because of the vagueness of the statement ‘concerning fencing the Lord’s Table’ the CCOPC has not fulfilled the mandate given it by Synod Abbotsford 1995. And secondly, we submit that the conflicting evidence within the OPC against the statement “Concerning Confessional Membership’ is not a minor matter, and therefore warrants further discussion of this divergency within the present relation of ‘temporary ecclesiastical contact.'” London requests synod “to:
      • a. judge that despite the statements on the Fencing of the Lord’s Table and on Confessional Membership an agreement has not been reached on the outstanding issues.
      • b. renew the mandate of the CCOPC to continue the discussions with the OPC on these divergencies in our present relationship of temporary ecclesiastical contact, with an attempt to resolve them by dealing with the doctrine that underlines them both, namely, the doctrine of the church.”
    • 3. The Church at Attercliffe, ON (II. X.) also refers to the 50th General Assembly and asks how the Proposed Agreement functions within the OPC. Attercliffe submits that it does not address how the fencing at the Lord’s table takes place. They ask: “If the OPC maintains the position of the 50th General Assembly, what is then the meaning of this proposed agreement?” They question whether the matter of confessional membership is adequately addressed in the Agreement. They add: “Does accepting this statement mean that the questions asked at Public Profession of faith have changed? (See Directory for Worship, chapter 5).” Therefore Attercliffe requests synod not to adopt B and D of the report from the CCOPC.
    • 4. Church at Calgary, AB (II. NN.) urges Synod “to acknowledge thankfully that with the statement on Confessional Membership an agreement has been reached on this issue.” However they point out that the guideline for the CCOPC “adopted by Synod Lincoln 1992 and reiterated by Synod Abbotsford 1995 states clearly that simple agreement on the question of whether or not the celebration of the Lord’s Supper should be supervised is insufficient. Instead there must also be some agreement on the manner in which the celebration of the sacrament is supervised; and both synods insisted that a general verbal warning is not enough.” Therefore they also ask Synod “to note that the matter of ‘fencing the Lord’s table’ has not been resolved in a manner consistent with the mandate given by Synod Abbotsford 1995.”
    • 5. The Church at Lincoln, ON (II. TT.) points to the statement of Synod 1992 which reads “it should be agreed, however, that a general verbal warning alone is insufficient and that a profession of the Reformed faith is required in the presence of supervising elders from the guests wishing to attend the Lord’s Supper” (Acts 1992, Art.72, IV.A.I.e.i,ii, underlining added). They also refer to the fact that “at least in the past, the OPC has worked with a ‘two-tiered system’ for church membership. On the one hand, officebearers are required to fully subscribe to the doctrine of Scripture as summarized in the Westminster Standards. On the other hand, members are required to make ‘a credible confession of faith in Christ.'” Lincoln refers in this regard to how the OPC has worked with those applying for admission who do not agree with infant baptism (cf. OPC 33rd General Assembly, pp.92-96). They then ask whether the Proposed Agreement means “that the OPC will no longer use this ‘two-tiered system.’ Furthermore Lincoln refers to the fact that the Directory of the OPC suggests that in a significant number of OPC churches there is only one worship service per Lord’s Day. Based on the above Lincoln requests Synod “to not enter into ecclesiastical fellowship with the OPC at this time, until the above matters have been properly and fully addressed.”
    • 6. The Church at Elora, ON (II. BBB) notes that in their judgement the words of the Proposed Agreement “do not indicate that changes have occurred with respect to the supervision of the Lord’s Supper and confessional members in the OPC,” and therefore urges Synod Fergus “not to follow recommendation III D of the committee.”
    • 7. The Church at Willoughby Heights, BC (IV.E.) expresses reservation about the Report because of “a degree of ambiguity” and asks Synod to consider whether the Proposed Statement “means that the OPC now follows a different practice than it did formerly.”
    • 8. The Church at Burlington (Ebenezer), ON (IV. F.) concurs with the Report and hopes that Synod will accede to the recommendations.
    • 9. The Church at Surrey, BC (IV.L.) endorses the recommendations made by the Committee.
    • 10. The Church at Burlington (Fellowship), ON (IV. N.) supports the recommendation that the Churches enter into Ecclesiastical Fellowship. However they urge Synod “to continue discussions with the OPC with a view to tightening up some of the expressions in the agreement. For example, the term ‘membership vows’ is not defined. We suggest that the adherence to the doctrinal standards be spelled out. Further this commitment is ongoing, and reflected not only in word, but also in deed. We request that either the CCOPC be continued, or that the Committee for Contact with Churches Abroad take up the matter, so that clear language can be worked out, and a clear understanding as to the accepted practices is in place.”
    • 11. The Church at Guelph, ON (IV.Q) raises two concerns in connection with the Proposed Agreement. First, that it does not spell out that a general verbal warning is insufficient. Second, they ask whether there is evidence that a change of practice regarding supervision of the Lord’s Supper has taken place throughout the OPC.
    • 12. The Church at Blue Bell, PA (IV. S) suggests, regarding fencing the table, that “the issue has never been whether or not the elders should supervise the Table….The issue has always been how the Table is to be supervised by the elders and who is to be admitted. This statement does not address these issues.” They refer to the position of the OPC that there are non-Reformed true churches (Acts 1992, p.167) and ask who would not be admitted then. Hence, they say, “we believe that this statement does absolutely nothing to advance agreement, or even understanding between ourselves and the OPC.” At bottom, they ask: “Can the OPC affect, affirm, and practice the principle and manner of fencing the Lord’s Supper Table found in article 60 (sic, actually article 61) of the Church Order?”
    • Further, regarding confessional membership, Blue Bell wonders if anyone who answers the membership vow in the affirmative is bound to receive and adhere to the confessions of the church or just to the undefined “doctrine of the Bible.” “Can the OPC accept, affirm, and practice binding members to the confessions as is found in the first question of the ‘Form for the Public Profession of Faith’?”
    • 13. The Church at Orangeville, ON (IV. T.) finds “that the Proposed Agreement is somewhat vaguely worded, and does not satisfy the mandate given to the Committee by Synod 1995.” They also feel “that we should strive for greater clarity and further agreement on the matter of fencing of the Lord’s Table according to the guidelines of Synod Lincoln 1992. Further, it should be ensured that practices in the local churches of the OPC are in keeping with this agreement.”
    • 14. The Church at Taber, AB (IV.V.) expresses gratitude for the progress that has been made and hope that by adopting the recommendations the “protracted discussions” will be concluded.
    • 15. The Church at Elora, ON (IV.Y) asks whether the issues preventing ecclesiastical fellowship have been resolved.
    • 16. The Church at Grand Rapids, MI (II SS) also overtures Synod 1998 to reject recommendations B,D of the CCOPC Report. They do not believe that the CCOPC has fulfilled the mandate given to it by Synod 1995. Grand Rapids states, concerning the fencing of the Lord’s Table, “The first problem is that the CCOPC Agreement omits any reference to what Synod [1992 in its guidelines] stated should be agreed upon, namely, that a general verbal warning alone insufficient…The second problem with the CCOPC Agreement is that it omits any reference to the fact that a profession of the Reformed faith is required in the presence of the supervising elders from guests wishing to attend the Lord’s Supper…In fact, the most common practice in the OPC is for guests to be admitted by the general verbal warning. It is left in the hands of the visitors to make the judgement.” A third problem Grand Rapids has with the proposed Agreement on the Lord’s Supper is that admission to the Lord’s Table not only requires confession of the Reformed faith, but also a life consistent with that profession (c.f. Art.61 C.O.; H.C., L.D.30 Q/A 81,82). They state that it is simply not possible to establish a history of faithful living by interviewing a guest before the Lord’s Supper celebration.
    • Grand Rapids states concerning confessional membership, “The Committee [CCOPC] took a perfectly clear statement [about confessional membership in 1992 guidelines] which expressed the unbreakable tie between confessing faith and the confessions of the church and created a less clear statement [in the proposed Agreement to Synod 1998] which clouded the connection between confessing faith and the confessions of the church.” Grand Rapids notes that in the proposed Agreement both sides agreed that each church would continue to follow their own practices, but adds that then “we must conclude that nothing has really been solved.”
  • E. Appeals from the churches and individual members regarding the relationship with the OPC and the decisions of previous synods. Regarding the synods, the churches are saying as follows.
  • 1. Re Synod 1977
    • a. The Church at London, ON (III.G.) is of the opinion that the decision of 1977 “to recognize the OPC as a true church of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Acts, Article 91, II, p. 41) was premature since no official testing or evaluation of the OPC was provided and the justification for it only came by way of the “Evaluation of Divergencies” provided to Synod 1986 (Appendix IIB, pp. 142-151) which they consider “mere formality and tokenism.” Their concern is that in 1977 the OPC was still a member of the Reformed Ecumenical Synod, still had a fraternal relationship with the Christian Reformed Church, and the CCOPC had not yet completed its mandate.
  • 2. Re Synod 1986
    • a. The Church at London, ON (III.G.) points out that the CCOPC submitted an official “Evaluation of Divergencies” and Synod “receives this report as the detailed evaluation of the divergencies which the General Synod of 1977 neglected to give for its decision to recognize the OPC as a true church of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Article 126, B, Rec 2, p. 55). However, London says this Evaluation was incomplete as two doctrinal points were omitted, namely “more or less pure churches”(Acts 1968, Article 50, p. 58- 63), and “Jesus’ descent into hell (Acts 1971, Article 92, p. 166)
    • b. The Church at Grand Rapids, MI (II SS) Grand Rapids requests Synod to:
      • 1. Judge the validity of the conclusions in the document submitted to Synod 1986 by Classis Ontario-South (Art.137 B.4).
      • 2. Call the OPC to repentance, and if this repentance is not forthcoming, break the present relationship of contact.The church at Grand Rapids refers in Art.137 B.4 of the Acts of Synod 1986 to a report sent to Synod 1986 by Classis Ontario-South concerning the Tri-County Reformed Church and Rev. B. Hofford and their departure from the OPC. Synod 1986 stated, “Classis Ontario-South also forwards a document ‘convinced of the need for Synod to seriously take into consideration the report and its conclusions when judging the case of Tri-County Reformed Church, and when discussing our relationship with the OPC.'” Synod 1986, in response to this (Art 137 C.3), considered that the “Hofford issue” was a matter that at that time had not yet been dealt with in the minor assemblies, and asked Classis to cooperate fully with the CCOPC regarding this issue. Grand Rapids draws attention to the fact that in that Report to Classis about Tri-County Reformed Church it was stated in the Conclusion that since the complaint of Hofford and others about the fencing of the Lord’s Table was rejected by the highest assembly of the OPC, “our relationship with the OPC requires serious reconsideration” and “there is a problem here which must be resolved by General Synod.” In its letter to Synod 1986 accompanying the report, Classis Ontario South of March 5, 1986 stated that it was “convinced of the need for Synod to seriously take into consideration the Report and its Conclusions when judging the case of Tri-County Reformed Church and when discussing our relationship with the OPC.” The church at Grand Rapids maintains that these issues have never been dealt with by a General Synod and believes they must be taken seriously as Classis recommended for the sake of the honest resolution of the Lord’s Supper question which caused Hofford and Laurel to leave the OPC.
  • 3. Re Synod 1992
    • a. The Church at Grand Rapids, MI (III. V.) believes that “accepting the profession of a guest in the presence of the supervising elders eliminates the possibility of validating officially (i.e., by the Christ-appointed officebearers) the membership of the guest. The supervisors are left taking the word of the visitor regarding their membership….It is for this reason that Art. 61, of our C.O. requires attestations concerning both doctrine (including membership in a true church) and conduct.” Thus Grand Rapids believes there are the following deficiencies in the Synod 1992 decision, namely, “a profession of the Reformed faith in the presence of the supervising elders from the guests wishing to attend the Lord’s Supper is inadequate” (Acts 1992, Article 72, IV.A.1.e.i.) and that “the guideline fails to take into account the necessary criteria for admission to the Lord’s Supper” (in accordance with Article 61 C.O. and Lord’s Day 30). In their appeal Grand Rapids claims: “This misses Grand Rapids’ point. The point is not that Art.61 C.O. is the only possible means of fulfilling the requirements of LD 30; rather the point is that both criteria (cf. Esp. Q.82: “confession and life”) for admission to the supper be met.” Therefore they ask Synod to “reformulate the guideline for the Lord’s supper issue to take into account the above deficiencies.”
    • b. The Church at Attercliffe, ON (III. D.) asks Synod 98, because they feel that Synod 95 did not adequately deal with their appeal re Synod 92 (see below), to “judge as yet that Synod Lincoln 1992 was incorrect in Art.72 V. B. on the basis of the grounds outlined in our appeal to Synod 1995.”Attercliffe points to the fact that Synod 1992 decided “to conclude from previous Synods’ decisions that the divergencies evaluated in 1971 and 1986 have been sufficiently discussed to confirm that these are not impediments to ecclesiastical fellowship with the OPC, but may be discussed within the framework of church unity.” Attercliffe says that previous synods did not decide that the divergencies had been sufficiently discussed; rather, Synod 1971 decided that the divergencies were “serious enough to remain the subject of further and frank discussion” (Synod 1971, Article 92, conclusion 7) and Synod 1986 decided to “continue the discussion of divergencies” with the hope that they will “remove obstacles to full correspondence” (Synod 1986 Article 128 C, recommendations 3 & 4).
  • 4. Re Synod 1995
    • a. Appeal W. DeHaan (III.F). In his appeal, br. W. DeHaan refers to the Acts of General Synod Abbotsford 1995, Art.106, Consideration C3 where it says; “It should be noted that no church reacted to the substance of the evaluation of divergencies received by Synod 1971 and Synod 1986. None of the submissions challenge that report. The appellants are reacting to the status of the Report rather than the substance of the Report. The burden of proof that the divergencies are not discussed sufficiently and therefore are still impediments for Ecclesiastical Fellowship lies with the appellants, which they do not provide.” Br. DeHaan then states, “I do not question whether the divergencies are discussed. I believe they are. The point is whether they are sufficiently discussed, and I dare to say: they are not. For as Canadian Reformed Churches, we have also knowledge about the happenings of 1944 in the Netherlands: the Liberation and the necessity of the Liberation. …Therefore, since according to G.S. 1995, proof is not given that there are still impediments for Ecclesiastical Fellowship, there must still be the opportunity to do so, Art.33 C.O.” The brother then proceeds to explain the points which in his opinion are still major points of difference.
      • 1. He outlines how, though the Larger Catechism speaks of covenant with believers and their seed, the Westminster Confession speaks of the covenant as made with Christ as second Adam, and in Him with all the elect. He then explains how the OPC, because of this, reasons out from the viewpoint of election, as did the Synodicals in 1944, and misunderstand that the covenant promises are conditional on faith.
      • 2. He explains a difference between what we confess about the church in the Heidelberg Catechism and the Belgic Confession, and what is confessed about the church in the Westminster Standards. He explains how regarding the church from the viewpoint of election leads, in the Westminster Standards, to working with the idea of the invisible church.
      • 3. He then points to a difference in the fencing of the Lord’s Table. Br. DeHaan remarks that the verbal warning in the Book of Church Order in the Directory of Worship, Ch.4, c.2 shows that there is no real supervision of the elders over members or guests who celebrate the Lord’s Supper.
      • 4. Br. DeHaan also outlines the issue of confessional membership. He compares the questions asked at profession of faith in the OPC with those asked at profession of faith in the Canadian Reformed Churches, and notes the lack of reference to the confessions in the former. Rev. J.J. Petersen, in his address to Synod 1995, mentioned welcoming of new converts from paganism or who are Baptists into the OPC and described them as follows, “Babes in Christ – first generation believers. The smell of the world, the smell of the Baptists cling to the clothing, but they have taken the step of faith and united with a Reformed body of Christ, and they don’t really know what they’re getting into, and you don’t know that the Lord has put in your way, but you move on in full trust of the Lord of the covenant…and we feel, we cannot, we must not, exclude them from the body of Christ and the sacraments.”
      • 5. Br. DeHaan also describes what he sees as hierarchy in the OPC. He points to the Book of Church Order, Form of Government of the OPC (1992 edition) where it speaks in Ch.12 and 13 about “higher” and “lower” assemblies, in Ch.15 about the general assembly “which is the convening body of the whole church,” and Ch.25 which speaks of ruling elders being commissioned to “higher judicatories.”
    • b. The Church at Grand Rapids, MI (III. V) appealed to Synod 1995 raised the objections as above [see IV. E. 2 a.] but Synod 95 rejected their appeal because they had not proved their position from Scripture. Grand Rapids thus appeals to Synod 98 on the same matter.
    • c. The Church at Elora, ON (IV.Y) questions whether the differences between the OPC and the Can. Reformed Churches were sufficiently resolved so that Synod Abbotsford 1995 could give the mandate that it did to the CCOPC.
    • d. The Church at Watford ON (II.B.) points to the fact that Synod 95, in connection with discussions re ERQ referred to Synod 65 which said that “fellowship with other churches should be initiated only after a thorough and serious investigation is made” (Synod 65, Article 141,II), but then Synod 1995, after suggesting in Art.106, V.B.3 that that there are practices which “give reason for concern” says a little later “we judge each other not on the basis of local practices, but on the basis of our confessions and official documents” (Article 106 V.B.6). Thus Watford appeals to Synod 98 to declare that Synod Abbotsford 1995 erred in stating that “there is reason to continue to discuss these practices [ie. Confessional membership, admission to the Lord’s table, contact with the CRC] but they cannot in the end be made a condition for Ecclesiastical Fellowship” (Article 106.B.3, square brackets Watford’s). Thus Watford asks Synod 98 to mandate the CCOPC “to investigate local practices in the OPC, particularly those followed with respect to fencing of the Lord’s Supper table, and confessional membership. This information can be gleaned from the OPC committee or from OPC congregations via letters.”
    • e. The Church at Attercliffe (III. D.) appeals the decision of Synod Abbotsford 1995 (Article 106).
      • 1. Attercliffe refers to the fact that Synod 1995 considered that Attercliffe and others are “reacting to the status of the Report [to Synod 1986] rather than the substance of the Report” (Article 106, V.C.3). Attercliffe however says that the reason they did not react to the Report submitted to 1986 was that Synod never officially adopted this report.
      • 2. Furthermore to Synod’s comment that “The burden of proof that the divergencies are not discussed sufficiently and therefore are still impediments for Ecclesiastical Fellowship lies with the appellants, which they do not provide” (Article 106, V.C.3), Attercliffe says that Synod 1995 has turned matters around, expecting the appellants to provide grounds against decisions when the synods never provided grounds in favour of the same decisions in the first place. As a result “the impression that is given is no matter what the churches say, we go ahead anyways.”
      • 3. Attercliffe is also concerned that if the Canadian Reformed Churches enter into fellowship with the OPC without having discussed the divergencies further, “a minister in our federation who would teach these divergencies can not be disciplined because as churches we have judged they do not prevent unity.”
      • 4. Attercliffe responds to the fact that Synod 1995 considers that these matters actually deal with practices and not confessional documents of the OPC (Article 106,V.B.3.) by pointing out that our churches in making decisions re OPC are dealing with matters about which our own confessions speak.
      • 5. Attercliffe points out that Synod Abbotsford 1995 submitted that to rescind 1977 would undermine our credibility and mean declaring OPC a false church, to which Attercliffe says: “Should our first concern not be faithfulness to Word and Confession? We will gain in credibility when we admit we were wrong….In rescinding 1977 we do not make a statement that the OPC is a false church.”
      • 6. On the basis of the above, Attercliffe appeals Synod Abbotsford 1995 (Art. 106) and asks Synod 98 “to judge that 1. Synod 1995 was incorrect in dealing with the letters and appeals together, 2. Synod 1995 was incorrect in rejecting our appeals.”
    • f. The Church at London, ON (III. G.)
      • 1. London notes that they have requested Synod 1995 “1. To rescind the decision of 1977 thus withdrawing the recognition of the OPC as a true church and ending the temporary ecclesiastical contact; and 2. To continue the discussion of ALL the divergencies ON A COMMITTEE LEVEL with the OPC since they claim unconditionally to accept the authority of the Holy Scriptures.”
      • 2. London suggests that there has been “a shift in the procedure for discussing the divergencies…. 1. Pre-1977 on a committee level; 2. Post-1977 within a relationship of ‘ecclesiastical contact’; 3. post-1995 within church unity (?)”. Therefore London requests Synod Fergus “to judge whether the departure from no.1 is justified.”
      • 3. London also refers to another shift. Whereas earlier synods spoke about “serious confessional divergencies”(e.g. Acts 1986, Article 132.E. Consideration b, p.6), Synod 1995 referred to the fact that “churches have their own histories” and “ecclesiological and/or historical differences”(Article 106, V.C.1.a; V.B.3). London cannot find any ground for this switch and therefore asks Synod 1998 not to follow this change.
      • 4. London also refers to the fact that whereas in earlier synods references were made to whether an issue being discussed was in agreement with the Scriptures (e.g. CCOPC Report to Synod 1980, Appendix V, p.196) later synods were less critical, often referring to whether a divergency should prevent recognition of the OPC as a true church.
      • 5. London also believes Synod 1995 is contrary to fact when it argues that “The complaint that the matters at stake (confessional membership, admission to the Lord’s table, contact with the CRC) are of a confessional nature actually deals with certain practices in the OPC and not its confessional documents….they are not proven to be a matter of the Westminster Standards. Rather, these are more a matter of the OPC living up to its standards” (Article 106, V.B.3). London rejects this “confessional- practical” distinction.
      • 6. London also disputes the statement that “It is well known that already since the days of the Secession, there was good contact with churches maintaining the Westminster Standards, and they were recognized as true churches of our Lord Jesus Christ”(Article 106, V.C.1.b), and proceeds to point out that the churches of the Secession did not distinguish ‘recognized’ and ‘unrecognized’ churches when it came to attestations, etc., and to refer to instances since 1948 when the Westminster Standards were viewed less favourably.
      • 7. London points out that OPC has “generally been cordial but not receptive to our Scriptural testing of the divergencies”
      • 8. London thus submits that “obedience to the Word of God is at stake….
      • 9. London suggests that since relationships with the FCS and the PCK were also made without sufficient evaluation, Synod should not now argue for a relationship with the OPC on the ground that we have one with the FCS and the PCK.
        • 1. On the basis of all the above, London requests Synod 98
        • 2. to withhold establishing Ecclesiastical Fellowship with the OPC
        • 3. to continue the discussion of all the divergencies on a committee level with the OPC since they claim unconditionally to accept the authority of the Holy Scriptures.
        • 4. to indicate to them that if no progress is made on these confessional and principal divergencies before our next General Synod, then our present relationship of “ecclesiastical contact” would have to be reassessed.
      • London requested Synod Abbotsford 1995, on the basis of their concerns above (re Synods 1977, 86….) “1. To rescind the decision of 1977, thus withdrawing the recognition of the OPC as a true church and ending the temporary ecclesiastical contact.”
  • g. Br. T. Kingma, Lynden, WA (III. BB) appeals Synod Abbotsford 1995 (Art. 101 & 106) and asks Synod Fergus 1998 to judge (as he summarizes his appeal: “pray for the guidance of the Holy Spirit in judging:
    • 1. Synod ’95, when it summarizes what it perceives the ground of our appeal to be in article 101 VIII. A. 2. a. b. c., fails to acknowledge and deal with the very thrust and central ground of our entire appeal, namely, that the explanatory remarks, which provide numerous proofs from the Word of God, the adopted Confessions and/or Church Order of the CARC’s, clearly indicate that the divergencies in the adopted standards of the OPC, PCK, FCS are in conflict with the Word of God and the adopted standards of the CARCs which according to our vows [re: the adopted subscription form (see With Common Consent, p. 355), form for the public profession of faith, form for the baptism of infants, and article 27 of the Church Order] do fully agree with the Word of God (see appendix #1 of which the explanatory remarks are again a central ground for this appeal to Synod ’98).
    • 2. Synod ’95, when it grouped and answered the CCOPC report and the 28 other letters, overtures and appeals together in Article 106 in addition to our appeal, it:
      • a. failed to do complete justice of the God-given right (based on Art 31 CO) of the appellants….
      • b. Observation IV, C.6. fails to acknowledge and form as the basis for its considerations the very thrust and central ground for our appeal, namely, the explanatory remarks which provide numerous proofs that the divergencies in the adopted standards of the OPC, PCK, FCS are in conflict with the Word of God and the adopted standards of the CARCs….
    • 3. That the explanatory remarks in our appeal (see appendix #1, p # 1-3) addressed to Synod Abbotsford ’95 and included as part of this appeal gives adequate proof from the Word of God, the Confessions and the Church Order of the CARCs that what Synod’s since 1965 repeatedly referred to as “divergencies” … in confession, and church polity, which includes church life, are indeed in conflict with the Word of God, the adopted Confessions and/or the Church Order of the CARCs.
    • 4. That should some of the explanatory remarks in our appeal sent to Synod Abbotsford ’95 … not … be in full agreement in all points with the Word of God and the adopted standards of the CARCs, to inform the appellants … where precisely and on what point we have deviated from the Word of God, the adopted Confessions and the Church Order of the CARCs.
    • 5. That General Synod Abbotsford ’95 failed to recognize that the change to the new rules is a false ecumenism ….
    • 6. To follow through via the CCOPC and the CRWCA with our final plea …
    • 7. That the considerations made in this appeal in response to the Considerations B1-6, C1-6, and D1-2 in the Acts General Synod Abbotsford, B.C. 1995 of the CARCs be taken over by Synod ’98 to inform the churches of its decision to return to the Word of God, the adopted Confessions, and Church Order in all points of doctrine in its considerations regarding the subject of this appeal.”
  • h. The Church at Blue Bell, PA (III. X.) appeals Synod Abbotsford 1995 (Art. 101, 106), Synod Lincoln 1992 (Art. 72, 11, 128), Synod Coaldale 1977 (Art. 91).
  • The church at Blue Bell denies Abbotsford’s assertion that no church has challenged the substance of the Evaluation offered by Synod 86 since they challenged the substance of it both with respect to the doctrine of the church and the doctrine of the covenant to Synod 95 (p.2); Blue Bell asserts that Synod Abbotsford 1995 shifted the grounds of the debate from confessional differences to historical differences (p.3), and maintains that “there may be no divergences of substance between the two sets of confessional documents.”(p.4). “The Catechism makes no distinction between the Reformed confession and the gospel; the OPC does.”(p.8)
  • Blue Bell outlines the status of the Westminster Standards within the OPC judging that they do not function well and then traces this to Presbyterian roots. In their judgement the looser view with respect to membership is also rooted in Presbyterianism (cf. A.A. Hodge “The doors of the church must be as wide as the gates of heaven” Outlines of Theology, 1908, p.114). Blue Bell then turns to the question how the Elders and Ministers in the OPC maintain the Westminster standards and makes the very serious statement that “it is highly suspect whether any of the ministers and elders subscribe to the propositions in their own standards….In short, we have no way of knowing just what is believed in the OPC” (p.12). Blue Bell maintains that the OPC’s method of fencing the Lord’s Table rests on the assumption that there are also non-Reformed churches that are true churches. Thereafter Blue Bell revisits many matters (the church, covenant, church government) which have been discussed above and/or by previous synods.

V. CONSIDERATIONS

  • A. Regarding the reactions to the Report of the CCOPC .
    • 1. Synod 1995 did charge the CCOPC with the mandate “to work towards formalizing a relationship of Ecclesiastical Fellowship under the adopted rules by using the statement of Synod Lincoln 92 (Acts 92, Article 72, IV A 1 e) as a guideline…”
    • 2. Synod 92 did state clearly in the guideline concerning the fencing of the Lord’s Table that “a verbal warning alone is insufficient and that a profession of the Reformed faith is required in the presence of the supervising elders from the guests wishing to attend the Lord’s Supper.” The Report of the CCOPC and the Proposed Agreement make no specific mention of the statement in the 1992 guideline concerning the fencing of the Lord’s table that “a verbal warning alone is insufficient.”
    • 3. Synod 1992 also stated clearly with respect to confessional membership that though the different situations in the churches must be taken into account, “it should be agreed, however, by the Canadian Reformed Churches and the OPC that all who profess their faith accept the doctrine of God’s Word as summarized in the confessions (standards) of the churches.” This guideline was not adequately taken into account in the proposed agreement presented by the CCOPC.
    • 4. Judging from various letters, especially London”s (III.T.), it appears that on the points of Fencing and Confessional Membership, there are divergent views between those held in the OPC and those in the Canadian Reformed Churches. They refer to the 50th GA 1983, 33rd GA 1967, 34th GA 1968 which put forward a broader view of admission to the church and the table. This begs the question, as London also asks: have there been any changes in the OPC positions and practices since then? According to our fraternal delegate from the OPC, Rev. J. J. Petersen, who was present
    • for Synod 98 Committee 1’s discussions, there has been no change in the OPC positions and practices; the exact nature of those practices continues to be largely left to the local session. See also his article “Fencing the Lord’s Table” Ordained Servant (Volume 3, Number 4), where he commends the report to the 50th General Assembly quoted by London in the above.
  • B. Re Appeals from the churches and individual members regarding the relationship with the OPC and the decisions of previous synods.
    • 1. The History of the Relationship between the OPC and the Canadian Reformed Churches
      • In view of the fact that there seems to be confusion about the actual history of the relationship between the CanRC and the OPC, and since Synods have not always been clear and the CCOPC has not always adequately fulfilled its mandate (Acts Synod 1983 Art.55 C 1 b; Acts Synod 1989, Art.94 D I 2 a b), Synod 1998 presents this following analysis of the relationship.
      • One common complaint is the fact that Synod 1977 did not provide adequate grounds for its decision. Despite the explanations given so far for such a procedure, it is apparent that it would be good for it to be recognized once again that this was a wrong approach to the matter. Synod 1965 had stated that a thorough investigation should precede a decision to establish relations with another federation of churches. This was not done adequately in 1977. Synods have admitted that they have confused matters. Synod 1980 expressed regret that the evaluation of divergencies was not explained by Synod 1977 and that this may have given the impression in the churches that this decision was premature. (Acts 1980, Art.97 II C Recommendations 1,2).
      • Thus when subsequent synods were faced with the matter, being convinced that the final decision was justified, they sought yet to rectify it by providing grounds. For this purpose the CCOPC provided Synod 1986 with an “Evaluation of Divergencies” (Acts 1986, Appendix II B).
      • The complaint voiced by the church at Attercliffe is that this 1986 Evaluation of Divergencies was not adopted by the churches and did not have an official status. W. de Haan similarly complains that the divergencies were not sufficiently discussed. These complaints are without sufficient ground however, for Synod 1986 not only thanked the committee “for publishing the detailed evaluation of the divergencies for the benefit of the churches”, but also decided: “Synod receives this report as the detailed evaluation of the divergencies which the General Synod of 1977 neglected to give for its decision to recognize the OPC as a true Church of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Acts 1986, Article 126, Recommendation 1 and 2, p.55). It may be said that Synod 1986 did not officially adopt the report as the final answer to all the divergencies, but that was because it also acknowledged that various developments in the OPC after 1977, in connection with the Shepherd case as well as the churches at Blue Bell and Laurel, brought to the fore additional divergencies which necessitated further discussions. Therefore synod only received the report, but received it as the grounds for the 1977 decision (cf. 1986’s comment on p.55: “This part of the mandate was for historical purposes, i.e. to provide the detailed evaluation not given by the General Synod of 1977”). The churches, including Attercliffe in particular, could still have reacted to this report as it still had a function as the grounds for 1977.
      • London’s complaint that there are divergences that have not been discussed is not entirely true. It is certainly regrettable that the synods were never provided with a “detailed evaluation” on the point of “more or less pure churches.” It should be noted however that, given the fact that this matter deals with the doctrine of the church, synods appear to have concluded that this point became intertwined with the question “invisible – visible church.” Moreover, the matter of “the descent into Hades” was already dealt with by Synod Toronto 1974 when the CCOPC Committee wrote to the CEIR and stated re the Larger Catechism (q/a 50) “This answer interprets the article of the descent into hell as Jesus’ stay ‘in the state of death and under the power of death.’…We are aware that both interpretations have had a place in the teachings of the Churches of the Reformation” (Appendix 1, Synod 1974, p.105 cf. Article 149 of same, p.58). This also came to the attention of Synod Smithville 1980 by way of a statement in a letter which the CCOPC wrote to the CEIR which said: “The different interpretation of the clause in the Apostles’ Creed ‘descended into hell’ should not become a point of disunity” (Appendix V, Synod 1980 Report of the CCOPC to Synod, p. 198).
      • It needs to be noted as well that Grand Rapids’ complaint to the effect that the Classis Report concerning Blue Bell and Laurel to Synod 1986 was never dealt with is not true since Synod passed this matter on to the CCOPC (as noted in Article 137, D.1.2. Acts 1986); therefore it subsequently became a matter for the CCOPC to deal with. The Classis Report led to the matters of confessional membership and fencing of the Lord’s table becoming issues of priority. Thus these matters became part of the discussion which led up to the Proposed Agreement in the Report of the CCOPC which is before Synod 1998. And therefore Synod 1998 no longer needs “to judge the validity of the conclusions in the document submitted to Synod 1986 by Classis Ontario-South (Art.137 B.4).” Furthermore the requests from Grand Rapids and others to call the OPC to repentance go too far at this point as these matters are still being discussed.
    • 2. Remaining Divergencies
      • Many churches and individuals have expressed concern about what happened to the divergencies and the report on the divergencies to Synod 1986 as well as the context in which discussion about these divergencies ought to take place.
      • The Report of the Divergencies to Synod 1986 was the report that was received not for the state of the question at that time but as the decision which formed the basis of 1977. It was stated that though these divergencies need further discussion, they need not be seen as impediments to ecclesiastical fellowship. But between Synod 1977 and the Report to Synod 1986, two churches separated from the OPC and joined the CanRC. This brought two other issues to the fore, namely the fencing of the Lord’s table and confessional membership. These matters still need to be resolved. Synod then remarked (Acts 1992, Art.72 IV Considerations A 3 d): “The matters which have come up since Synod 1983, especially ‘confessional membership’ and ‘supervision of the Lord’s table’ are of a more serious nature (see Acts Synod 1983, Art.55, Acts Synod 1986, Art.132, and Acts Synod 1989, Art.94).” These Acts show that these synods did indeed regard these matters as being of a serious nature.
      • In this regard Synod 1983, (Art.55, C Considerations 2.d) stated that: “… the matter of ‘fencing’ the Lord’s Supper and the admission to the Lord’s Supper concerns the Church discipline as well as the doctrine of the Church and should be looked into by General Synod (see B Observations 2, c, I, ii, iii).” That same Synod also recommended (Acts 1983, Art.55, D Recommendations 2.e) “to pay special attention to the new developments in the OPC, with respect to the so-called Shepherd case (see Observations 2, a, I, ii, iii), the Hofford case (see Observations 2, b) and the ‘fencing’ of the Lord’s Supper (see B Observations 2, c, i, ii, iii, and d), and to come to the next Synod with recommendations in this respect….”
      • Also in this regard, Synod 1986 noted in its considerations (Acts Synod 1986, Art.132 E Considerations b,d,e):
        • “b. …’the committee[‘s]…recommendation that ‘the Canadian Reformed Churches should use their ecclesiastical contact to address the OPC on this issue of fencing the Lord’s table’ indicates that the matter of fencing the Lord’s Supper is, indeed, a serious confessional divergency, which is a major issue of mutual concern.
        • d…. Although guests are not specifically mentioned in Article 61, Church Order, the conclusion of the committee, Observation 5, cannot mean that Article 61, C.O., has no bearing on the admission of guests to the Lord’s Supper. Synod considers that Article 61, C.O., is the rule which governs the admission of all those who seek to partake in the Lord’s Supper.
        • e. The Canadian Reformed Churches have from the beginning of contact with the OPC considered the admission to the Lord’s Supper as an essential matter of discipline.”
      • Thus Synod 1986 recommended (Recommendation 3) “To pass on the report about fencing of the Lord’s table (including the sections A, B, and C) to the OPC through its committee for Ecumenicity, along with the above considerations of the General Synod 1986 and invite the CEIR to have meetings about these matters.”
      • Likewise, Synod 1989 dealt with the CCOPC report and noted some disappointing aspects (Acts 1989, Art.94, D Considerations 2.c): c. “the matter of fencing the Lord’s table, considered by Synod 1986 as ‘a serious confessional divergency which is a major issue of mutual concern’ (Acts Synod 1986, Art.132. Considerations B), should be treated and presented in this light. Although a beginning has been made, further discussion is mandatory.” This Synod mandated the CCOPC (Art.132, E Recommendations I.5c): “to be diligent to continue the discussion on and evaluation of the divergencies such as the doctrine of the covenant, visible and invisible church, the assurance of faith, the observance of the law, the fencing of the Lord’s table, confessional membership, church-political differences, and the contact with the CRC.” Note that here the two new and major issues: confessional membership and fencing of the Lord’s table, have become lumped together with the other divergencies which were reported on in 1986 and determined not to be a bar to ecclesiastical fellowship.
      • The same Synod stated, when considering the churches which have withdrawn form the OPC and been accepted into the Can RC (Art 72, IV A 2 c I) that “The withdrawal of these churches from the OPC may have the positive effect of underlining the need for the OPC and the CanRC to resolve the matter of divergencies which are considered to be impediments to Ecclesiastical Fellowship.”
      • The next synod, Synod 1992, also maintained, in Acts Art. 72, IV Considerations, A 3 f, “From all of the foregoing it becomes clear that the impediments that still need to be removed are:
        • i. Lack of agreement on the meaning and application of ‘confessional membership.’
        • ii. Lack of agreement on the supervision of the Lord’s table.
        • iii. Lack of agreement on the relationship of the OPC with the CRC.
      • These items must be addressed by the CCOPC with the OPC. Here, as the Committee itself suggests in its analysis, it may be helpful to discuss whether these divergencies stem from ecclesiological and/or historical differences.”
      • This led Synod 1992 to include in the mandate to the CCOPC (Art 72, V C.5): “to inform the OPC that the matters which still require resolution for the establishment of full ecclesiastical fellowship are (see IV,A3v):
        • a. the matter of confessional membership
        • b. the matter of supervision of the Lord’s table, and
        • c. the matter of the relationship with the Christian Reformed Church.
      • Seeing how c. above has been addressed by the OPC, the remaining question before Synod 1998 is whether these matters, confessional membership and fencing of the Lord’s table have been adequately addressed so that the CanRC can enter into Ecclesiastical Fellowship. Although there still is a need to continue discussing the other divergencies within the context of Ecclesiastical Fellowship, the focus has consistently remained and remains on these two in particular.
    • 3. Shift or Development?
      • Some churches have complained that there is a shift here. London asserts that there has been a shift in the procedure for discussing the divergencies. Synod 1965 stated “fellowship with other churches should be initiated only after a thorough and serious investigation is made and it is clear that these churches not only accept the Reformed confessions and regulations of Reformed church government but also abide by them” whereas Synod 1995 said that “there is reason to continue to discuss these practices” and thereby it means to discuss them within Ecclesiastical Fellowship.
      • Watford complains about the shift that takes place from the above 1965 statement to the 1995 comment which says “they cannot in the end be made a condition for Ecclesiastical Fellowship”(Article 106.B.3). It is true that there is a shift here, but this was a natural process and development as the Synods struggled with the matter and considered how to move from a relationship of Ecclesiastical Contact to Ecclesiastical Fellowship.
      • It should be noted that this process was already foreseen by General Synod 1977 when it stated that ecclesiastical contact could serve as the basis for “further discussion with the OPC with the hope and intent that eventually full correspondence expressing the unity of the true faith can be established” (Art.91, Consideration e). Already from the beginning then, while the terminology would change, a natural progression from ecclesiastical contact to a sister-church relationship was the goal.
    • 4. Other Issues
      • a. Grouping of Appeals. Some of the appellants complain that the letters and appeals were grouped together and thus were not sufficiently answered. However it is not unusual to group letters and appeals by subject matter. Nor is it incorrect procedure. The question is whether the concerns are given their corresponding weight and consideration. A thorough investigation of the considerations of Synod 1995 dealing with letters and appeals concerning relations with the OPC shows that the appellants raised matters that were previously considered.
      • b. Appeal of br. T. Kingma. Regarding this appeal also, it should be said that there are really no new grounds provided here. In his appeal to Synod 1995 he attempts to convince from the Word of God that the points being discussed about the Westminster Standards are more than divergencies. Synod cannot interact with all his arguments here. Having reviewed his arguments and proofs however, synod considers that the brother has not proven his point nor has he brought to the fore aspects of Scripture which have not been examined by others (e.g. the Report to Synod 86 re Divergences).
      • c. Background of many of the appeals. Many of the appellants have argued that the differences between the Canadian Reformed Churches and the Orthodox Presbyterian Church are not just divergencies between two Reformed Churches but differences of such magnitude that recognition of the OPC is unwarranted because it simply is not a Reformed Church In this regard, for example, a remark of br T. Kingma (p.3): “having liberated from the superscriptural teachings…of the GKN which were proven to be unscriptural and yet made binding by the synod ’43/44”. [See the same in Blue Bell III-X, p.18]. Behind this thinking, however, there is a flawed interpretation of our own history. Although appellants are sometimes more careful in their wording, there is frequently the suggestion as above that the Liberation of 1944 was a liberation from the superscriptural teachings whereas, in fact, it was a liberation from the binding to the superscriptural teachings. The two are not the same. The concern of the appellants then is that they believe that the Westminster Standards bring these teachings back into the church. Some appellants question whether a minister who teaches what is taught in the OPC would be tolerated in the Canadian Reformed Churches. What the appellants fail to realize is that while Dr. K. Schilder and others were willing to discuss Kuyperian views within the one federation of churches, the Synod was not willing to have them discussed but made them binding instead. The Synod, in effect, elevated Kuyper’s teaching on these points to a “fourth Form of Unity” and hence would not tolerate any who differed with his views. What the appellants often do however is implicitly elevate Schilder’s teaching to the level of doctrinal status and attempt to ensure that anything that seems similar to Kuyper’s views is not tolerated. Hence the reaction against the Westminster Standards which they believe are the same as the views of Kuyper. In this regard, they often quote Schilder failing to realize that Dr. K. Schilder, fully aware of the weaknesses of the Westminster Standards, was willing to accept them as Reformed documents and to tolerate Kuyper’s views within the Reformed Churches as long as they could continue to be discussed and were not made binding upon himself and other members of the churches.
      • It should be understood that there is no doubt that the divergencies need to be discussed on an ongoing basis. But it should then also be realized that they can be discussed within a relationship of ecclesiastical fellowship. Meanwhile, no one in the Canadian Reformed Churches is bound to the Westminster Standards within such a relationship. The confessions of others may be of interest and value to all, but one is bound only to the confessions adopted by the federation of which one is a member or officebearer. Similarly, in a relationship of Ecclesiastical Fellowship, though the pulpits are in principle open, this is still by invitation only.
      • d. Worship Services. Regarding the suggestion by Lincoln that there are some OP Churches where there is only one worship service, this letter does not sufficiently prove whether there are churches which have only one worship service, nor do they clarify the nature of services in those places. According to our fraternal delegate from the OPC, Rev. J. Petersen, the prevailing approach is to have two services per Lord’s Day. Places where this is not the case may very well be new posts where facilities or manpower is limited.
  • C. The Present State of the Relationship
    • 1. As illustrated above, it has to be acknowledged that, despite many appeals and much discussion, the Canadian Reformed Churches have maintained a fairly consistent line which is summarized in the 1992 guidelines to the CCOPC. The CanRC have continued to maintain 1977 and to work towards closer relations according to the guideline of Synod 1965, namely that “Fellowship with other churches should be initiated only after a thorough and serious investigation is made and it is clear that these churches not only accept the Reformed confessions and regulations of Reformed church government but also abide by them” (Synod Edmonton 1965, Art. 141). Two divergencies remained which still required resolution before entering into Ecclesiastical Fellowship. Synod Abbotsford 1995 mandated the CCOPC to work towards coming to an agreement on these two remaining divergencies and to formalizing a relationship of Ecclesiastical Fellowship, hopefully in 1998.
    • 2. Hence the CCOPC has come to General Synod Fergus 1998 with the text of the Proposed Agreement between the CanRC and the OPC as mentioned above. However, there is considerable concern as outlined above that the agreement is too vague and does not sufficiently address the differences. Proceeding with the relationship under the Proposed Agreement as it is will only add to the unrest in our churches and will not help the Orthodox Presbyterian Church to function in a manner that is suitable to one of the Churches of the Reformation.
    • 3. Our concerns are underlined by the position of Rev. J. J. Petersen who in his speech to both Synod Abbotsford 1995 and General Synod Fergus 1998 defends the right of the OPC to admit to membership and to the Lord’s table those who do not make profession of the Reformed faith (E.g. to Synod 1998: “Synod 1992 said ‘a verbal warning alone is insufficient.’ To those of us who use this method or supervision to hear that ‘a verbal warning alone is insufficient’ is to depreciate the power of the proclaimed word”). These comments and positions are out of line with the proposal of the CCOPC to General Synod Fergus 1998. The archives of the CCOPC show that the original context of the Proposed Agreement re the Fencing of the Lord’s Table contained references to the ICRC Conference in 1993 (Under the proposal the words were added: “See Report of the Committee on Theological Affirmation, in Proceedings of the ICRC 1993, pp. 80f.”). This report of the Committee on Theological Affirmation (pp. 80-81) is defending a more restricted and Reformed approach to admitting people to the Lord’s Table. It cites also Westminster Confession (chapter 29, section 8):
      • Although ignorant and wicked men receive the outward elements in the sacrament, yet they receive not the thing signified thereby; but by their unworthy coming thereunto are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, to their own damnation. Wherefore all ignorant and ungodly person, as they are unfit to enjoy communion with him, so are they unworthy of the Lord’s table, and cannot, without great sin against Christ, while they remain such, partake of these holy mysteries, or be admitted thereunto.
      • Rev. G. I. Williamson reflects also the concerns of the CanRC when he says about this same point: “In the Orthodox Presbyterian Church… persons are commonly admitted of whom the Session know nothing. I have never been able to see how this common practice can be reconciled with the clearly stated requirement of our confession which says…” (as above, quoting W.C. chapter 29, section 8. G.I. Williamson, “On a More Adequate Fencing of the Lord’s Table”, The Ordained Servant. Volume 3, number 4, p.76). Therefore Synod 1998 suggests to add the words to the first part of the Proposed Agreement: This means that a general verbal
      • warning by the officiating minister alone is not sufficient and that a profession of the Reformed faith is required.” As to supervision of life, reference can also be made to the Westminster Larger Catechism (Q. & A. 173: “May any who profess the faith, and desire to come to the Lord’s Supper, be kept from it? Such as are found to be ignorant or scandalous, notwithstanding their profession of the faith, and desire to come to the Lord’s Supper, may and ought to be kept from that sacrament by the power which Christ hath left in his church, until they receive instruction, and manifest their reformation“, cf. Heidelberg Catechism, q. & a. 82 “confession and life”). For every church the danger is real that it requests less of guests than it asks of its members. Scripture is quite clear that we cannot automatically take someone’s word for it if he professes to be an upright Christian. Matthew 7:21 warns us: “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven”(cf. also 1 Cor. 5:11; Mt. 7:6). If elders are faced with guests who have not been under their supervision and of whom it cannot be ascertained that they are indeed God-fearing people, it is therefore important for them to receive a positive written or verbal testimony concerning such guests before admitting them to the Lord’s supper. Therefore it is also proposed to add to the Proposed Agreement the words: and confirmation of a godly life.
      • Regarding the second part of the Proposed Agreement, the concern is that again the OPC leaves room where room ought not to be left. In the Form for Profession of Faith in the OPC profession is made of faith in the doctrine of the Bible alone. It might be assumed that this would mean faith in the doctrine as confessed in the standards of the church. However, it is stated in the document entitled “COEIR-OPC Response to Papers Prepared by CCOPC-CanRC” submitted to Synod 1992 (Acts Synod 1992, Appendix II, p.170), “We [OPC] affirm what you [CanRC] reject – that the church is competent to determine as valid and credible a confession of the Christian faith for communicant membership that is not also in full accord with the church’s confession.” Therefore, Synod 1998 adds the word “as” in the second part of the Proposed Agreement so that the sentence reads: “Anyone who answers the membership vows in the affirmative is bound to receive and adhere to the doctrine of the Bible as the patristic church has summarized this teaching in the Apostles’ Creed and the churches of the Reformation have elaborated on this in their confessions.“
    • 4. Synod 1998 thus proposes that the Proposed Agreement read as follows (additional words underlined):
      • Concerning Fencing the Lord’s Table:
        • The churches of the Reformation confess that the Lord’s supper should not be profaned (1 Cor. 11:27, see Heid. Cat. Lord’s Day 30, Q&A 82; Westminster Confession ch. 29,8). This implies that the celebration of the Lord’s Supper is to be supervised. In this supervision the Church exercises discipline and manifests itself as true church. This supervision is to be applied to the members of the local church as well as to the guests. This means that a general verbal warning by the officiating minister alone is not sufficient and that a profession of the Reformed faith and confirmation of a godly life is required. The eldership has a responsibility in supervising the admission to the Lord’s Supper.
      • Concerning Confessional Membership:
        • The churches of the Reformation believe that they have to contend for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3) and are called to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned (Rom. 16:17). Anyone who answers the membership vows in the affirmative is bound to receive and adhere to the doctrine of the Bible as the patristic church has summarized this teaching in the Apostles’ Creed and the churches of the Reformation have elaborated on this in their confessions. Every confessing member is bound to this doctrine and must be willing to be instructed in it.
    • 5. It is our prayer that the General Assembly of the OPC may find the above proposal acceptable, and that they will communicate their agreement to the CCOPC, so that the relationship of Ecclesiastical Fellowship may then be initiated and the CCOPC can make arrangements according to the Rules for Ecclesiastical Fellowship.
    • 6. This also means that the Canadian Reformed Churches would need to allow time for the OP churches to define and implement the practical consequences after the acceptance of this agreement by the General Assembly.

VI. RECOMMENDATIONS

That Synod decide

  • 1. To express regret once again and to remind the appellants that Synod 1980 (Acts 1980, Article 97, C, 1, p. 69) already did so when it expressed “regret that the evaluation of the divergencies, as discussed in the letter of April, 1976, was not explained in detail by the Synod Coaldale 1977, before stating that these divergencies ‘do not form an impediment to recognize the Orthodox Presbyterian Church as churches of the Lord Jesus Christ.'(Acts 1977, Article 91, Consideration h).”
  • 2. To affirm that the Evaluation of Divergencies presented to Synod 1986 by the CCOPC is the document which provided the grounds for the 1977 decision to recognize the OPC as a true church.
  • 3. That no new grounds for declaring previous decisions contrary to Scriptures, confessions and the Church Order have been brought forward. Moreover, that the differences between the Three Forms of Unity and the Westminster Standards are not such that they prevent Ecclesiastical Fellowship but they are divergencies about which there can continue to be discussions among those who belong to Reformed Churches.
  • 4. To acknowledge gratefully the desire of the OPC to be faithful to the Scriptures and to defend the reformed heritage.
  • 5. To note with thankfulness that the OPC, by terminating the Ecclesiastical Fellowship with the CRCNA has taken a clear stand in maintaining the truth and authority of the Word of God, and has removed another obstacle for the Canadian Reformed Churches to come to ecclesiastical fellowship with the OPC.
  • 6. To adopt the Proposed Agreement as amended here below as the basis for Ecclesiastical Fellowship with the OPC, and to instruct the CCOPC to pass it on to the CEIR for adoption by the General Assembly:
    • Concerning Fencing the Lord’s Table:
      • The churches of the Reformation confess that the Lord’s supper should not be profaned (1 Cor. 11:27, see Heid. Cat. Lord’s Day 30, Q&A 82; Westminster Confession ch. 29,8). This implies that the celebration of the Lord’s Supper is to be supervised. In this supervision the Church exercises discipline and manifests itself as true church. This supervision is to be applied to the members of the local church as well as to the guests. This means that a general verbal warning by the officiating minister alone is not sufficient and that a profession of the Reformed faith and confirmation of a godly life is required. The eldership has a responsibility in supervising the admission to the Lord’s Supper.
    • Concerning Confessional Membership:
      • The churches of the Reformation believe that they have to contend for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3) and are called to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned (Rom. 16:17). Anyone who answers the membership vows in the affirmative is bound to receive and adhere to the doctrine of the Bible as the patristic church has summarized this teaching in the Apostles’ Creed and the churches of the Reformation have elaborated on this in their confessions. Every confessing member is bound to this doctrine and must be willing to be instructed in it.
  • 7. Should the General Assembly of the OPC adopt the Agreement on Fencing of the Lord’s Table and Confessional Membership as stated above, to invite the OPC to enter into Ecclesiastical Fellowship with the Canadian Reformed Churches, according to the adopted rules for this relationship.
  • 8. To instruct the CCOPC, as a sub-committee of the CCCA, upon the adoption of the above by the OPC, to initiate Ecclesiastical Fellowship according to the adopted rules, and to inform the churches and the next General Synod accordingly.
  • 9. That any further discussion re differences in confession and church policy must take place within the relation of Ecclesiastical Fellowship. The intention of such discussions will be mutual upbuilding in the faith to ‘maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, (Eph.4:3; cf. Report of the CCOPC to Fergus 1998, p. 3).
  • 10. If the General Assembly of the OPC does not adopt the above, to reconsider the present relationship of ecclesiastical contact with the OPC at the next General Synod. In that case, the CCOPC must make recommendations to the next General Synod.

ADOPTED

The chairman notes that this is a historic moment in the life of the Canadian Reformed Churches as a decision has been made which will hopefully serve the Orthodox Presbyterian Church well and will bring this matter to rest in the churches. He notes with gratitude the fact that this difficult decision could be made unanimously.

Print page