REGARDING THE ORTHODOX PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH
1.1 The recent extension of Ecclesiastical Fellowship by General Synod Neerlandia 2001 of the Canadian Reformed Churches to the Orthodox Presbyterian Church is a new direction in ecclesiastical relations on the part of the Canadian Reformed Churches.
1.2 As a consequence of this decision of Synod 2001, the Canadian Reformed Churches have considered all significant differences to be acceptable. These differences exist not only in their respective confessional documents, the Three Forms of Unity and the Westminster Standards, but they exist especially in the application of these confessional documents to the issues of confessional membership and admission to the Lord’s Supper.
1.3 An analysis of General Synod decisions from the period 1992 through 2004 regarding the relationship with the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) has been prepared in the following paragraphs. In the course of analyzing these decisions I believe we need to consider the following questions:
a) How did “matters ... which are of a more serious nature,” preventing the establishment of Ecclesiastical Fellowship (Synods 1992 and 1998), now become “divergencies which can be resolved within the framework of ecclesiastical fellowship” (Synod 2001)?
b) How did matters previously considered impediments to unity at the Lord’s Supper table (Synod 1998), be so no longer (Synod 2001)?
c) Most importantly, are General Synod’s decisions, which enter into and confirm the extension of a relationship of Ecclesiastical Fellowship with the OPC, in accordance with Scripture, the confessions, the Church Order and the Rules for Ecclesiastical Fellowship as set forth by Synod 1992?
2.1 General Synod 1992 formalized a statement which was to be used as a guideline by the Committee for Contact with the OPC (CCOPC) to achieve agreement on the matters of the fencing of the Lord’s Supper and confessional membership. This statement (Acts, Article 72, Consideration A.1.e) reads as follows:
Gratitude may be expressed for the progress made in the taking away of misunderstandings and achieving clarification of some parts of the discussion regarding (i) “the fencing of the Lord’s table” and (ii) “confessional membership.”
(i) It appears, in view of the OPC’s ongoing internal deliberation (see d [not quoted]), that there is still reason to continue the discussion on this point. It is hoped that in time the OPC and the Canadian Reformed Churches may come to a common understanding and a unified practice regarding the supervision of the Lord’s Table.
This is not to say that an identical practice is required with respect to the supervision of the Lord’s table to come to ecclesiastical fellowship. 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 the supervising elders from the guests wishing to attend the Lord’s Supper.
(ii) With respect to “confessional membership” the different situations in the OPC and the Canadian Reformed Churches must be taken into account as resulting in various practices (3.1.b [not quoted]). 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 means that all members are bound by the Word of God in the unity of faith as confessed in the accepted standards.
2.2 In order to separate the divergencies which can be discussed within a relationship of ecclesiastical fellowship from the above issues, General Synod 1992 also stated (Article 72, Considerations A.3.d) that “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).” This same Synod also decided (Article 72, Recommendations C.5.a&b) “to inform the OPC that the matters which still require resolution for the establishment of full ecclesiastical fellowship are (see IV.A.3.v): (a) the matter of confessional membership; (b) the matter of the supervision of the Lord’s table; and (c) the matter of the relationship with the Christian Reformed Church.”
2.3 Synod 1995 (Article 106, Recommendations D.1) decided to continue the CCOPC with the following mandate (among others): “to work towards formalizing a relationship of Ecclesiastical Fellowship under the adopted rules by using the statement 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;...”
2.4 The CCOPC presented the following proposed agreement to Synod 1998 for opening the way to Ecclesiastical Fellowship with the OPC (see Acts of Synod 1998, Article 130, Observations B):
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.
2.5 The above proposed agreement, presented to Synod 1998 by the CCOPC, did not meet the guidelines referred to in 2.1 above as stipulated by Synod 1992. Therefore it must be maintained that the CCOPC did not fulfill its mandate to Synod 1998 as established by Synod 1995 and referred to in 2.3 above.
2.6 Synod 1998 (see Article 130, Considerations C.1, C.2 and C.3, and Recommendations F) documented the difficulties it encountered in working with the proposed agreement referred to in 2.4 above. In particular, Synod concerned itself with the actual practice of the OPC as shown in the speech of Rev. J.J. Peterson (see Appendix 1, page 208 of the Acts of Synod 1998), as well as comments made by the OPC committee to the CCOPC. As a result Synod 1998 amended this proposed agreement to take into account the statement of Synod 1992 referred to in 2.1 above.
2.7 Synod 1998 (see Article 130, Consideration C.4) amended the proposed agreement 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.
2.8 The amendments made by Synod 1998 as indicated in 2.7 above were consistent with the mandate given to the CCOPC by Synod 1992, and maintained by Synod 1995, as expressed in the guidelines referred to in 2.1 above. Therefore it was reasonable for Synod 1998 to make amendments to the proposed agreement.
2.9 The amendments made by Synod 1998 as indicated in 2.7 above are consistent with what we maintain in Article 61 of the Church Order. Here we have agreed as churches that “The consistory shall admit to the Lord’s supper only those who have made public profession of the Reformed faith and lead a godly life.”
2.10 Synod 1998 had additional reasons for amending the proposed agreement (Article 130, Considerations C.2 and C.3), namely:
a) the agreement is too vague;
b) the agreement does not sufficiently address the differences;
c) the statement by Rev. J.J. Peterson to Synod 1998 that the OPC has the right to “admit to membership and to the Lord’s table those who do not make profession of the Reformed faith,” is a contradiction of the OPC standard as contained in the Westminster Larger Catechism (Q & A 173) and to our standard as contained in the Heidelberg Catechism (Q & A 82), and therefore requires clarification by the OPC; and
d) the statement by the OPC committee to the CCOPC that “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 accord with the church’s confession” leaves concern that the OPC “leaves room where room ought not to be left” and therefore requires clarification by the OPC.
3.1 In relation to the agreement with the OPC, the Report of the CCOPC to Synod 2001 recommended that Synod 2001 decide:
a) To undo the changes made by General Synod Fergus 1998 in the Proposed Agreement with the OPC on the issues of the fencing of the Lord’s Table and Confessional Membership, and to return to the original document, presented by the CCOPC to Synod Fergus, as sufficiently reflecting the Reformed Confessions.
b) To use this agreement as a basis for establishing a relationship of Ecclesiastical Fellowship with the OPC.
3.2 The Committee for Contact with Churches in the Americas (CCCA) recommended in its Reaction to the CCOPC Report to Synod 2001 that Synod “instruct the CCOPC to as yet fulfill Article 130 recommendations F, G, H, I, J of Synod Fergus 1998.”
3.3 Synod 2001 (Article 45, Recommendation 5.5) decided “To establish ecclesiastical fellowship under the adopted rules upon their acceptance of the proposed agreement, as formulated by the CCOPC and CEIR and presented to General Synod Fergus 1998” (see 2.4 above).
3.4 Synod 2001 did not interact with any of the reasons given by Synod 1998 for amending the proposed agreement (see 2.8, 2.9 and 2.10 above).
3.5 Other than stating the recommendations of the CCCA in its Observations (see 3.2 above), indicating thereby that they were admissible, Synod 2001 did not interact with the contents of the CCCA’s Reaction, nor explain why it could not act upon the CCCA recommendation referred to in 3.2 above.
3.6 Synod 2001 (Article 45, Consideration 4.10) quoted a portion of a statement made by Synod 1995 (Article 106, Consideration B.3) where it was stated that “Therefore there is reason to continue to discuss these practices, but they cannot in the end be made a condition for Ecclesiastical Fellowship.” This statement contradicts the actual decision made by Synod 1995 (Article 106, Recommendations D.1 – see 2.3 above), therefore it is inappropriate that Synod 2001 makes use of this consideration without interacting with the decisions of Synod 1995, since it takes this consideration out of context. Utilizing this quotation from Synod 1995, Synod 2001 appears to integrate the two serious issues of the Lord’s supper and confessional membership into the list of divergencies which can be discussed within the framework of ecclesiastical fellowship, even though this was clearly not the intention of Synod 1995.
3.7 Synod 2001 (Article 45, Consideration 4.11) stated that there is “agreement on the principle while admittedly there is a difference in practice.” This consideration does not explain how “matters which have come up since Synod 1983, especially “confessional membership” and “supervision of the Lord’s table [which] are of a more serious nature” (Synod 1992 - Article 72, Considerations A.3.d), have now only become a difference in practice. This consideration does not prove that the actual practice in the OPC meets the principle (as shown in the speech of Rev. J.J. Peterson to Synod 1998 - see 2.10 above).
3.8 Synod 2001 (Article 45, Consideration 4.12) stated, but did not prove, that a positive response to the 4th question in the OPC Form for Public Profession of Faith is sufficient to enable us to go back to the original formulation of agreement presented to Synod 1998. The 4th question in the OPC Form for Public Profession of Faith is “Do you agree to submit in the Lord to the government of this church and, in case you should be found delinquent in doctrine or life, to heed its discipline?” It is clear that this question does not bind to the confessions, therefore the statement by the OPC committee to the CCOPC (referred to in 2.10 above) is a difference in principle as indicated by Synod 1998, Article 130, Consideration C.3.
3.9 Synod 2001 (Article 45, Consideration 4.14) agreed with the statement that “When Synod declares a church to be a true church and does not rescind that decision, there is an obligation according to our confession to live together as sister churches.” This statement is essentially another appeal against decisions regarding the OPC made by every Synod from 1977 to 1998. This consideration ignores the fact that the relationship with the OPC of “ecclesiastical contact” was a temporary one before 2001. Synod 2001 did not indicate why the decisions of previous Synods on this point should now be ignored (see Synod 1998, Article 130, Recommendations C).
3.10 Synod 2001 (Article 45, Consideration 4.16) did not define what it meant by “various divergencies [which] cannot be obstacles to ecclesiastical fellowship.” This consideration can not apply to the issues of fencing the Lord’s supper and confessional membership. No Synod prior to 2001 has made such a statement in relation to these issues because these concerns are “of a more serious nature” (see 2.2 above).
3.11 Synod 2001 (Article 45, Consideration 4.17) made the statement that “The rules for Ecclesiastical Fellowship do not presuppose complete unanimity on all points of confession and church polity.” The statement proceeds beyond what we maintain in Article 50 of the Church Order, where it is stated that “On minor points of Church Order and ecclesiastical practice churches abroad shall not be rejected.” How do concerns, which were previously “of a more serious nature,” now become “minor points?” How can Synod, with this consideration, proceed beyond Article 50 C.O. and speak in this manner about “points of confession” and differences in church polity which it has not proven to be minor? This statement is also not consistent with Rule #1 of the Rules for Ecclesiastical Fellowship, as it has been adopted by Synod 1992. Rule #1 states that “The churches shall assist each other in the maintenance, defense and promotion of the Reformed faith in doctrine, church polity, discipline, and liturgy, and be watchful for deviations” (Acts, Synod 1992, Article 50).
4.1 General Synod 2004 decided (Recommendations 5.1 - 5.3 of Article 86):
5.1. That Synod Neerlandia 2001 did not err when it took the decision to establish Ecclesiastical Fellowship with the OPC; however, it should have interacted more specifically with the grounds that Synod Fergus gave for amending the agreement.
5.2. Not to accede to the appeals of the churches at Attercliffe, Abbotsford, Grand Rapids, Owen Sound and Blue Bell.
5.3. To state that the Considerations 4.1-4.10 serve as an answer to the appeals of these churches.
Regarding Synod’s Consideration 4.3
4.2 Article 86, Consideration 4.3 of General Synod 2004 contained the following statements:
a) At the same time, this present Synod takes note of the report that Synod Neerlandia had received from the CCOPC. In that report the CCOPC recommended a return to the original agreement because that agreement was “based on the Reformed Confessions.”
b) At the same time the report considered that “the amendment inserted by Synod Fergus goes beyond the wording found in the Reformed Confessions.”
c) Therefore, the concern of Synod Neerlandia was that our agreement with the OPC on the fencing of the Lord’s Supper ought to be based on the Reformed confessions, both the Westminster Standards and the Three Forms of Unity.
d) It is noteworthy that Synod Fergus also referred to the Westminster Standards as part of its reason for amending the proposed agreement.
e) Therefore, on this point Synod Fergus and Synod Neerlandia were in agreement, namely, that our discussion with the OPC on the Lord’s Supper must be based, in the first place, on the confessions.
4.3 The above material appears to have been decisive for Synod 2004 to maintain the Recommendations of Synod 2001. In Consideration 4.3 Synod takes over assertions, which were made by the CCOPC, and used to support the Recommendations (see 3.1 above) it made in its Report to Synod 2001, as follows:
However, the CCOPC is of the opinion that this addition brings in a specific element from earlier discussions between the OPC and the CanRC, which does not suit the character of this general statement. The original statement was based on the Reformed Confessions, mentioned specifically in the text of the Agreement. The amendment inserted by Synod Fergus goes beyond the wording found in the Reformed Confessions. In its reflection of the confession, the original agreement on the Lord’s Supper would provide sufficient opportunity to address specific situations in continued discussions between our churches and the OPC.
In its Report the CCOPC does not specify how “the amendment inserted by Synod Fergus goes beyond the wording found in the Reformed Confessions.” The CCOPC does not interact with the Considerations that Synod 1998 made when it amended the proposed Agreement.
4.4 In its Consideration 4.2 Synod 2004 states that:
Synod Neerlandia did not specifically interact with the grounds that Synod Fergus gave for amending the proposed agreement. Especially considering the importance of the decision, Synod Neerlandia should have done that.”
The question remains, if the CCOPC does not interact with the Considerations that Synod Fergus 1998 made, and Synod Neerlandia 2001 does not interact with the Considerations that Synod 1998 made, why does Synod 2004 not specifically interact with the grounds that Synod 1998 gave for amending the proposed agreement?
4.5 The allegation, without explanation, that “the amendment inserted by Synod Fergus goes beyond the wording found in the Reformed Confessions” is a serious matter. If this allegation is true, would it not be reasonable and proper for Synod 2004 to do what it had just stated that Synod 2001 should have done (see 4.4 above)? The statements Synod 2004 made in Consideration 4.3(d) and (e) regarding the confessional basis Synod 1998 had for its amendment, contradict those made in Consideration 4.3(a), (b) and (c) (see details at 4.2 above). Synod 2004 should have resolved this contradiction, by interacting with the grounds that Synod 1998 provided and explaining how they went beyond the wording found in the Reformed Confessions. The failure of Synod 2004 to do this does an injustice to the work of Synod 1998 and to the appellants of the Synod 2001 decision.
4.6 Even if the amendments inserted by Synod 1998 into the proposed agreement were beyond the literal “wording” found in the Reformed Confessions, the question which must be considered is whether the amendments went beyond the substance of what we confess. And, more importantly, did the deletion of these amendments by Synod 2001 cause the agreement to fall short of the substance of what we confess? Synods 2001 and 2004 do not interact with this question, even though Synod 1998 in its Consideration C.3 provides substantial Scriptural and confessional basis for the amendments.
4.7 Instead Synod 2004 responds with the words of Consideration 4.7 that “This present Synod considers that it is not helpful at this point in time to engage in a protracted discussion about the developments from one synod to the next.” It is inexplicable how Synods 2001 and 2004 can effectively maintain the assertion that Synod 1998 went “beyond the wording found in the Reformed Confessions” without an explanation of how or specifically interacting with the grounds that Synod 1998 provided for amending the proposed agreement.
Regarding Synod’s Consideration 4.4.2
4.8 According to Synod 2004's discussion, the concern it expressed with the OPC’s practice is not the same concern that was expressed by Synods 1992 and 1998. The sole concern that Synod 2004 considers is that “in some OPC congregations there is only a general verbal warning.” And that “Therefore, concerning those guests, the second key is not being exercised consistently.” The above statements incorrectly imply that this concern is not serious and that there are other OPC congregations in which the Lord’s Supper is properly supervised.
4.9 I previously quoted the statements of Synod 1992 (see 2.1 and 2.2 above) which indicate how the serious concerns held by every Synod from 1983 to 1992 are “matters which still require resolution for the establishment of full ecclesiastical fellowship.” I also referred to the reasons given by Synod 1998 for amending the proposed agreement (see 2.10 above). The serious concerns alluded to by Synods 1998 and prior, are not recognized as such by Synod 2004. The evidence presented in 2.10 above indicates that we need not expect to find adequate supervision of the Lord’s Supper in any OPC congregation on the basis of the OPC’s official position. No Synod held since 1992 has discovered a change in principle or practice on the part of the OPC, which would remove these very serious concerns.
4.10 Synod 1992 especially requires that “all members are bound by the Word of God in the unity of faith as confessed in the accepted standards” (see 2.1 above). Without providing any grounds, both Synods 2001 and 2004 have implicitly accepted statements that are contrary to this requirement, namely that (a) “the OPC has the right to admit to membership and to the Lord’s table those who do not make profession of the Reformed faith,” and (b) “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 accord with the church’s confession” (see 2.10 above).
Regarding Synod’s Consideration 4.5
4.11 I stated previously (see 2.9 above) that the amendments to the proposed agreement made by Synod 1998 are consistent with what we have agreed to maintain in Article 61 C.O. The deletion of these amendments renders the agreement formalizing the relationship with the OPC inconsistent with Article 61 C.O. The first sentence of Article 61 C.O. states “The consistory shall admit to the Lord’s Supper only those who have made public profession of the Reformed faith and lead a godly life.” It should be noted that Synod 2004 does not explain why the requirements outlined in Article 61 C.O. should now be ignored, bypassed or changed other than as prescribed in Article 76 C.O. In this Consideration Synod 2004 acknowledges the “scriptural and confessional principles” present in the Church Order. Yet it is evident that the statements referred to in 4.10 above, which were implicitly accepted by Synods 2001 and 2004, contradict this first sentence of Article 61 C.O.
4.12 As I have stated earlier (see 4.8 above) the only concern that Synod 2004 considers is that “in some OPC congregations there is only a general verbal warning.” Synod 2004 does not appear to have a concern with permitting the practice of interviewing the guests beforehand, which presumably occurs in other OPC congregations. However Synod 1998 does have concerns, therefore requiring “confirmation of a godly life” (Article 130, Consideration C.3). The practice of interviewing the guests beforehand is not envisioned by either Article 61 C.O. or Rule #4 of the Rules for Ecclesiastical Fellowship. Article 61, C.O. states that “Members of sister-churches shall be admitted on the ground of a good attestation concerning their doctrine and conduct.” Rule #4 of the Rules for Ecclesiastical Fellowship states that “The churches shall accept one another’s attestations or certificates of good standing, which also means admitting members of the respective churches to the sacraments upon presentation of that attestation or certificate” (Acts Synod 1992, Article 50 IV.B.4). With this Rule, Synod 1992 had in mind consistency of practice with Article 61 C.O., so that guests from all churches in Ecclesiastical Fellowship would be dealt with in a uniform manner. Consequently Synod 2004’s failure to maintain the “scriptural and confessional principles,” present in Article 61 C.O. and the above Rule #4, substantiates the allegation of a double standard.
4.13 The practice of interviewing the guests beforehand is not consistent with Scripture and Confession. While it may be possible to hear from the guest that he or she does confess the Reformed faith, the interviewing elders have no means available, without a credible attestation, to determine whether the guest confesses the Reformed faith as the local church confesses and maintains it. Similarly, without a credible attestation, it is impossible for the interviewing elders to confirm whether the guest is leading a godly life (Heidelberg Catechism Q & A 82).
4.14 Consequently it is evident that both the practices of interviewing the guests beforehand and the issuing of a general verbal warning, leave ultimate responsibility to the guest, since the interviewing elders have no means of independently verifying the accuracy of the guest’s answers. This is contrary to the clear intent of Heidelberg Catechism Q & A 82, Article 61 C.O. and Rule #4 of the Rules for Ecclesiastical Fellowship.
4.15 It is also evident that the use of an interview process leads to varying results. The same guest may be admitted to the Lord’s Supper in one congregation but denied admission in another. The resulting lack in uniformity of practice is hurtful to both guests and members of the congregation alike. Members of the congregation and guests will question whether there is indeed true unity of faith at the Lord’s Supper table. The importance of maintaining the unity of faith among the members of the congregation at the Lord’s Supper table will be called into question. It leaves guests with the ability to be admitted to the Lord’s Supper on the basis of their word alone. The ultimate consequence of this interview process is the practice of an open Lord’s Supper table.
Regarding Synod’s Considerations 4.6 and 4.7
4.16 Synod 2004 expressed the objective that “the OPC should become more consistent in how it supervises the Lord’s Table.” Therefore it desires further discussion of these issues as stated in the last part of Consideration 4.7. “The important point is that we continue to engage in a brotherly and forthright discussion with the OPC concerning how the Lord’s Table ought to be supervised along with the matter of confessional membership.” By entering into a relationship of Ecclesiastical Fellowship with the OPC, Synod 2001 has effectively subverted this objective. If Synod has already decided that the method of celebrating the Lord’s Supper in the OPC is no obstacle to Ecclesiastical Fellowship, why would there be a need for further discussion? We have already effectively stated to the OPC, by both our words and deeds, that their practices are acceptable and “based on the Reformed Confessions.” On what ground can Synod 2004 now make the statement in its Consideration 4.6 that “the OPC should become more consistent in how it supervises the Lord’s Table?” Or is Synod 2004 questioning whether the OPC is indeed living up to its agreement?
4.17 Rule #1 of the Rules for Ecclesiastical Fellowship as adopted by Synod 1992, (Acts, Article 50 IV.B.4) states that “The churches shall assist each other in the maintenance, defense and promotion of the Reformed faith in doctrine, church polity, discipline, and liturgy, and be watchful for deviations.” However the statements referred to in 4.10 above, as implicitly accepted by Synods 2001 and 2004, are clearly at variance with this Rule.
4.18 Synod 2004 then makes the statement in Consideration 4.7 that “This present Synod considers that it is not helpful at this point in time to engage in a protracted discussion about the developments from one synod to the next.” This is an unfortunate attempt to sidestep some very critical issues, which were brought to Synod by five churches in the federation.
Regarding Synod’s Consideration 4.9
4.19 In this Consideration Synod 2004 repeats its reference to a Consideration of Synod 1995 (Article 106, Consideration B.3). I have previously shown in 3.6 above how this Consideration is inconsistent with the Recommendations of Synod 1995, but it is also inconsistent with the Considerations and Recommendations of Synods 1992 and 1998.
4.20 This Consideration of Synod 1995 (Article 106, Consideration B.3) is inadequately supported as follows:
a) The Consideration makes an artificial distinction between the “practices” of the OPC and its “confessional documents.”
b) The statement in this Consideration that “The practices with respect to the admission of guests at the Lord’s table, confessional membership, and contact with the CRC have not been proven to undermine the OPC’s confessional integrity as a true Church” directly conflicts with the Considerations and Recommendations of Synod 1992, Article 72 (see 2.1 and 2.2 above).
c) Synod 1995 itself does not take the logical consequence of the above statement, for then it would have immediately extended a relationship of Ecclesiastical Fellowship to the OPC.
4.21 Synod 1998 does not take the logical consequence of the above statement by Synod 1995 either. Instead this Synod considered the decisions of Synod 1992 and Synod 1995, together with new information which was not available to Synod 1995 (discussed in 2.10 above), which rendered the 1995 Consideration obsolete. Consequently Synod 2004's reference to Synod 1995, Article 106, Consideration B.3, as basis for Synod 2001's decision to enter into Ecclesiastical Fellowship with the OPC is inappropriate and misleading.
5. CONCLUSIONS
5.1 On the basis of the above analysis Synods 1992, 1995 and 1998 were in agreement that, due to serious concerns relating to the confessional integrity of the OPC, Ecclesiastical Fellowship with the OPC could not be established.
5.2 On the basis of the above analysis no Synod has identified a change in practice on the part of the OPC to remove the above concerns.
5.3 On the basis of the above analysis Synods 2001 and 2004 did not indicate how previous Synods had erred, in not extending a relationship of Ecclesiastical Fellowship with the OPC. Neither did Synods 2001 and 2004 adequately interact with the reasons previous Synods gave for making the decision of not extending Ecclesiastical Fellowship with the OPC.
5.4 On the basis of the above analysis the decisions by Synods 2001 and 2004 in respect of the OPC contradict the decisions made by the previous Synods.
5.5 On the basis of the above analysis and the material provided by Synod 1998 in its Article 130, Consideration C.3, the decisions by Synods 2001 and 2004 in respect of the OPC are in conflict with Scripture and confession.
5.6 On the basis of the above analysis the decisions by Synods 2001 and 2004 in respect of the OPC are contrary to Article 61 of the Church Order and Rules #1 and #4 of the Rules for Ecclesiastical Fellowship.
5.7 On the basis of the above analysis Synod Neerlandia 2001 did indeed err when it decided to establish a sister church relationship with the OPC.
5.8 On the basis of the above analysis Synod Chatham 2004 did indeed err in sustaining the above decision of Synod Neerlandia 2001 and by not sufficiently interacting with the material which was presented to it.
6. REFERENCES
6.1 Acts of General Synod Lincoln 1992, Article 72
6.2 Acts of General Synod Abbotsford 1995, Article 106
6.3 Acts of General Synod Fergus 1998, Article 130
6.4 Acts of General Synod Neerlandia 2001, Article 45
6.5 Acts of General Synod Chatham 2004, Article 86
6.6 “Explaining what we Confess and Practice, Common Cliches and Popular Fallacies (9)” by Ron Dykstra in Reformed Polemics, Volume 9, Number 10, February 28, 2005