By John Vantil
July 28, 2007
Over the last fifteen years, general synods of the Canadian Reformed Churches have established relationships of ecclesiastical fellowship with the churches listed on the main page of this website. In Abbotsford and Lynden concerns were repeatedly raised regarding these decisions and the impact they have on the maintenance of the Reformed confessions, however consistories persisted in accepting these general synod decisions. As a result secessions have occurred in both places.
You may be wondering whether these secessions were really necessary. Could we not simply have agreed to disagree? Moreover, what do the above relationships have to do with maintaining the Reformed confessions in the Canadian Reformed Churches?
As early as Synod 1965 (Acts, Article 141, II) Synod considered that “Correspondence with Churches abroad should not be entered into, until upon a conscientious and serious investigation, it has become apparent that these Churches not only officially embrace the Reformed confession and church polity but also in fact maintain them.” By “correspondence,” Synod 1965 had in mind the eventual establishment of sister church relationships with churches that share the same confession as that of the Canadian Reformed Churches and apply this confession to the life of the churches and the church members.
What is the biblical basis for the above statement? How “conscientious” and “serious” should this investigation be? In I John 4:1 we read “Beloved do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world.” What is the standard and purpose of such testing?
From the beginning of the Canadian Reformed Churches the standard of the Three Forms of Unity was upheld as a faithful summary of Scripture. The scriptural doctrine found in the Reformed Confessions was the glue that bound the churches together. In the Subscription Form (see With Common Consent, Rev. W.W.J. VanOene, page 120) officebearers agree that “we heartily believe and are persuaded that all the articles and points of doctrine, contained in the doctrinal standards of the Canadian Reformed Churches: the Belgic Confession, the Heidelberg Catechism, and the Canons of Dort, do fully agree with the Word of God.” In addition, “we not only reject all errors that militate against this doctrine, but that we are disposed to refute and contradict these and to exert ourselves in keeping the Church free from such errors.”
This standard is also present in the first question in the Form for the Public Profession of Faith, where it is asked: “Do you wholeheartedly believe the doctrine of the Word of God, summarized in the confessions and taught here in this Christian church? Do you promise by the grace of God steadfastly to continue in this doctrine in life and death, rejecting all heresies and errors conflicting with God’s Word?”
From the above quotations it becomes obvious that Synod 1965 had to require clear and compelling evidence that the churches in question believed the Reformed Confessions and upheld them before a relationship could be considered. One would reasonably expect the Canadian Reformed Churches to conduct very careful studies of any churches abroad with which they might consider ecclesiastical relationships, prior to entering into them. One would expect that the ecclesiastical practices of these churches would be consistent with their confessional commitment.
But what has actually happened in the Canadian Reformed Churches? We focus on the history of contact with the OPC since this history so clearly illustrates what went wrong.
At Synod 1998 the Committee for Contact with the OPC presented a proposed agreement regarding confessional membership and the fencing of the Lord’s supper as a basis for entering into a relationship of ecclesiastical fellowship. Since this proposed agreement was seriously deficient, Synod 1998 amended this agreement and provided grounds for its amendments (Acts, Article 130, Considerations C.2 and C.3).
The amendments were a response to the OPC’s claim of the right to “admit to membership and to the Lord’s table those who do not make profession of the Reformed faith” and the OPC’s claim 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 accordance with the church’s confession.”
In addition, the grounds for these amendments were based on a statement by Synod 1992 that “all members are bound by the Word of God in the unity of faith as confessed in the accepted standards” (Acts, Article 72, Consideration A.1.e.ii).
It is important to note that the amendments to the OPC agreement by Synod 1998 are also consistent with what the churches have agreed to in Article 61 of the Church Order. Here we agree 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.”
Without providing any reasons, Synod 2001 deleted these amendments and accepted an agreement that was contrary to the requirement of Synod 1992 that “all members are bound by the Word of God in the unity of faith as confessed in the accepted standards.” Moreover Synod 2001 did not interact with the grounds provided by Synod 1998 for amending this agreement but pushed ahead with the establishment of ecclesiastical fellowship with the OPC.
If people are admitted to membership who do not make profession of the Reformed faith, what has happened to the confessional standard? Has it not been undermined? How can the officebearers “refute and contradict [errors] and exert [themselves] in keeping the church free from such errors”? Can we speak of a “scriptural unity” between the members of the church (see my previous editorial) when the members are not bound to the Reformed confessions? Do we not lose our identity as a Reformed church?
How can we admit to fellowship at the Lord’s Supper members from the OPC and other churches when we do not know whether these people have professed the Reformed faith? Do we not undermine the unity of faith that the consistory is required to ensure at the Lord’s supper? The admission of such guests puts us in conflict with Article 61 of the Church Order. As a condition for continuing in the federation, each consistory has agreed under Article 76 to abide by the Church Order. If we do not know whether a guest has made profession of the Reformed faith, a consistory cannot fulfil its obligation under Article 61 when it admits such a guest.
The recent letter that was sent to the Abbotsford congregation included a “Chronology of Correspondence” which resulted from Synod 2001’s decision to extend a relationship of ecclesiastical fellowship to this church. The first item mentioned in this “Chronology,” is an Appeal by the Canadian Reformed Church of Abbotsford to Synod 2004 regarding this relationship.
The answer of Synod 2004 to the Abbotsford Appeal is contained in Article 86 of the Acts. Synod 2004 admits (Consideration 4.2) that Synod 2001 did not interact with the grounds provided by Synod 1998 for amending the agreement with the OPC. But then Synod 2004 does not interact with these grounds either.
Instead Synod 2004 does something worse. In its Consideration 4.3 Synod 2004 takes over an allegation from the Committee for Contact with the OPC that reported to Synod 2001 that “the amendment inserted by Synod Fergus [1998] goes beyond the wording found in the Reformed Confessions.” This is a serious allegation. It implies that Synod 1998 sought to bind the OPC to more than what we maintain in the Reformed confessions. The acceptance of such an allegation obligated Synod 2004 to do what it had stated Synod 2001 should have done: interact with the grounds provided by Synod 1998!
However, the critical question here is 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 did not interact with this question either, although Synods 1992 and 1998 provided sufficient scriptural and confessional basis for the amendments. Therefore it becomes obvious that the consideration of Synod 1992 that “all members are bound by the Word of God in the unity of faith as confessed in the accepted standards” is no longer being maintained.
The appropriateness of ecclesiastical fellowship with the OPC was raised once again in an Appeal from the Church at Attercliffe to Synod 2007 (see Article 83 of the draft Acts). Attercliffe rightly calls the allegation that “the amendment inserted by Synod Fergus [1998] goes beyond the wording found in the Reformed Confessions” a “false assumption” (Observation 2.4). However Synod 2007’s answer (Consideration 3.3) evades the question by asserting that Attercliffe did not prove their point.
Synod 2007 failed to acknowledge that the above allegation was unproven to begin with. When the Committee for Contact with the OPC came with this allegation in its Report to Synod 2001, it provided no proof. The committee had not interacted with the grounds of the Synod 1998 decision. Synod 2004’s admission that Synod 2001 had not interacted with the grounds given by Synod 1998 shows that this was an unsubstantiated allegation!
It is ironic that throughout the history of contact with the OPC no Synod can provide evidence of a change in OPC practices. Committees have been reporting to general synods ever since 1965, but not one of them has ever reported that the OPC has changed its position 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 accordance with the church’s confession.” Not one has reported that the OPC has taken away the right to “admit to membership and to the Lord’s table those who do not make profession of the Reformed faith.”
The OPC’s position described above is a denial of the normative standard and unifying character of the Reformed confessions. When we accept the OPC on this basis we express acceptance of these practices and we accept their members in our churches regardless of what they actually believe and confess. This is definitely not in accordance with the Consideration of Synod 1965 that “Correspondence with Churches abroad should not be entered into, until upon a conscientious and serious investigation, it has become apparent that these Churches not only officially embrace the Reformed confession and church polity but also in fact maintain them.”
We also cannot continue this relationship on the basis that discussions are ongoing. Carrying on a relationship in this way renders us guilty of accepting the unacceptable. This is a critical failure in Canadian Reformed relations with other churches. After all, whatever we would permit our sisters to do would be permissible for ourselves as well. This is failure to maintain the Reformed confessions.
The evidence on this website shows that the consistories at Lynden and Abbotsford have been addressed repeatedly concerning these matters, but to no avail. The latest response dated May 31, 2007 from the consistory at Abbotsford indicates that it “consider[s] the matter finished.”
What is left to do? Compromise? Accept unscriptural synod decisions? Accept erosion of the Reformed Confessions?
No. We must return to the right path. We must get back into the position we were in before these unscriptural decisions were made.
This is what happened on June 18, 2006 in Lynden, when two concerned brothers called members of the American Reformed Church at Lynden to worship at the premises of the Hofford residence, 320 3rd Street, Sumas, WA.
Return. If we wish to remain faithful it’s the only option we have left.
This is also what happened on July 22, 2007 in Abbotsford, when four concerned brothers and their families gathered for worship at the premises of the Coast Hotel, 2020 Sumas Way.
Return. We must maintain the Reformed confessions.
We pray that many more brothers and sisters will, after prayerful consideration, see their scriptural obligation to join us. We pray that the unity of Christ’s Church both in Lynden and Abbotsford may thereby be restored. We also pray that many more brothers and sisters in the remaining Canadian Reformed Churches may see their task to bring the matter of these secessions before their consistories and congregations, so that all together we may return to worship our Lord in integrity and in truth.