Appeal to Classis Pacific East O9 2006

August 9, 2006

Classis Pacific East - September 14, 2006
C/O Canadian Reformed Church of Yarrow
42285 Yarrow Central Road
Chilliwack, B.C.
V2R 5E3

Esteemed Brothers:

With grave concern for the Truth and the integrity of God's Word, and on the basis of Article 31, C.O. we hereby appeal the responses by the Consistory of the Canadian Reformed Church of Abbotsford to our attached letters dated October 4, 2005, April 12, 2006 and June 7, 2006. These letters are in regard to the extension of a relationship of Ecclesiastical Fellowship with the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) as initially entered into by General Synod 2001, the Appeal to General Synod 2004 which was submitted by the Consistory of the Canadian Reformed Church of Abbotsford, and the response by General Synod 2004 to this Appeal.

It is our position that the responses by Consistory have wronged us by not taking into account a significant portion of the considerations and requests contained in our letters and the attached "Appeal to Consistory of the Canadian Reformed Church of Abbotsford." Therefore we appeal the responses by Consistory as follows:

Observations and Material Referred to in this Appeal

1. We enclose our letter to Consistory dated October 4, 2005 to which we attached 3 appendices as follows:

a) "Appeal to General Synod 2004" as submitted by the Consistory of the Canadian Reformed Church of Abbotsford (Appendix A);
b) "Appeal to the Consistory of the Canadian Reformed Church of Abbotsford" regarding Article 86 of General Synod Chatham 2004 (Appendix B);
c) Article entitled "Joh. Jansen on admittance to Lord's Supper" translated by Rev. R.D. Anderson (Appendix C).

2. We enclose Consistory's response to us dated February 4, 2006.

3. We enclose our letter to Classis Pacific East of March 16, 2006 (postponed to March 30, 2006).

4. We enclose the response from Classis Pacific East of March 30, 2006.

5. We enclose our letter to Consistory of the Canadian Reformed Church of Abbotsford, B.C., dated April 12, 2006.

6. We enclose Consistory's response dated May 23, 2006.

7. We enclose our letter to Consistory of the Canadian Reformed Church of Abbotsford, B.C., dated June 7, 2006, to which are attached the following:

a) Discussion paper detailing the history of contact with the OPC from 1965 to 1989; and

b) Copy of press release of Classis Ontario South held December 9, 1987.

8. We enclose Consistory's response dated July 14, 2006.

Considerations

1. A careful comparison of the Consistory response to our first letter and to the "Appeal to Consistory" will determine that the following issues were not interacted with:

a) Consistory does not interact with concern (a) of our letter. Consistory does not compare the responses of Synod 2004 to the requests of the Consistory which were made to it (see "Appeal to General Synod 2004" and Considerations #1 through #9 of the "Appeal to Consistory"). In this way consistory ignores Request #9 of the "Appeal to Consistory."

b) Consistory does not interact properly with concern (b) of our letter. The central point behind Considerations #10 to #14 and Request #3 of the "Appeal to Consistory" is that Synods 2001 and 2004 did not show how previous synods erred in coming to the decisions that they made.

c) Consistory does not interact properly with concerns © and (d) of our letter. The central point behind Considerations #15 to #17 and Requests #4 and #5 of the "Appeal to Consistory" is that the Reformed Confessions are no longer the basis for admission to the Lord's Supper and no longer the basis for admission to membership in the church.

d) Consistory does not interact properly with concerns (e) and (f) of our letter. The central point behind Considerations #18 to #22 and Request #6 of the "Appeal to Consistory" is that Synod 2004 fails to maintain the "scriptural and confessional principles" found in Article 61 C.O. and Rule #4 of the Rules for Ecclesiastical Fellowship, thereby providing a basis for the unscriptural practice of an open Lord's Supper. Consistory also does not interact with the article attached in Appendix C to our letter.

e) Consistory does not interact properly with concern (g) of our letter. The central point behind Considerations #23 to #25 and Requests #7 and #8 of the "Appeal to Consistory" is that Synods 2001 and 2004, by entering into the present agreement, do in fact accept the present practices of the OPC.

f) Consistory does not interact with concern (h) of our letter. The central point behind Considerations #26 to #29 and Requests #7 and #8 of the "Appeal to Consistory" is to show that Synod 2004 made an inappropriate use of a Synod 1995 consideration in coming to a wrong conclusion.

2. Consistory does not interact with concern (i) of our first letter. The central point behind Considerations #30 to #33 and Requests #9 and #10 is to show how we as appellants, if not the Consistory of Abbotsford, have extremely serious difficulties with the failure of Synod 2004 to interact with all of the requests which were brought to it by the Consistory's "Appeal to General Synod 2004." Under Article 31, C.O. we are unable to accept as settled and binding, a decision which is contrary to the Word of God or the Church Order.

3. In its response Consistory states (4th paragraph) "For consistory to enter into a lengthy response to your appeal does not seem to be the most fruitful use of our time and energy. Instead, we thought we would try to isolate the major points and give our reflections about them." This statement makes clear that consistory has no intention of revisiting the issues that were noted in the above 2 considerations.

4. Articles 22 and 27, C.O. summarize the duties of ministers and elders by stating that they "have supervision over Christ's church," and "are to take care that in the congregation all thing are done decently and in good order, and to tend the flock of Christ which is in their charge." They also "shall use the means of instruction, of refutation, of warning, and of admonition" to "ward off false doctrines and errors which could enter the congregation." The non-interactions by the Consistory of Abbotsford, as discussed in considerations 1 and 2 above, are evidence that the consistory has not fulfilled its pastoral duty to the members of the congregation as summarized in Articles 22 and 27 C.O.

5. In our second letter to consistory we worked with the consideration of Classis Pacific East of March 30, 2006, that "Classis cannot deal with the perceived deficiency of Consistory's interaction with the appellants, since the appellants have not communicated this to the Consistory."

6. The Consistory's response to our second letter did not rectify any of the above deficiencies. Instead the Consistory stated that "Any further dialogue with you about the matters you have raised will be dependent on a proper interaction with the Consistory's letter dated February 4, 2006." The Consistory hereby attempts to shift the focus from the original material we submitted on October 4, 2005 to its inadequate response dated February 4, 2006.

7. Without accepting the legitimacy of Consistory's second response, but in the interest of "engaging" the Consistory on one of its most critical assumptions, "that the OPC is a true church," we addressed Consistory a third time in our letter dated June 7, 2006. To this letter we attached additional information which we hoped would lead Consistory "to reconsider the Consistory responses dated February 4, 2006 and May 23, 2006" (see request (d) of this letter).

8. Instead of responding to the requests brought in our third letter, the Consistory's response dated July 14, 2006 contains a number of incorrect statements as follows:

a) The Consistory incorrectly states that Classis Pacific East "made it clear to you that you need to interact with the Consistory's February 4th, 2006 response." Classis did not do this.

b) The Consistory incorrectly states that we did not interact with its February 4th, 2006 response. The material in the fourth and following paragraphs of our June 7, 2006 letter provides evidence that we did interact.

c) The Consistory incorrectly states that we request them "to appeal decisions of Synod 1977 and 1980." Their study of the material we sent may lead them to this conclusion, however our letter contains no such request.

On the basis of the above we hereby request Classis to make the following determinations:

1. That the Consistory of the Canadian Reformed Church of Abbotsford was seriously deficient in its interaction with the material that we presented to it, in accordance with Articles 22 and 27 of the Church Order.

2. That the Consistory of the Canadian Reformed Church of Abbotsford should still complete its interaction with the material that we presented to it, in accordance with Articles 22, 27 and 30 of the Church Order.

We would appreciate your written response to the above considerations and requests. In the event that you do not agree with any of the above considerations and requests, we would appreciate receiving a detailed response based on Scripture, Confession and Church Order.

Brothers, we sincerely hope and pray that these very serious concerns will be resolved to the benefit of His Church. We wish you all the Lord's blessing upon your deliberations.
Yours in His service,

F.M. Flokstra M. Thalen

J. VanLaar J. Vantil

encls.