Appeal to GS Chatam from the Church at Abbotsford

Canadian Reformed Church of Abbotsford
P.O. Box 66, Abbotsford, B.C., V2S 4N7

May 22, 2003

General Synod Chatham 2004
of the Canadian Reformed Churches
C/O Eben-Ezer Canadian Reformed Church
416 St. Clair Street
Box 20084
Chatham, Ontario
N7L 5K6

Esteemed Brothers:

Enclosed please find 22 copies of our Appeal of Article 45, of the Acts of General Synod 2001, to General Synod 2004, as approved by our Consistory.

Kindly acknowledge receipt of this documentation by return mail.

We wish General Synod the Lord's blessing upon its deliberations.

For the Consistory:

Br. C. Leyenhorst,
Vice-Chairman

J. Vantil,
Clerk

APPEAL TO GENERAL SYNOD 2004
Of Article 45 of Acts of General Synod 2001
Regarding the Orthodox Presbyterian Church

We hereby request further consideration of Article 45 of the Acts of General Synod 2001 held at Neerlandia, on the basis that it failed to consider decisions of previous General Synods and it conflicts with the Word of God and the Church Order, as follows:

Observations

1. Considerations provided by Synod 2001 in this Article do not refer to the question of whether the mandate of the Committee for Contact with the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (CCOPC), as established by Synod 1995, was actually completed by this committee for Synod 1998.

2. Synod 1995 (Article 106, Recommendations D.1) decided to continue the Committee for Contact with the Orthodox Presbyterian Church 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;..."

3. The text of the above statement of Synod 1992 (Article 72, Considerations A.1.e) is 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.

4. In order to separate the divergencies which can be discussed within a relationship of ecclesiastical fellowship, from the above issues, Synod 1992 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;..."

5. Synod 1998 (Article 130, Considerations C.1,2 and 3, and Recommendations F) documented the difficulties it encountered in working with the proposed agreement as presented by the CCOPC. 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 the proposed agreement to take into account the guidelines referred to under Observation 3 above.

6. The CCOPC recommended in its Report to Synod 2001 that Synod "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."

7. 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."

8. 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."

Considerations

1. The proposed agreement as presented to Synod 1998 by the CCOPC did not meet the guidelines referred to under Observation 3 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 (Article 106, Recommendations D.1).

2. The amendments to the proposed agreement made by Synod 1998 were consistent with the mandate given to the CCOPC by Synod 1992, and maintained by Synod 1995, as expressed in the guidelines referred to under Observation 3 above. Therefore it was reasonable for Synod 1998 to make amendments to the proposed agreement.

3. The amendments to the proposed agreement made by Synod 1998 are consistent with what we maintain in Article 61 of the Church Order, where 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." However, by offering ecclesiastical fellowship to the OPC on the basis of the original proposed agreement as drafted by the CCOPC, Synod 2001 maintains a double standard by requiring less from the OPC than it does from ourselves under Article 61 of the Church Order.

4. Synod 1998 had additional reasons for amending the proposed agreement which were not interacted with by Synod 2001, (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" is not consistent with the statements made by Synod 2001 (see Article 45, Consideration 4.12) and therefore requires clarification by the OPC.

5. Other than stating the recommendations of the CCCA in its Observations (see Observation 7 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 above.

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), therefore it is inappropriate that Synod 2001 made use of this consideration without interacting with the decisions of Synod 1995, since it takes this consideration out of context (see also the CCCA Reaction referred to in Observation 7). 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.

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 examine how and whether the actual practice in the OPC (as shown in the speech of Rev. J.J. Peterson to Synod 1998 - see Observation 5) meets the principle.

8. Synod 2001 (Article 45, Consideration 4.12) stated 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 statement by the OPC committee to the CCOPC referred to in Consideration 4(d) is a difference in principle rather than practice. This difference cannot be reconciled to the answer given to the 4th question in the OPC Form for Public Profession of Faith.

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 decision 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).

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."

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." This statement is not consistent with 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?" In addition, how can Synod, with this consideration, go further than the Church Order and speak in general about "points of confession" and not even minor ones? It should also be noted here that this statement is not consistent with Rule #1 of the Rules for Ecclesiastical Fellowship as adopted by Synod 1992, Article 50, which 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."

On the basis of the above we hereby request the following:

1. That Synod judge that the CCOPC did not fulfill its mandate to Synod 1998, as established by Synod 1995, to come to an agreement with the OPC committee within the guidelines referred to under Observation 3 above.

2. That Synod judge that the amendments to the proposed agreement made by Synod 1998 were consistent with the mandate given to the CCOPC by Synods 1992 and 1995.

3. That Synod judge that Synod 2001 maintained a double standard by requiring less from the OPC than it did from ourselves under Article 61 of the Church Order (see Consideration 3 above).

4. That Synod judge that Synod 2001 should have interacted with (a) the reasons provided by Synod 1998 for amending the Proposed Agreement (see Consideration 4 above) and (b) the reasons provided by the CCCA to maintain the amendments to the Proposed Agreement (see Consideration 5 above).

5. That Synod judge that Synod 2001 made an inappropriate use of Consideration B.3, Article 106 of Synod 1995, without interacting with the balance of the decision of Synod 1995, since it took this consideration out of context.

6. That Synod judge that Synod 2001, Article 45, Considerations 4.11 and 4.12, did not show how actual practice in the OPC reflects its confessional principles. These considerations also ignored the "serious nature" of the outstanding matters (see Considerations 7 and 8 above) as they were resolved by Synod 1998, and should therefore be rescinded.

7. That Synod judge that Synod 2001's use of Article 45, Considerations 4.14 and 4.16 do not do justice to the decisions of previous Synods from 1977 to 1998, and should therefore be rescinded.

8. That Synod judge that Synod 2001's use of Consideration 4.17 is not consistent with Article 50 of the Church Order nor Rule #1 of the Rules for Ecclesiastical Fellowship as adopted by Synod 1992, Article 50, and should therefore be rescinded.

9. That Synod propose to the OPC that we return to the Proposed Agreement as amended by Synod 1998, consistent with the guidelines established by Synod 1992 and maintained by Synod 1995, as the basis for ecclesiastical fellowship with the OPC.

10. That Synod document for the benefit of the OPC how the Proposed Agreement as amended by Synod 1998 reflects the confessional standards of both federations, and is consistent with the guidelines established by Synod 1992 and maintained by Synod 1995, as the basis for ecclesiastical fellowship with the OPC.

11. That Synod maintain the present relationship of ecclesiastical fellowship with the OPC, pending a response by the OPC to the above proposal and documentation, and pending consideration of this response by the next General Synod.