We hereby request further consideration of Article 86 of the Acts of General Synod Chatham 2004, on the basis that this Article does not consider decisions of previous General Synods and conflicts with the Word of God and the Church Order, as follows:

Observations

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.

2. The Consistory of the Canadian Reformed Church of Abbotsford had made eleven requests in its Appeal to General Synod 2004 (see attachment to this Appeal).

3. 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. 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.

5. The original document which was presented by the CCOPC to Synod Fergus 1998, to which the CCOPC recommended that Synod 2001 return, and which formed the basis of the actual establishment of Ecclesiastical Fellowship with the OPC, is as follows (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.

6. Synod 1998 (see Article 130, Consideration C.4) amended the proposed agreement as follows (additional words underlined and in bold):

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.

Considerations

Regarding Abbotsford's Appeal to Synod 2004

1. General Synod 2004 does not interact with Consistory's first request to judge whether the CCOPC fulfilled its mandate to Synod 1998 (see also Observations 1, 2 and 3 and Consideration 1 of Consistory's Appeal). Synod's failure to judge this matter compromises its ability to interact with the Considerations Synod 1998 gave for amending the proposed agreement. As a result Synod 2004's answer in Consideration 4.8 does not do justice to the predicament Synod 1998 was placed in by the CCOPC.

2. Synod 2004 does not specifically interact with Consistory's second request, to judge whether the proposed agreement was in accordance with the mandates given by Synods 1992 and 1995. However it does confirm that this was true, by its statement in Consideration 4.7 that "Synod Fergus 1998 brought the statement of Synod Lincoln 1992 into the agreement."

3. Synod 2004 does interact in its Consideration 4.5 with Consistory's third request to 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. Synod correctly states in this Consideration that "Based on Scriptural and confessional principles, a federation of churches agrees to a certain church order so everything can be done decently and in order." However by making this statement Synod 2004 exposes the contradiction in Synod 2001's position and also sidesteps the request Consistory made. If the confessional principles, embodied in Article 61 C.O., cannot be maintained in the relationship with the OPC, then the assertion that a double standard exists must be sustained (see also Consideration 18 below).

4. Synod 2004 does agree in its Consideration 4.2 with Consistory's fourth request to judge that Synod 2001 should have interacted with the reasons provided by Synod 1998 for amending the Proposed Agreement, though it ignores the portion of the request relating to reasons provided by the CCCA, as presented by Consistory in its Observation 7 and Consideration 5.

5. Consistory's fifth request to judge that Synod 2001 made an inappropriate use of Consideration B.3 of Article 106 of Synod 1995, is completely ignored by Synod 2004. As a consequence Synod 2004 does not address the clear evidence Consistory presented in its Consideration 6 (see also Considerations 26, 27 and 28 below).

6. Consistory's sixth request, to judge that Synod 2001, in its Article 45, Considerations 4.11 and 4.12, did not show how actual practice in the OPC reflects its confessional principles, is also completely ignored by Synod 2004. In so doing Synod 2004 does not address the clear evidence Consistory presented in its Considerations 4, 7 and 8.

7. Consistory's seventh request to judge that Synod 2001's use of Article 45, Considerations 4.14 and 4.16, does not do justice to the decisions of previous Synods from 1977 to 1998, is also completely ignored by Synod 2004. In so doing Synod 2004 does not address the clear evidence Consistory presented in its Considerations 9 and 10.

8. Consistory's eighth request to 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, is also completely ignored by Synod 2004. In so doing Synod 2004 does not address the clear evidence Consistory presented in its Consideration 11.

9. Consistory's ninth request to propose to the OPC that we return to the Proposed Agreement as amended by Synod 1998 as the basis for ecclesiastical fellowship with the OPC, was considered by Synod 2004 at various points in its response, but then rejected. The basis for this ninth request is the Considerations in the Appeal which were submitted to support the preceding eight requests. These considerations were not substantively interacted with by Synod 2004.

Regarding Synod's Consideration 4.3
10. The material in Observation 3 above 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 Observation 4) 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.

11. 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?

12. 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 previous Consideration)? The statements Synod made in its 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). 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 as well as to the appellants of the Synod 2001 decision.

13. 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.

14. 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
15. 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.

16. In its Appeal, the Church at Abbotsford quoted the statements of Synod 1992 (see Observations 3 and 4 of the Appeal) which show 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." The Church of Abbotsford also referred to the reasons given by Synod 1998 for amending the proposed agreement (see Consideration 4 of its Appeal). The serious concerns alluded to by Synods 1998 and prior, are not recognized as such by Synod 2004. The evidence presented in Consideration 4 of Abbotsford's Appeal 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.

17. 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" (Article 72, Consideration A.1.e.ii). 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 Consideration 4 of Abbotsford's Appeal).

Regarding Synod's Consideration 4.5
18. As stated previously in the above Consideration 3 and also in Consideration 3 of Abbotsford's Appeal, 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 of the Church Order should now be ignored, bypassed or changed other than as prescribed in Article 76 C.O. In this consideration Synod 2004 does acknowledge the "scriptural and confessional principles" present in the Church Order. Yet it is evident that the statements referred to in the above Consideration 17, which were implicitly accepted by Synods 2001 and 2004, contradict this first sentence of Article 61 C.O.

19. As stated previously (see Consideration 15), the sole 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.

20. 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 (Q & A 82, H.C.).

21. 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.

22. It is also evident that the use of a simple 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
23. 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 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?

24. 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 above in Consideration 17, as implicitly accepted by Synods 2001 and 2004, are clearly at variance with this Rule.

25. On the basis of the above Considerations, it is obvious that Synod 2004's 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" is an unfortunate attempt to sidestep some very critical issues, which were brought to Synod not only by the Church at Abbotsford, but also by four other churches.

Regarding Synod's Consideration 4.9
26. In this Consideration Synod 2004 repeats its reference to a Consideration of Synod 1995 (Article 106, Consideration B.3). Not only was this Consideration shown in the Abbotsford Appeal (Consideration 6) to be inconsistent with the Recommendations of Synod 1995, but it is also inconsistent with the Considerations and Recommendations of Synods 1992 and 1998.

27. 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 Observations 3 and 4 of Abbotsford's Appeal).
c) It is clear that Synod 1995 itself did not take the logical consequence of the above statement, for then it would have immediately extended a relationship of Ecclesiastical Fellowship to the OPC.

28. 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 Consideration 4 of Abbotsford's Appeal), 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.

29. Therefore, on the basis of the above Considerations, Synod Neerlandia 2001 did indeed err when it decided to establish a sister church relationship with the OPC.

Regarding Article 31 C.O.
30. On the basis of Article 31 C.O. the above Considerations show that the decision by Synod 2004 in respect of Abbotsford's Appeal is in conflict with the Word of God and the Church Order.

31. A review of Article 130 of the Acts of Synod 1998 shows an extensive effort by this Synod to determine, consider, summarize and answer the elements of various appeals and overtures from a number of churches and individuals regarding the development of the relationship to the OPC and the work of the CCOPC (the Article covers more than 31 pages). However in 2004 an appeal from a local church does not receive substantial interaction by General Synod, and the collective efforts of five churches receive only a 6 page response. The failure of Synod 2004 to specifically interact with all of the Considerations raised by the Church at Abbotsford, or specifically answer the Requests made by the Church at Abbotsford, is an injustice committed to both the Church at Abbotsford and to the federation of churches in general.

32. The failure of Synod 2004 to specifically interact with all of the Considerations raised by the Church at Abbotsford, or specifically answer the Requests made by the Church at Abbotsford, is an effective denial of the right of appeal the Church of Abbotsford has under Article 31 C.O. Abbotsford's Appeal was indeed declared admissible at Synod, but the substantive non-interaction by Synod with Abbotsford's Considerations and Requests vacates the admission of this appeal. The admission of an appeal to a major assembly obligates this assembly to interact with the scriptural, confessional and church orderly arguments contained in this appeal "out of reverence for Christ" (Ephesians 5:21). Anything less is contrary to Scripture as well as to what we have agreed upon in Article 31 of the Church Order.

33. As a result of the above Consideration, the decisions of Synod 2001 (Article 45) and Synod 2004 (Article 86) regarding the OPC cannot be considered settled and binding as prescribed in Article 31 C.O. Instead, on the basis of the above Considerations, the Church of Abbotsford must liberate itself from these decisions, due to the fact that they are contrary to the Word of God and the Church Order. These decisions may be appealed to the forthcoming General Synod 2007 on the basis of Article 33 C.O. as Synod 2004 did not interact with or consider the grounds (considerations) brought forward in Abbotsford's Appeal.

On the basis of the above Considerations we hereby request Consistory to do the following:

1. To declare that 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.

2. To declare that no Synod has identified a change in practice on the part of the OPC to remove the above concerns.

3. To declare that Synods 2001 and 2004 did not indicate how previous Synods had erred, nor did they interact with the reasons previous Synods gave, in making the decision not to enter into Ecclesiastical Fellowship with the OPC.

4. To declare that the decisions by Synods 2001 and 2004 in respect of the OPC contradict the decisions made by the previous Synods.

5. To declare that the decisions by Synods 2001 and 2004 in respect of the OPC are in conflict with Scripture and confession (Acts, Synod 1998, Article 130, Consideration C.3.).

6. To declare that the decisions by Synods 2001 and 2004 in respect of the OPC are contrary to Article 61 C.O. and Rules #1 and #4 of the Rules for Ecclesiastical Fellowship.

7. To declare that Synod Neerlandia 2001 did indeed err when it decided to establish a sister church relationship with the OPC.

8. To declare that Synod Chatham 2004 did indeed err in sustaining the above decision of Synod Neerlandia 2001.

9. To declare that, in its Article 86, General Synod Chatham 2004 does not substantively interact with either the Requests or the underlying Considerations contained in the Appeal of the Consistory of the Canadian Reformed Church of Abbotsford, and therefore cannot be considered settled and binding by the Church at Abbotsford.

10. To declare that, because of its failure to substantively interact with the material in the Appeal, Synod 2004 failed in its responsibility to the federation and committed an injustice to the Canadian Reformed Church of Abbotsford.

11. Also on the basis of Article 31 C.O., to liberate the Canadian Reformed Church of Abbotsford from the decisions contained in Article 45 of General Synod Neerlandia 2001 and Article 86 of General Synod Chatham 2004 due to the fact that these decisions conflict with Scripture, the Confessions and the Church Order.

12. To appeal the decisions contained in Article 45 of General Synod Neerlandia 2001 and Article 86 of General Synod Chatham 2004 to the next General Synod.