September 18, 2006

<addressed to each individual appellant>

Dear brother <appellant>:
Please note that Classis Yarrow September 14, 2006 has made the following decision about the appeal you submitted, as recorded in Article 6 of the Acts of this classis:

Article 6 - Correspondence Received

The following appeals were dealt with in closed session.
c. Appeal August 9, 2006 of brs. F.M. Flokstra, M. Thalen, J. VanLaar, and J. VanTil against Consistory of Abbotsford.

This appeal was considered admissible. The brothers requested Classis to determine that the consistory of Abbotsford was deficient in its interaction with material they had presented to it previously.

Classis Observed:

1. Appellants request classis to judge that Consistory Abbotsford is remiss in upholding Articles 22 & 27 CO because consistory did not, in appellants' opinion, interact properly with the entirety of their submission to consistory re: interchurch relations.
2. Appellants had brought the same complaint to previous classis. Classis found that appellants brought to classis a matter that had not been finished in the minor assembly, i.e. consistory's failure to abide by Articles 22 & 27. Appellants provide evidence that they have addressed consistory on consistory's task in respect of Articles 22 & 27.
3. The content of appellants' complaint revolves around their conviction that Abbotsford consistory should not accept the decision of Synod Chatham about Abbotsford's appeal to that Synod re OPC. Instead, consistory should (appellants feel) liberate the congregation from that decision and appeal it. They come to consistory with numerous arguments for this course of action.
4. In consistory's reply, consistory picked out the main concern of the brothers, and interacted with it.
5. In further correspondence with consistory, appellants do not interact with consistory's response; they instead state that the consistory did not interact with every argument they brought forward. They now request classis to fault consistory for not interacting with every argument.

Classis Considered:

1. Article 22 CO lists "the specific duties of the office of elder," including his task as overseeing doctrine and life in the midst of the congregation. Article 27 focuses on the need for the ministers and the elders "to ward off false doctrine and errors." In the context of this appeal, appellants fault the elders for not guarding the congregation sufficiently against false doctrine and errors by not resisting the decisions of Synod Chatham re OPC.
2. Consistory replied to the appellants' letter of October 4, 2005 with a letter dated February 4, 2006. In this letter Consistory states, "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 reflection about them." Consistory proceeds to give an answer to the main points of appellants' letter. This approach is reasonable, lest one get mired in detail and so lose sight of the main point.
3. Appellants in turn wrote to Consistory on April 12, 2006. In their letter, however, appellants did not interact with what consistory wrote on February 4; instead, appellants presented consistory with a list of items the consistory failed (in their opinion) to address. This is an unreasonable reply.
a. Appellants have not shown that the consistory missed their main concern.
b. Appellants have not shown that the consistory's answer was Biblically deficient.
As it is, consistory answered the brothers (one would assume) in good faith, seeking the best way to serve the brothers with a good answer.

Classis Decided: Not to grant appellants' request.

The delegates of the church of Abbotsford abstained from voting.

In Christ's service, on behalf of Classis,

Rev. J. Moesker, clerk e.t.
5600 MacDonald Rd.
Vernon, BC V1B 3L2