The Process of Appeal in Abbotsford regarding the Requirement for
Attestations and the Withdrawal of Appointment to the Office of Elder

The material below is presented to show how certain provisions of the Church Order are no longer being complied with. This non-compliance is due to the establishment of relationships of ecclesiastical fellowship with churches that fundamentally differ from us on the points of supervision of the Lord's supper, confessional membership and the pluriformity of the church.

May 14, 2006 The Consistory of the Canadian Reformed Church at Abbotsford made the following statement in the local church bulletin dated May 14, 2006:
Next week Sunday, we hope to celebrate the Lord's Supper during the morning service. If you have visitors who would like to partake, please remind them to provide the elders with a written travel attestation or else with enough time to obtain a verbal attestation from their home congregation.

May 19 & 20, 2006 Three concerned members of the Canadian Reformed Church at Abbotsford address Consistory regarding the above statement. See the text of their letter here & here.

May 21, 2006 Abbotsford Consistory admits a member of the United Reformed Churches to the Lord's Supper without an attestation, contrary to the Church Order. As a result of this admission a brother in the congregation who had been elected and appointed to the office of elder could not in good conscience participate in the celebration of the Lord's Supper.

June 11, 2006 Abbotsford Consistory withdraws the above brother's appointment to the office of elder.

June 21, 2006 Two concerned members of the Canadian Reformed Church at Abbotsford address Consistory regarding the above withdrawal of appointment. Reference is made in this letter to their letter dated May 19, 2006 as supporting documentation. See the text of their letter here.

July 14, 2006 Abbotsford Consistory responds to the above letter of the two concerned members but does not adequately interact with the material. To this point, Consistory does not interact with the May 19, 2006 letter and the material regarding Article 31 and 61 C.O. See the text of the Consistory response here. You will note that the following points raised by consistory are not relevant:
a) the consistory asserts, but does not prove from the Church Order that there is a requirement to formally appeal unscriptural ecclesiastical decisions;
b) the consistory does not consider that the brother in question is unable to sit at a Lord's Supper that has become impure due to the improper admission of a guest; and
c) the consistory does not prove that it admitted a member in good standing of an acknowledged sister church.

August 15, 2006 The two concerned members appeal the above Consistory response to Classis Pacific East. See the text of the Appeal here.

August 24, 2006 Abbotsford Consistory responds to the letter of the two concerned members dated May 19, 2006. See the text of the Consistory response here.

Sept. 14, 2006 Classis Pacific East denies the above Appeal regarding the withdrawal of appointment to office, but does not adequately interact with the material. Classis also does not interact with the May 19, 2006 letter or with any of the material regarding Articles 31 and 61 C.O. The irrelevant points in Consistory's response listed above were taken over by Classis even though these points do not address the material the appellants originally submitted to Consistory. See the text of the Classis response here.

Further material discussing Article 61 C.O. has been included in a letter to Abbotsford Consistory by four concerned brothers dated December 11, 2006 (on this web site - see the section entitled "Regarding Consistory's Point 3 of its February 4, 2006 letter").

Considering that resolution of the above practical matters has been linked by Consistory to resolution of matters involving the establishment of a relationship of ecclesiastical fellowship with the OPC and URC, further steps in the appeal process on these practical matters are redundant.