April 5, 2007
The Consistory
Canadian Reformed Church of Abbotsford, B.C.
P.O. Box 66
Abbotsford, B.C.
V2S 4N7
Esteemed Brothers:
Re: Articles 61 and 62 of the Church Order
With concern for the maintenance of the confessions and the Church Order in the Canadian Reformed Church of Abbotsford, I address Consistory regarding the policy of admittance of guests to the Lord’s Supper table as outlined in the local bulletin dated March 25, 2007:
Observations:
1) Consistory has adopted the following policy of admittance of guests to the Lord’s Supper table:
Admittance of guests to the Lord’s Supper
Members visiting from sister churches in the Federation and Churches with whom we have Ecclesiastical Fellowship as agreed upon by Synodical decisions will be admitted to participate in the Lord’s Supper as guest, upon the presentation of a travel attestation. The attestation must be presented on church letter head and signed by two office bearers.
An exception can be made in case of emergency, or short notice, by having the visiting members' pastor sending a signed fax or an email, prior to the Sunday of the celebration. No verbal or personal attestations are to be accepted.
2) Consistory has appealed the decision of General Synod Neerlandia 2001 (Article 45 of the Acts of this Synod) on the grounds that Synod 1998 had additional reasons for amending the proposed agreement which were not interacted with by Synod 2001, (see Article 130, Considerations C.2 and C.3 of the Acts of Synod 1998 as quoted in Consistory’s appeal to General Synod 2004, Consideration 4), 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.
3) In its responses to me dated February 4, 2006 and January 22, 2007 Consistory does not explain how it can accept the decision of General Synod Chatham 2004 in relation to the above appeal when this Synod did not deal with the above ground.
4) Consistory also writes in its letter dated January 22, 2007, that the “Abbotsford consistory and all its office bearers are committed to uphold the Church’s confessions and church order.”
Considerations:
1) Article 76 of the Church Order states that consistories “shall endeavour diligently to observe the articles of this Church Order as long as they have not been changed by a general synod.” Article 61 of the Church Order states 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. Members of sister-churches shall be admitted on the ground of a good attestation concerning their doctrine and conduct.”
2) The Lord’s Supper admission policy described in Observation 1 above contains the following problems:
a) The admission of a guest by means of a travel attestation from a “Church with whom we have Ecclesiastical Fellowship” such as the OPC, puts the Consistory in conflict with Article 61 of the Church Order. The conflict arises on the basis of the unresolved issues presented in Observation 2 above in that it cannot be determined, even from the attestation, whether the guest has indeed made public profession of the Reformed faith.
b) The policy is internally inconsistent when it states that “an exception can be made” when it is clear that Articles 61 and 62 do not provide for such exceptions. Unless the email contains an attachment that is “signed on behalf of the consistory by two of its members” (Article 62 C.O.) it is not a valid attestation. Similarly a fax or email that has only been signed by the visiting member’s pastor is not a valid attestation, since it only has the one signature.
c) The Consistory does not explain what would constitute a “case of emergency.” The Consistory does not explain from Scripture, confessions or Church Order, how such a case could be envisioned.
3) The Consistory has not explained in any of its correspondence why its position as described in Observation 2 above, can no longer be maintained. As indicated in Observation 3 above, Synod 2004 did not provide any grounds to Consistory for its change of position. The position articulated in Observation 2 above is also consistent with Article 61 C.O.
4) Especially considering Consistory’s statement in its January 22, 2007 letter that “we hope and pray that with further discussion of such divergencies, we may in due time come to scriptural unity,” it is inexplicable that Consistory now acts as if we already have this scriptural unity.
Therefore, in accordance with its position as articulated in Observation 2 above and its commitment described in Observation 4 above, I hereby request that Consistory return to the Lord’s Supper policy it agreed to in Article 61 and 62 of the Church Order. On the basis of the above, together with the grounds contained in my March 9, 2007 letter, I also request that Consistory forward the Proposed Appeal as contained in Appendix B of our October 4, 2005 letter to General Synod Smithers 2007, with explanation for the tardiness of this submission.
Brothers, I hope and pray that these matters will be resolved to the preservation of His Church here in Abbotsford. I wish you the Lord’s blessing upon your deliberations.
Yours in His service,
John Vantil