March 10, 2007
The Consistory
Canadian Reformed Church of Abbotsford, B.C.
P.O. Box 66
Abbotsford, B.C.
V2S 4N7
Esteemed Brothers:
Re: Articles 31, 61, 62, 66, 68 and 76 of the Church Order
With concern for the maintenance of the Church Order in the Canadian Reformed Church of Abbotsford we address Consistory regarding the following actions:
Observations:
a) On May 19, 2006 Consistory admitted to the Lord’s Supper a guest it publicly announced was from the URC. It is generally known that the URC do not issue travel attestations. The congregation did not receive official public confirmation that this guest was admitted to the Lord’s Supper on the basis of an attestation prepared in accordance with Articles 61 and 62 of the Church Order. It was subsequently confirmed that no attestation had actually been received.
b) Immediately after celebrating the Lord’s Supper, which was held on November 19, 2006, the Consistory distributed a pastoral letter to the congregation entitled “Ecumenical Relationships.” This letter called “those who are involved in this misguided effort to repent of their divisive ways and to return to full communion with the Abbotsford Canadian Reformed Church….”
c) Consistory wrote a letter dated January 17, 2007 to Br. Richard VanLaar accusing him of sin against the ninth commandment and of being a party to “divisive actions.” Consistory does not provide any proof concerning these allegations.
d) Consistory writes in the same letter, as well as in its letter to Br. J. Vantil dated January 22, 2007, that “Abbotsford consistory and all its office bearers are committed to uphold the Church’s confessions and church order.”
Considerations:
a) 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.” The first observation described above provides evidence that Consistory did not comply with Articles 61 and 62 when admitting persons to the Lord’s Supper. A guest was admitted without an attestation. The official public assurance of the holiness and purity of the Lord’s Supper was compromised that morning and, as a result, concerned members were unable to participate.
b) The second observation described above provides evidence that Consistory does not comply with Articles 66 and 68 of the Church Order. It is clear from the circumstances that Consistory was dealing with what it considered to be a matter of public sin, yet it fails to suspend those involved from the Lord’s Supper in accordance with Article 68. Furthermore, Consistory should have come and sought repentance privately before doing so publicly. In the absence of any private admonitions to those involved, the Consistory’s public call to repentance is clearly in violation of Articles 66 and 68.
c) In addition, since from the Consistory’s perspective these members are guilty of living in sin, the consistory acts contrary to Q&A 82 of the Heidelberg Catechism by not preventing the admission of those “who by their confession and life show that they are unbelieving and ungodly.” Thus, ironically, it further puts into question the purity and holiness of the Table, as “the covenant of God would be profaned and His wrath kindled against the whole congregation.” Surely from the Consistory’s viewpoint, the holiness and purity of the Lord’s Supper should have been seen as compromised by the admission of unrepentant sinners.
d) The third observation described above also provides evidence that the consistory does not comply with Article 31, of the Church Order. The act of withholding Br. VanLaar from the Lord’s Supper effectively denies him his right to refuse to consider settled and binding decisions he has “proved to be in conflict with the Word of God or with the Church Order.” This Consistory action indicates that the “unless” in Article 31 C.O. has now become an “until” in the Canadian Reformed Church of Abbotsford. In order to be admitted to the Lord’s Supper Br. VanLaar is forced to silently acquiesce in the implementation of, what he has proven to be, the practice of an unscriptural unity. Ironicly, in both of Consistory’s letters it states that “we hope and pray that with further discussion of such divergencies, we may in due time come to scriptural unity.” Consistory openly admits that scriptural unity does not exist and yet persists in the practice of an unscriptural unity without doing anything about it!
e) In their book Decently and in Good Order, (see pages 63 and 64) Prof. K. Deddens and Rev. G. VanRongen state that "After one has gone the full ‘ecclesiastical way’ - from the consistory to the classis, from the classis to the regional synod, and from the regional synod to the general synod - one has either to except the latest decision as yet - which does not create any insurmountable difficulties whenever it is not a matter of conscience - or he has to ‘liberate’ himself from the binding decision." They continue by stating that "The latter way had to be followed when the general synod of the forties in the Netherlands took decisions which were indeed in conflict with the Word of God and with the Church Order, and when they interpreted the word ‘unless’ in Article 31 as ‘until’ - which does not make any sense as we have shown in the above lines, and led to moral constraint." (our emphasis).
f) Consistory’s letter does not consider the scriptural obligation of Br. VanLaar to ‘liberate’ himself from binding decisions he has “proved to be in conflict with the Word of God or with the Church Order” (Article 31 C.O.). The letter from Consistory does not consider that his scriptural obligation also requires him to publicly testify against the practice of an unscriptural unity. This is what Br. VanLaar has done via letters to Consistory and publicly via the web site. Br. VanLaar is fulfilling his scriptural obligation by providing a faithful testimony against the unscriptural ecclesiastical decisions. It is Consistory’s task to prove where Br. VanLaar has acted contrary to Scripture prior to withholding him from the Lord’s Supper.
g) Although Consistory has accused Br. VanLaar of “divisive actions,” it is, in fact, Consistory that is guilty of divisive actions as a result of its non-compliance with Articles 31, 61, 62, 66, 68 and 76 of the Church Order as indicated in the above Observations (a) through (c). How then can Consistory accuse those who strive to maintain adherence to the Church Order of being guilty of “divisive actions?”
Therefore, in accordance with its commitment described in Observation (d) above we hereby request that Consistory acknowledge its error in admitting a guest to the Lord’s Supper without an attestation, withdraw its public call to repentance of concerned brothers in the church, and rescind its withholding of Br. Richard VanLaar from the Lord’s Supper table.
Brothers, we hope and pray that these matters will be resolved to the preservation of His Church here in Abbotsford. We wish you the Lord’s blessing upon your deliberations.
Yours in His service,
John Vantil Ann Vantil