<RESPONSE OF THE CANADIAN REFORMED CHURCH AT ABBOTSFORD>
<TO LETTER DATED OCTOBER 4, 2005>

Dear brothers,

We hereby give our response to your letter to consistory dated October 4th, 2005, to which was attached your "Appeal to the Consistory of the Canadian Reformed Church at Abbotsford."

We realize that behind your appeal is a living concern for the well-being of the churches of our Lord Jesus Christ. We respect and we share that concern.

We wrestled with how we could serve you with an answer to your letter in the best possible way. The history of Synodical decisions in regard to the Orthodox Presbyterian Church covers four decades by now and is quite complex. It's easy for church members and consistories to get lost in the details as we trace and compare later synodical decisions with previous synodical decisions and strive to evaluate them all in the light of Scripture, confession and Church Order.

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 reflections about them.

1. You are concerned that the decisions of Synods 2001 and 2004 have left the door wide open for an "unsupervised" or "open" celebration of the Lord's Supper in the OPC as well as among the Canadian Reformed Churches. Your concern is based on the agreement entitled "Concerning Fencing the Lord's Table" which at Synod 2001 became part of the basis for ecclesiastical fellowship with the OPC. Although this agreement does clearly speak about the necessity of "supervising" both members and guests, you find it to he a weak agreement because it does not spell out that a verbal warning is an insufficient form of supervising the Lord's Supper and because it does not specifically mention the necessity of a profession of the Reformed faith and confirmation of a godly life. It seems to us as consistory that this is the heart of your concerns. You are concerned not only about this issue itself but also about the way in which Synod 2001 (and as upheld by Synod 2004) moved away from the approach of Synod 1998 without, in your minds, giving sufficient validation for this change.

2. Consistory wishes to observe that what the Canadian Reformed Churches confess about the proper supervision of the Lord's Supper is found in Q.A. 82 of the Heidelberg Catechism. Q.A. 82 highlights the responsibility of the church to see to that those who are known to be unbelieving and ungodly are not admitted to the Lord's Table. Nowhere do the confessions spell out any procedure as to just how the church must see to it that unbelieving and ungodly people are kept from the Lord's Table. Synod 2001 and Synod 2004 were therefore fully within their rights to base ecclesiastical fellowship with the OPC squarely on what has been confessed by both the Canadian Reformed churches and the Orthodox Presbyterian Church.

3. We notice that you are concerned that the decisions of Synod 2001 and 2004 bring the Canadian Reformed Churches into conflict with Article 61 of the Church Order. Consistory cannot agree with your reasoning on this point. The Church Order, as you know, is an agreement among the churches in the confederation of Canadian Reformed Churches. It is meant to regulate life among the churches of this federation but is not intended to prescribe how sister churches regulate their common life as churches of Christ. While it is true that Article 61 works out one time-tested way of implementing what the churches confess in Q.A. 82, consistory feels that your appeal has not proven that this is the only way and that therefore we must require an identical way of all our sister churches in the world.

4. You also show a concern throughout your letter that the decisions of' Synod 2001 and 2004 are in conflict with Rule #1 and Rule #4 of the Rules for Ecclesiastical Fellowship. However, consistory would like to say that these rules are intended only to govern relationships between sister churches such as the CARC's and the OPC. They are not intended to restrict sister churches of the CARC's to admitting to the Lord's Supper only persons presenting a proper attestation.

For example, Rule #4 states that sister churches will accept each other's attestations.
This agreement makes it unnecessary for us to interview a person who comes to us with a "reference letter" or "attestation" from an OPC session. Rule #4 also binds the OPC to accepting Canadian Reformed persons who present a valid attestation without the need for an interview or examination or profession of faith. The rules about our mutual relationship as sister churches simply don't address what our respective churches should do in regard to believers from other "denominations" who wish to become members or who wish to partake of the Lord's Supper.

5. You are concerned that Synods 2001 and 2004 have deviated from the path set out by previous Synods, especially by Synods 1992, 1995 and 1998. While it is true that previous Synods did speak about the desirability of having an agreement with the OPC that spelled out more than the eventual agreement actually did spell out, consistory is not convinced that any Synod ever stipulated that such an agreement was an absolute prerequisite for entering into ecclesiastical fellowship with the OPC. Right from 1977 onwards, every Synod has upheld the recognition of the OPC as a true church of Christ Jesus. That we now have ecclesiastical fellowship with the OPC cannot be a surprise to anyone. Ecclesiastical fellowship is implicit in the recognition of the OPC as a true church. All that remained after 1977 was to find a proper way of living together as mutual churches of Christ.

6. You are convinced that it would be futile for the Canadian Reformed Churches to address the OPC on the matter of supervising the Lord's Supper in the context of full ecclesiastical fellowship. One might equally question, then, the value of addressing, for example, our Dutch sister churches on matters such as liturgy, the Lord's Day and the marriage Form. In the past, the OPC has shown itself ready to hear the concerns of the CARC's. For example, it was in response to steady pressure from the CARC's that the OPC eventually broke off ecclesiastical fellowship with the CRC.

7. Consistory feels that if you cannot abide with the decisions of Synods 2001 and 2004, then you should present clear proof that the OPC is not a true church of our Lord Jesus Christ. You would have to demonstrate that the OPC is guilty of admitting to the Lord's Table those who are known to be unbelieving and ungodly. This is different than saying that the standards of the OPC in regard to table admission are too low.

8. Consistory notices Holy Scripture is not cited in your appeal. We do not believe that you have shown the decisions of Synod 2001 and 2004 to be against the teaching of the Bible.

For the above reasons, we are not persuaded by your appeal and cannot grant the requests found at the end of your appeal.

We pray that the Lord will guide your hearts and mind as you continue to wrestle with the issues you have raised.


For the consistory,

R. Schouten, chairman J. Dykstra, clerk

February 4, 2006