Canadian Reformed Church of Aldergrove

Box 809, Aldergrove, British Columbia V4W 2V1

March 22, 2009

To the congregation:

Last week, most if not all the communicant members of the congregation received a letter from br. Maurice Vantil in regard to the Christian discipline exercised toward him.

In the second paragraph of his letter, br. Vantil mentions a number of "issues."  While the elders do not wish to enter into public debate with br. Vantil about these so-called "issues," the following points are important for the congregation to keep in mind:

• Br. Vantil joined the Aldergrove congregation well after the Council decided to use only grape juice.  In addition, a number of our assemblies have determined that while wine should be the norm, the leaders of local churches have the freedom to implement exceptions to the norm in the manner they deem best.
• In regard to guests at the Lord's Table, the Consistory is fully committed to Article 61 of the Church Order. We admit to the Lord's Table only those of our congregation who have made public profession of the Reformed faith and in regard to guests, we admit members of sister churches who present a good attestation concerning their doctrine and conduct. Br. Vantil has not shown that we have deviated from this rule of the Church Order.
• In regard to the covenantal status of our children, the Consistory fully abides by what the Church confesses in Article 34 of the Belgic Confession and in Lord's Day 27 of the Heidelberg Catechism. Br. Vantil's concerns in this regard revolve around a sermon heard in Aldergrove on Galatians 5:25 about 2.5 years ago. He felt that the sermon contained teaching in conflict with what the church teaches about the covenantal status of children. Since that time, however, the Consistory, Classis Pacific East and Regional Synod West have judged br. Vantil's understanding of the sermon in question to be unwarranted.
• In regard to the issue of blasphemy, br. Vantil is alluding to a sermon preached in our midst on Lord's Day 36. In this sermon, it was stated that it is blasphemous to link the Name of the Lord to your own cause. For example, it was blasphemous for the pope to excommunicate Dr. Martin Luther in the Name of the Lord. Similarly, said the sermon, it is blasphemous to call people in the Name of the Lord to leave the Church of God when the issues involved are matters of opinion and interpretation and not the plain and confessed meaning of the Word of God.  In this sense, the actions of the separated groups in Lynden and Abbostford can be described as blasphemous.  It should be noted that both Classis Pacific East and Regional Synod West have rejected br. Vantil's appeals in regard to this sermon.

In the third paragraph of his letter, br. Vantil wrongly states that he is under discipline for attending the "Liberated Reformed Church at Abbotsford." In reality, he is under discipline because he does not diligently attend the worship services and despises the proclamation of God's Word in the congregation of which he remains a member. Br. Vantil did not even tell the Consistory that he would no longer attend our services nor did he inform us in any formal way that he would be attending the "services" of the schismatic group in Abbotsford.  He simply disappeared from our services and it was left up to the elders to find out his whereabouts. Such conduct is unbecoming for a communicant member of the church, particularly for one who professes such a high regard for the Church Order and the confessional documents of the church.

Still in the paragraph entitled "Discipline," br. Vantil refers to a decision of the consistory "not to recognize the liberated groups."  Consistory has never made such a decision for the reason that the matter was never on our table. We have not officially been informed that these schismatic groups are instituted churches nor have we been properly informed as to whether or not br. Vantil is a member of one of them.

As brother Vantil points out with his quotation from Prof. C. Veenhof, when consistories and/or Synods make decisions which are in conflict with the Word of God, church members have the right to separate from such teachers and assemblies while they follow a process of appeal in the assemblies of the churches (Classis, Regional Synod, General Synod), However, br. Vantil's quotation from Prof. Veenhof is incomplete.  The rest of Veenhof’s sentence reads as follows: "At least if the matter in dispute is of sufficient importance, and if it cannot be temporarily put aside in any other way" (page 163).  Consistory is convinced that the matters raised by br. Vantil are not sufficiently important and neither are they of such a nature that they cannot be temporarily put aside by br. Vantil.  The Consistory holds this view on the following grounds:

• Br. Vantil has not convinced the consistory that his conscience would be violated by remaining with the church of which he is a member.
• The issues raised by br. Vantil have been dealt with not only by the Consistory but also by the broader assemblies of the church and his concerns have not in any way been validated by these assemblies.
• Br. Vantil's main issue with Consistory has been the Consistory's acceptance of many decisions of our Synods in regard to sister churches, especially the OPC, the RCUS, the URCNA, the ERQ and the RCNZ.  He believes that by accepting these churches as sister churches, the Canadian Reformed Churches have deeply compromised themselves since, in his view, these various sister churches do not have a proper view of confessional membership nor do they properly supervise the Lord's Table.  The congregation should understand that these are not new accusations but have been on the agenda of our General Synods on many occasions.  In each case, the Synods have judged these concerns to be unfounded.  Consistory believes that the Canadian Reformed Churches have been careful and discerning in their ecumenical relationships and that these new bonds are enriching for us. In no way do these ecumenical relationships prevent us from maintaining our own confessions and Church Order.

On the basis of the above, the Consistory encourages the members of the church to read the letter of br. Vantil with care and to consider the writings on the calltoreform website with caution.  Br. Vantil is guilty of sinful behaviour and needs to repent of it in order to experience God's renewed blessing upon his life. Please do urge him to be reunited with the congregation of which he is a member.

Yours in Christ,

On behalf of the Aldergrove Consistory

B. Vane, Vice Chairman