MORNING SESSION - WEDNESDAY, MAY 20, 1998

Article 114

Reopening

The chairman asks that Psalm 82: 1, 2 be sung, reads from 3 John, and leads in prayer. Roll call shows that all are present.

Article 115

Adoption of the Acts

Articles 100 - 113 of the Acts, pertaining to May 19, 1998 are adopted.

Article 116

Appeals from Barrhead, Coaldale and Taber re Denver

Committee III presents their proposal re these appeals. After a round of discussion, the Committee takes the matter back for further consideration.

ARTICLE 117 WAS IN CLOSED SESSION

EVENING SESSION - WEDNESDAY, MAY 20, 1998

Article 118

Reopening

The chairman asks that Hymn 41: 1, 4 be sung. Roll call shows that all are present.

Article 119

Grand Rapids Appeal re the Free Church of Scotland

Committee III presents: Agenda items III S, T, U.

1. MATERIAL:

   Three appeals from the Church at Grand Rapids re:1. The Free Church of Scotland and the Scots Confession

   1. The Free Church of Scotland and the issues of Lord's Supper and Confessional membership.

   2. The Free Church of Scotland and Rule 5 for Ecclesiastical Fellowship

2. ADMISSIBILITY

   Synod decides that the appeals of the church at Grand Rapids are admissible.

3. OBSERVATIONS

   1. The church at Grand Rapids requests Synod 1998 to judge:

      1. That the decision to establish Ecclesiastical Fellowship with the FCS be rescinded.

      2. That an explanation and apology be sent to the FCS…

      3. That we reaffirm to the FCS our desire to continue contact with them with a view to resolving the differences between us so that full ecclesiastical fellowship can be established.

      4. That the CRCA be instructed to discuss these issues with the FCS and report to another General Synod.

   2. This request is based on the fact that the FCS holds teachings (civil magistrate, the doctrine of the church), and practices (fencing of the Lord's Supper, and confessional membership) which are in conflict with the Scripture and our confessions. According to the church at Grand Rapids "the OPC's objection to the double standard…" in the face of the information available, reflects their understanding that the variation in practice is not a difference in principle.

   3. The substance of the first two appeals is identical to appeals which were made to Synod Abbotsford 1995. Synod 1995 denied the appeals of the Church at Grand Rapids based on the following considerations:

      1. "The requests to rescind the decision to have Ecclesiastical Fellowship or to declare that Ecclesiastical Fellowship with the FCS and PCK was premature is based on the assumption that these two federations have the same position as the OPC which to date has prevented Ecclesiastical Fellowship with the OPC. This assumption has been addressed under Consideration A.1.b." (Synod 1995, Article 106, Consideration D.2)

      2. " ...information available to Synod regarding the Lord's Supper, indicates that there are different practices with regards to the supervision of guests at the Lord's Table in the FCS compared to the OPC (see Acts 1989, p. 161; Acts 1992, p. 126; see also Report CCOPC II.B.4)." (Synod 1995, Article 106, Consideration A.2)

      3. "With respect to the doctrinal point about the civil magistrate raised by the church at Grand Rapids, it should be kept in mind that this issue is not fully resolved in our own federation (see the words in brackets in Art. 36 of the Belgic Confession). The opinion that the views of the role of the civil magistrate expressed in the Scots Confession as well as in the Westminster Confession are contrary to Scripture and our Confession, is not proven by the conclusion that these views are not taught in the Three Forms of Unity. Further, with respect to the doctrine of the church, it is uncertain what edition was used. The two editions consulted do not agree with the quote 'Then wherever these notes are seen and continue for any time, be the number complete or not, there beyond any doubt is the true Kirk of Christ.' Instead, it reads, 'Wheresoever, then these former notes are seen, and of any time continue, (be the number never so few, about two or three) there, without all doubt, is the true Church of Christ; who according to his promise is in the midst of them: Matt. xviii.19, 20' This sheds a different light on the matter."

   4. The church at Grand Rapids finds it impossible to consistently fulfil our obligation under Rule 5 of Ecclesiastical Fellowship: "the churches shall open their pulpits for each other's ministers in agreement with the rules adopted in the respective churches." Discomfort with maintaining this rule stems from the fact that the church at Grand Rapids is of the opinion that what the Scots Confession teaches about the church and the civil magistrate is in conflict with Scripture and confession.

4. CONSIDERATIONS

   1. General Synod agrees with the church at Grand Rapids when it states that General Synod 1995 "erred in thinking that the differences in editions of the Scots Confession referred to in their response altered the considerations of Grand Rapids." General Synod 1995 does not substantiate the statement "This sheds a different light on the matter".

   2. The church at Grand Rapids is incorrect that the practice of fencing the Lord Supper in the FCS is similar to the OPC. They fail to observe that in the FCS the practices surrounding the admission to the Lord's Table are implied to be alike for members and guests (see Synod Winnipeg 1989, p. 161, 5.2, Synod Lincoln 1992 p. 126, and confirmed by the Proceedings of the ICRC 1993, Report for Theological Affirmation p.80).

   3. There is no justification for reversing the decision to have Ecclesiastical Fellowship simply on the basis of third party information. Furthermore, previous synods have stated the doctrine of the church is not an impediment to Ecclesiastical Fellowship (Acts Synod 1995 Article 106 V C 5). The CRCA could, however, be instructed to seek further clarification on the practice of confessional membership, the doctrine of the church, and the position of the civil magistrate in relationship to the church.

   4. The church at Grand Rapids misrepresents and misinterprets Rule 5 of Ecclesiastical Fellowship when they turn what is optional into an obligation. The actual reading of rule 5 is as follows: "the churches shall in principle, open their pulpits for each other's ministers in agreement with the rules adopted in the respective churches." In the actual application of the rule every local consistory has the option of inviting a guest minister from within our federation and from those churches with whom our churches have Ecclesiastical Fellowship.

5. RECOMMENDATION

   Synod decide to deny the appeals of the church at Grand Rapids.

ADOPTED

Article 120

CRCA on Free Church of Scotland and the Presbyterian Church of Korea

Committee III presents: Agenda Item I D.

1. MATERIAL

   Report of the CRCA on the Free Church of Scotland and the Presbyterian Church in Korea

2. INTRODUCTION

3. Synod 1995 gave the CRCA the following mandate:

   1. To continue a relationship of Ecclesiastical Fellowship with the the Presbyterian Church in Korea in accordance with the adopted rules.

   2. To mandate the CRCA to investigate the suggested exchange of professors between Hamilton and Pusan (Acts 1995, Art 101, II, C, 2, 3).

   3. To continue a relationship of Ecclesiastical Fellowship with the Free Church of Scotland ...in accordance with the adopted rules. (Acts 1995, Art. 101, II, C, 2)

4. OBSERVATIONS

   1. Regarding the Presbyterian Church in Korea

      1. The CRCA reports that even though they have received regular letters of invitation to attend the General Assembly of the PCK they have no longer been receiving an English summary of the PCK's decisions and activities.

      2. From the Acts of sister churches in Australia and the Netherlands as well as from the impressions received at the ICRC in Seoul it would appear that the PCK continues to conduct herself as a faithful church of Jesus Christ.

      3. The CRCA recommends that a relationship of Ecclesiastical Fellowship be continued and that every attempt be made to improve communications between our respective churches.

   2. Regarding the Free Church of Scotland

      1. According to a policy of the CRCA of deputizing ministers and professors if their trips abroad coincide with a major assembly of a sister church, Rev. K. Jonker was delegated to attend the General Assembly of the FCS in 1996.

      2. For some time the FCS has been involved in a controversy regarding the person of Prof. D. Macleod. Apparently criminal charges were brought against him and this resulted in much unrest in the Church with members and ministers taking sides. In the fall of 1996 Prof. Macleod was acquitted of all charges. Steps were taken by the 1997 General Assembly to promote healing in the Free Church.

      3. At the General Assembly in 1997 it was decided that "the teachings commonly known as Theonomy or Reconstructionism contradict our subordinate standard, the Confession of Faith and are inconsistent with our supreme standard, the Bible, particularly on the question of the expiry of the judicial laws."

   3. The CRCA recommends:

      1. that Ecclesiastical Fellowship be continued with the Free Church of Scotland under the adopted Rules.

      2. that it be charged to express the prayerful support of the Canadian Reformed Churches of the Free Church of Scotland as it enters into what will hopefully be a time of healing and reconciliation.

5. CONSIDERATIONS

   1. The CRCA correctly draws Synod's attention to the lack of communication with the PCK. For a relationship of Ecclesiastical Fellowship to function properly there must be meaningful communication.

   2. Synod 1995 mandated the CRCA to investigate the suggested exchange of professors between Hamilton and Pusan. There is no evidence in the report of the Committee that this mandate was fulfilled. In all likelihood the lack of communication contributed to this. The CRCA should as yet be instructed to complete this part of their mandate.

   3. The CRCA did not have to wait for a mandate of Synod to express the prayerful support of the Canadian Reformed Churches for the Free Church of Scotland. It may have been better if the CRCA had informed the churches in our federation about the unrest within the FCS so that our local congregations could have prayed about these concerns.

6. RECOMMENDATIONS

   1. Synod decide to give the CRCA the following mandate:

   2. With regard to the PCK:

      1. To continue a relationship of Ecclesiastical Fellowship with the Presbyterian Church in Korea in accordance with the adopted rules (Acts 1995, Art. 101, II, C, 2).

      2. To mandate the CRCA to investigate the suggested exchange of professors between Hamilton and Pusan (Acts 1995, Art 101, II, C, 2, 3).

      3. That every attempt be made to improve communications between our respective churches.

   3. With regard to the FCS:

      1. To continue a relationship of Ecclesiastical Fellowship with the Free Church of Scotland in accordance with the adopted rules (Acts 1995, Art. 101, II, C, 2).

      2. To express the prayerful support of the Canadian Reformed Churches of the Free Church of Scotland as it enters into what will hopefully be a time of healing and reconciliation.

ADOPTED

Article 121

Bible Translations

Committee IV presents: Agenda items I.G, IV.V, IV.X

1. MATERIALS:

   1. Report from the Committee on Bible Translations (CBT)

   2. Letters from the Canadian Reformed Churches at Elora and Taber

2. INTRODUCTION:

   1. General Synod Abbotsford 1995 (Acts, Art. 72,V.D) gave the Committee on Bible Translation the mandate to pass on valid concerns about the NIV text to the NIV Translation Center. According to the mandate, the concerns may come from any of three sources:

      1. correspondence from churches and/or members;

      2. previous synod reports as well as the committee's reports and its appendices;

      3. letters sent to Synod Abbotsford expressing concerns about certain Bible passages.

3. OBSERVATIONS:

   1. The CBT met nine times, primarily to deal with concerns about the publication of a gender-inclusive version of the NIV.

   2. The CBT sought further information about this new version before it began to carry out its own mandate, because it seriously questioned "whether we would be interested in participating in improving an inclusive language edition" of the NIV.

   3. On May 27, 1997, the International Bible Society (IBS) announced the cancellation of the whole inclusive language project. At the same time it announced that "there are no further plans for a further revised edition."

   4. Upon further enquiries, the CBT learned from the NIV Translation Center that the normal refining process of the NIV will continue. It is only subsequent to this that the CBT actually began to carry out the mandate that it received at General Synod Abbotsford 1995.

   5. As a result of the CBT's review of reports submitted to previous General Synods, five matters were brought to the attention of the NIV Translation Center for minor changes to the text.

   6. As a consequence of the seventeen letters that were sent to General Synod Abbotsford 1995 and subsequently passed on to the CBT, five more matters were brought to the attention of the NIV Translation Center for minor changes to the text.

   7. Since 1995 only one item of correspondence was received from a member of one of our churches. The CBT was not persuaded that any matters that were raised in this letter should be sent to the NIV Translation Center.

   8. The CBT reports that "we can wholeheartedly confirm the recommendation of the former Committee on Bible Translations, and the decision made in Article 72 of the Acts of General Synod Abbotsford 1995."

   9. The CBT suggests that if General Synod deems it necessary to appoint a new committee, it should include a member with expertise in English linguistics who can help the committee grapple with the inclusive language issue.

   10. The consistory of the church at Elora expresses thankfulness to the CBT for taking upon itself the responsibility of looking into the matter of a 'gender-inclusive' edition of the NIV, but urges Synod to consider that the IBS's decision to shelve plans for this edition was not a principial one but rather an economic one. Consistory requests that a new committee be instructed to address the IBS about our principial objections against a 'gender-inclusive' Bible translation, because unless the IBS is convinced that this is wrong, it will only be a matter of time before this issue comes up again.

   11. The consistory of the church at Taber expresses great appreciation for the work of the CBT. In principle, consistory endorses the work of the committee.

4. CONSIDERATIONS:

   1. When the CBT learned that the IBS intended to produce a 'gender-neutral' edition of the NIV, it was appropriate that the CBT dealt with this issue before it began to carry out its own specific mandate. Synod should take thankful notice of this work.

   2. The consequence of this delay, however, is that the CBT did not have time to carry out the mandate that it received: the nine textual matters that were brought to the NIV Translation Center do not appear to be resolved.

   3. Although the CBT only received one submission from the churches since General Synod Abbotsford 1995, it is appropriate that the churches and its members have an address where they can send their concerns.

   4. A committee is needed to monitor the development of the NIV as it is being revised. It would be advisable to include an expert in English linguistics on this committee, not only for confronting the inclusive language issue, but also to help the committee deal with grammatical and stylistic questions.

   5. The fact that the IBS even considered producing a 'gender-inclusive' edition of the NIV is not encouraging. The IBS responded to the negative reaction of mainstream evangelical churches by shelving these plans. It appears that it is not the IBS that has to be convinced that "gender-inclusivity" is wrong. The mainstream evangelical churches in North America will probably decide this issue in the long-term. However the committee should continue to monitor the activities of the IBS in this regard and express our concerns where there is a suitable opportunity.

5. RECOMMENDATION:

   Synod decide:

   1. To thank the CBT for the manner in which they served the churches.

   2. To continue to recommend the NIV for use in the churches.

   3. To continue to leave it in the freedom of the churches if they feel compelled to use other translations that received favourable reviews in the reports.

   4. To reappoint a CBT including one member with expertise in English linguistics if possible.

   5. To give the CBT the following mandate:

      1. to receive comments from churches and/or members about passages in the NIV in need of improvement;

      2. to scrutinize these comments, and pass on valid concerns to the NIV Translation Center;

      3. to bring to a resolution those matters that have already been submitted to the NIV Translation Center;

      4. to monitor developments in the NIV as the text is revised;

      5. to serve the next General Synod with a report to be sent to the churches at least six months prior to the beginning of Synod.

ADOPTED

Article 122

Appeals Regarding Bible Translations

Committee IV presents: Agenda item: III.J, III.AA.

1. MATERIAL:

   Appeals from the churches at Elora and London regarding Acts of General Synod Abbotsford 1995, Art. 72.

2. ADMISSIBILITY:

   These are appeals against a decision of a previous General Synod. They are declared admissible.

3. OBSERVATIONS:

   1. The church at Elora appeals the decision of General Synod Abbotsford 1995 "to recommend the NIV for use within the churches" (Art. 72.V.b).

   2. The church at Elora requests that General Synod:

      1. Rescind the decision of General Synod Abbotsford to recommend the NIV for use in the churches.

      2. Form a new committee to study and recommend another translation to General Synod 2001, possibly giving attention to the NKJV since most of our sister churches in Australia use the NKJV.

   3. This request is based upon three arguments:

      1. A lack of confidence in the NIV. The report to General Synod Smithville 1980 as well as the observations, considerations and recommendations recorded in the Acts of that synod spoke highly of the RSV but criticized the NIV. The consistory at Elora feels that "nothing has changed" since 1980, and therefore the criticism against the NIV still stands. The consistory at Elora also notes that although General Synod Abbotsford has recommended the NIV to the churches in 1995, widely diverging evaluations of the NIV continue to appear in Clarion.

      2. The NIV is too free. This was the opinion of the Bible Translation Committee that reported to General Synod Smithville 1980. It was also the opinion of some people who sent letters to General Synod Abbotsford 1995 expressing concern on this matter. This seems to be the result of "the International Bible Society (IBS) desiring readibility and what they think the people and the churches want rather than accuracy." They fear that if the IBS moves towards an 'inclusive-language edition', the present edition of the NIV may not be available for long.

      3. The decision to recommend the NIV has created disunity within the federation and within the churches. Not all the churches have accepted the NIV.

   4. The church at London appeals the same decision of General Synod. This appeal is based on five grounds:

      1. General Synod Abbotsford 1995 failed to interact with the observations and considerations that functioned in the decision made by General Synod Smithville 1980.

      2. There is no "systematic attempt" in the Acts of Synod 1995 to "disprove the criticism of Synod 1980." The mandate of the committee appointed in 1992 was specifically to make use of past studies.

      3. The observations and considerations recorded in the Acts of General Synod Abbotsford 1995 even reiterate some of the criticism and the main concerns of General Synod Smithville 1980.

      4. General Synod Abbotsford acknowledged that the NIV has some weaknesses, but dismisses them with the comment that "there is no such thing as a perfect translation." London is of the opinion that "although this statement as such is true, it does not help in selecting the most faithful translation.."

      5. General Synod Abbotsford did not interact with the objections that Dr. J. van Bruggen raised against the NIV in 1980.

   5. The church at London requests General Synod:

      1. to rescind the decision of Synod 1995 Art. 72, V.B.

      2. to mandate the Committee on Bible Translations to renew their study of the NIV in light of the above-mentioned objections and concerns.

4. CONSIDERATIONS:

   1. The decision of General Synod Abbotsford 1995 was based on an extensive report from the Committee on Bible Translations in which criticism brought against the NIV was addressed. The appellants have not brought up any specific matter which was considered to be important in 1980 but ignored in the report of the Committee of Bible Translations to General Synod Abbotsford 1995 (cf. pages 127,128).

   2. The CBT that reported to General Synod Abbotsford responded to the criticism that the NIV is too free with the observation that "a careful paraphrase is sometimes more accurate than a literal translation." (Quoted from B. Holwerda: Report, page 9; see also appendices 1,3,5,6,9)

   3. Although uniformity of practice among the churches is desirable, this may take some time to develop. In the meantime, those churches that feel compelled to use another translation are free to do so.

   4. The church at London asserts, correctly, that General Synod Abbotsford 1995 did not interact explicitly with the decision of General Synod Smithville 1980. There was, however, interaction with the arguments that Synod Smithville used to reject the NIV (Acts, Art 72.III.B. 2.a,d). The CBT has dealt specifically with past studies (page 23, appendix 5) as well as "voices that were raised against the NIV" (pages 23,24, appendices 8 and 9).

   5. In 1980 both the majority report and the minority report of the Committee on Bible Translations recommended also allowing the use of the NIV in the worship services. This recommendation shows that the standpoint of the committees serving synod 1980 is not far removed from the decision of Synod Abbotsford 1995 recommending the NIV.

   6. It is not true that the Committee on Bible Translations failed to interact with Dr. J. van Bruggen. Reference to his criticism of the dynamic equivalent method of translating is found in the 1995 report (p.36,37).

   7. The assertion that 'there is no such thing as a perfect translation' should not be taken out of its context. It is meant to indicate that weaknesses as such are not a reason to reject a certain translation. This statement functions along with other considerations, leading in totality to the recommendation of the NIV for use in the churches.

5. RECOMMENDATIONS:

   Synod decide:

   To deny the appeals of the churches at Elora and London.

ADOPTED

Article 123

Appeal from London re Rules for Ecclesiastical Fellowship

Committee III presents Agenda item III H.

1. MATERIAL

   Appeal from the church at London regarding Rules for Ecclesiastical Fellowship.

2. OBSERVATIONS

   1. In answering a proposal of the church at London to change the Rules for Ecclesiastical Fellowship as adopted by Synod Lincoln 1992, Synod Abbotsford 1995 states in Consideration 101 VII, B, "the rules for Ecclesiastical Fellowship have been adopted by General Synod 1992 . In order to change these Rules, the church at London must prove that the current Rules are against Scripture, Confession or the Church Order. London does not do this. Therefore Synod cannot do this."

   2. The church at London disagrees with this decision and request that General Synod rescind the decision of Synod 1995 and deal with the original proposal.

3. CONSIDERATIONS

   1. Synod 1995 erred when it answered the submission of London as if it were an appeal. Synod should have declared the proposal inadmissible according to Article 30 of the Church Order.

   2. The church at London fails to follow the proper procedure in regards to this submission.

      1. Prior to Synod 1992 the proposed changes to the Rules for Ecclesiastical Fellowship were submitted to the churches for consideration and evaluation. Any change or objection could be weighed by General Synod.

      2. After the adoption of the Rules for Ecclesiastical Fellowship, churches which desire to propose a change must submit their proposals to classis in order that via the ecclesiastical way the churches again have opportunity to consider and evaluate such changes (Article 30, Church Order). Therefore also the proposal submitted to Synod 1998 should follow this route.

4. RECOMMENDATIONS

   1. To rescind Article 101 VII C of Synod Abbotsford 1995.

   2. To deny the request of the church of London to deal with their original proposal.

ADOPTED

Article 124

Adjournment

Rev. P. Feenstra asks that Hymn 48: 3, 4 be sung and leads in prayer. Synod is adjourned.