The Aquila Report has received permission from the coordinator of the Web Log that is reporting on the URCNA synod now underway in London, Ontario, Canada on the campus of the University of Western Ontario.

July 29 AM

Overture 15: After the concept minutes were approved, the Synod took up the business of Overture 15 and the advisory committee’s recommendation regarding it. The committee recommended to adopt Overture 15 and that the ratification vote of the churches be accomplished before January 1, 2011.

Overture 15 was a housekeeping overture to perfect the flow and continuity of the Church Order. The recommendation was adopted with a minor amendment to change the end-date of ratification to March 15, 2011.

Overture 6: The committee dealing with CERCU reassignment recommended not to accede to Overture 6 (to reassign CERCU with the “mandate of exploring real or perceived differences of emphasis within the covenant theologies of the respective URC and CanRC federations).

The committee’s grounds were that phase one discussions were completed already and Synod 2001 agreed to move to phase two relations, that differing emphases on the covenant continue to be discussed between the URCNA and CanRC, and that CanRC have offered their explanations over concerns raised regarding point 6 of the Nine Points of Synod 2007.

A member of the classis that sent the overture expressed that the rationale behind the overture was that the churches south of the border are not as able as the Canadian URC churches to dialogue and get to know the CanRC as well, and that the overture sought to encourage more dialogue. One speaker mentioned that the FV controversy has arisen since 2001, and there is a need to return to pre-2001 discussions to revisit it for new discussions. An amendment was passed that would add to the grounds that churches should also continue to be encouraged to have discussions with CanRC. The amendment was passed as well as the main motion.

This means that Overture 6 (which asked Synod to have CERCU revisit phase 1 discussions) was rejected and the URCNA/CanRC status and steps associated with that status remain where they currently are in phase 2.

CERCU recommendations: The recommendations of the committee were similar to that of CERCU with the following changes: that ERQ and RPCNA relations are not moved to phase 2 because of the use of deaconesses in both, that Brian Vos be appointed to CERCU if an alternate is needed, and that elder delegates should also be recommended for appointed for CERCU. The assembly ultimately voted to progress relations with ERQ (Quebec Reformed Church) to phase 2, to table the matter of moving forward with relations with RPCNA (Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America) which means that relations remain in phase 1, to appoint Rev. Bill Pols, Peter Vellenga, Harry Zekveld, and Brian Vos (if needed), to allow local classes to determine the term limits of its classical representatives to CERCU and consider elder delegates to CERCU, to make the editorial changes that CERCU requested, to set term-limits for CERCU at-large members to three 3-year terms, to increase the CERCU budget to $6,000/year, to ratify all request NAPARC relations, to consider all member denominations and federations of NAPARC that the URCNA is not already in phase 1 or 2 with to be in phase 1.

There was an attempt to remove the PCA from the list, but the amendment failed by a large majority, and the PCA will be included in the denominations/federations that will be considered as phase 1 partners.

Appeal #1 Which Seeks to Remove the 9 Points Regarding Justification

Summary of action: The 9 Points of Synod 2007 stand.

There was much debate on both sides, and ultimately the debate centered around what procedures Synod is permitted to take. The author of the appeal defended his appeal by stating that Synod 2007 was asked to respond to an overture to adopt a document of another denomination but because it chose not to do so, and decided, instead, to write it’s own statements, that Synod 2007 was outside of its permitted bounds because the 9 Points were not an answer to a question before them.

This argument was refuted by other delegates who stated that they, too, were at Synod 2007 and also believe procedure is important, but that the claim of the appellee is incorrect, and that the overture to Synod 2007 asked Synod to make 6 declarations in response to FV as well as adopt the RCUS report. One delegate read from the Acts of Synod 2007 as to what the overture asked for, and said that Synod 2007 answered that by deciding not to adopt the RCUS report, but did write the 9 points in response to the request for 6 declarations which was the question before them.

A few procedural motions were attempted, but ultimately, the appeal was voted down, from this observer’s ears by at least 70-30. The 9 Points continue to stand, and churches may continue to use these 9 points about justification for pastoral advice.

A background for those who are completely unfamiliar with the 9 Points of Synod 2007, they are listed below. They are considered “pastoral advice” and are used by Ministers in teaching with congregants.

THE NINE POINTS OF (URCNA) SYNOD (SCHEREVILLE) 2007
Synod affirms that the Scriptures and confessions teach the doctrine of justification by grace alone, through faith alone and that nothing that is taught under the rubric of covenant theology in our churches may contradict this fundamental doctrine. Therefore Synod rejects the errors of those:

1. who deny or modify the teaching that “God created man good and after His own image, that is, in true righteousness and holiness,”” able to perform “the commandment of life” as the representative of mankind (HC 6, 9; BC 14);

2. who, in any way and for any reason, confuse the “commandment of life” given before the fall with the gospel announced after the fall (BC 14, 17, 18; HC 19, 21, 56, 60);

3. who confuse the ground and instrument of acceptance with God before the fall (obedience to the commandment of life) with the ground (Christ who kept the commandment of life) and instrument (faith in Christ) of acceptance with God after the fall;

4. who deny that Christ earned acceptance with God and that all His merits have been imputed to believers (BC 19, 20, 22, 26; HC 11-19, 21, 36-37, 60, 84; CD I.7, RE I.3, RE II.1);

5. who teach that a person can be historically, conditionally elect, regenerated, savingly united to Christ, justified, and adopted by virtue of participation in the outward administration of the covenant of grace but may lose these benefits through lack of covenantal faithfulness (CD, I, V);

6. who teach that all baptized persons are in the covenant of grace in precisely the same way such that there is no distinction between those who have only an outward relation to the covenant of grace by baptism and those who are united to Christ by grace alone through faith alone (HC 21, 60; BC 29);

7. who teach that Spirit-wrought sanctity, human works, or cooperation with grace is any part either of the ground of our righteousness before God or any part of faith, that is, the “instrument by which we embrace Christ, our righteousness” (BC 22-24; HC 21, 60, 86);

8. who define faith, in the act of justification, as being anything more than “leaning and resting on the sole obedience of Christ crucified” or “a certain knowledge” of and “a hearty trust” in Christ and His obedience and death for the elect (BC 23; HC 21);

9. who teach that there is a separate and final justification grounded partly upon righteousness or sanctity inherent in the Christian (HC 52; BC 37).

July 29, PM

Overture 14. This overture dealt with defining Synodical statements to determine what should be considered binding and what should not. The committee’s recommendation was the following:

Recommendation 1 That Synod adopt the following definitions with their explanations of particular types of synodical actions.

1. Doctrinal Affirmations: A Doctrinal Affirmation is an interpretation of the
Confessions on a specific point of their teaching. (Acts of Synod 2004, Article 76.B.b., p 29)

1.1 A Doctrinal Affirmation serves the churches by guiding us back to the Confessions and giving clarification in response to doctrinal questions. The Scriptures, Ecumenical Creeds, and Three Forms of Unity alone may serve as grounds in matters of discipline. (Acts of Synod 2007, Article 67.4, p. 36)

1.2 A Doctrinal Affirmation should be received by the churches with respect and submission, and it should not be directly or indirectly contradicted in preaching or in writing. (Church Order Articles 29 and 31; Form of Subscription)

1.3 A Doctrinal Affirmation may be appealed as outlined in Church Order Articles 29 and 31. (Regulations for Synodical Procedure 3.4 and Appendix B)

2. Pastoral Advice: Pastoral Advice is the application of the Scriptures and the Confessions in response to particular circumstances in the churches.

2.1 Pastoral Advice expresses the collective wisdom of Synod to guide the churches in their pastoral care. It may not serve as grounds in matters of discipline.

2.2 Pastoral Advice should be received with reverence and respect. It would be unwise to contradict or disregard Pastoral Advice in preaching or writing.

2.3 Pastoral Advice may be appealed as outlined in Church Order Articles 29 and 31. (Regulations for Synodical Procedure 3.4 and Appendix B)

3. Study Committee Reports: A Study Committee Report is the response of a Study Committee to the mandate given it by Synod. (Regulations for Synodical Procedure, 3.2 and 5.3.3.a)

3.1 A Study Committee Report, if received by Synod, serves to recommend action by Synod on the basis of grounds. (Regulations for Synodical Procedure 5.3.3.c.3) If these recommended actions call for Synod to adopt Doctrinal Affirmations or to provide Pastoral Advice, these actions should be clearly identified and distinguished as such.

3.2 A Study Committee Report becomes a matter of record in the Acts of Synod. Any Doctrinal Affirmations adopted or Pastoral Advice given by Synod should be received by the churches as agreed in 1.2 or 2.2 respectively.

3.3 A Study Committee Report , as a matter of record, may not be appealed. Synodical actions arising from a Study Committee Report may be appealed as outlined in CO Articles 29 and 31. (Regulations for Synodical Procedure 3.4 and Appendix B)

4. Synodical Judgment: A Synodical Judgment is the answer of Synod to an appeal. (Regulations for Synodical Procedure 3.4; Appendix B, 6 and 7)

4.1 A Synodical Judgment either sustains or denies an appeal on the basis of specified grounds determined to be valid or invalid. (Regulations for Synodical Procedure 3.4 and Appendix B, 6 and 8)

4.2 A Synodical Judgment should be received by the appellants with respect and submission, and shall be considered settled and binding, unless proven to be in conflict with the Word of God or the Church Order (Church Order Articles 29 and 31; Regulations for Synodical Procedure 3.4 and Appendix B, 7)

4.3 A Synodical Judgment may be appealed as outlined in Church Order Articles 29 and 31. (Regulations for Synodical Procedure 3.4 and Appendix B)

Recommendation 2: That Synod incorporate these definitions with their explanations into the Regulations for Synodical Procedures in the following manner:

1. Add definitions and explanations as an appendix.
a. Title: Appendix C: Synodical Actions of Particulate Note
b. Introduction: These definitions with their explanations are intended to guide members and assemblies of the URCNA as to the meaning, significance, and status of these particular types of Synodical action. They should be consulted and followed when taking, receiving, or responding to these particular types of Synodical action.

2. Add references to this appendix within the body of the Regulations for Synodical Procedures.

Recommendation 3: That the adoption of Recommendations 1 and 2 serve to answer Overture 14.

Many delegates thanked the committee for their helpful work but expressed concerns specifically regarding Doctrinal Affirmations and Pastoral Advice, and the idea that they didn’t see a clear enough distinction between them when it seemed that a Doctrinal Affirmation should reflect that it is more rigorous than Pastoral Advice. There was much concern about unintended consequences regarding these two.

An example was used: If a Minister is writing an email to a Christian brother and said something sarcastic that is a technical violation of a Doctrinal Affirmation or Pastoral Advice, and that was copied and forwarded, he would be in violation. Would he be censured, rebuked, receive a warning from his elders? There was also considerable concern about the word “interpretation,” preferring the word “affirms.” Debate continued on, and the Chair called to cease debate for dinner.

The start of business opened with the Chair and Vice-chair announcing that they had thought of a proposal during dinner and the Chair would like to make a motion. His motion was to recommit the work back to committee so that they could perfect the language. His rationale was firstly that the delegates did not have the time to deal with it and that they would be there until 2AM Friday night.

He, then, cited several cases over the past century in which a church denomination or federation adopted statements that were not pure confessions or Scripture, supported by confessions and Scripture, and that ultimately the church was split as a result of those statements. “We will have schism if we do this. Brothers, if we go this way, we are headed for disaster.”

A commissioner rose to object on the basis that the very confessions and creeds which the URCNA holds dear were, at the time they were written, extra-confessional themselves. “It seems odd that we are saying we shouldn’t make extra-confessional statements when the documents we are dealing with are the very same thing. People are concerned about themselves. How is this going to affect me? But understand this is to be used to address heretics. We need an effective tool to guard the sheep. We are giving harbor to heretics!”

Another delegate rose to request that the committee, who had worked over the break and had made some changes, be permitted to present their product, but the question was called. The work will be sent back to the committee for perfection.

Other than Executive Session to hear two Judicial Appeals, no more business will be conducted tonight. So this is the last update tonight. Justification/Federal Vision still hasn’t been dealt with, nor Level of Doctrinal Commitment, and much more.

These are edited extracts from the Blog. For more details visit: http://urcnasynodreports.wordpress.com/