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 27, Afternoon

The following is not intended to be an exhaustive review but hopefully will be a survey of what transpired in committees today.

First up, Committee 5 which took up the Justification/Federal Vision report as well as Overture 1 which sought to amend the report: The progress was slow-going when the Justification committee first commenced their business, but by the time they reconvened after lunch, they worked cohesively together clearly united in their confession.

By the end of the afternoon, each man, a brother in the body of Christ, worked to refine the work they had accomplished so that the item of business they present to the general session is a very clear statement on justification affirming the confessions and Scripture. What the committee will present to Synod in general session will be a recommendation to accept the study report on justification/”Federal Vision” as amended.

Their amendments to the report take confessions added to Overture 1 (recall Overture 1 sought to remove points B.3-15 of the recommendation section and place it in the body of the paper, which would effectively take the teeth out of the actionable items of the report) and add it to the recommendation B section of the report, maintaining the position of points 1-15 in the recommendation section.

In other words, not only did the committee keep the intent of the study committee’s report by keeping their recommendations where they are (only making minor changes to refine and strengthen the report), but they added confessional points to the recommendation section from Overture 1 to the report, to create a stronger and more clear report.

The committee, while answering Overture 1 individually, will also answer Overture 1 with the action taken on the justification report. In regards to the specific response to Overture 1, the committee rejected point 1 (move points 3-15 from the recommendation to the body of the paper), accepted point 2 as amended (the amendment seeks to strengthen it), and adopted points 3 (to thank the committee).
For those praying for a clear, firm statement from Synod affirming the historic Reformed and confessional view on justification, they will be pleased with the work that the committee has produced. Next, it goes to the plenary body to accept, reject, amend, etc.

Committee 7: Proposed Church Order, JCO Committee Report, Overtures 3, 5, 12, 13, and 18: The Proposed Joint Church Order (PJCO)/Canadian Reformed Churches committee heard strong convictions on both sides regarding Overture 18 (recall Overture 18 seeks to receive the PJCO and disband the committee with thanks).

At the heart of the debate were concerns about the CanRC recognition of the “true church,” concern about how passing the overture would be taken by the CanRC, concern about theological differences including education between CanRC and URCNA, and others. The author of the overture spoke, saying that the intent is not to “kill” relations with the CanRC but to step back and evaluate the path being taken with the CanRC, that if a step back was taken, a more clear path may be present.

Ultimately, this committee has not finished and Overture 18 is one of the sticking points. They simply could not agree and came to a stand still. They will have to take it up later, but when has not yet been determined.

As to the PJCO, the committee ultimately decided to recommend to accept the PJCO for further study and if the consistories have conflicts with it, they should follow regular channels to inform Synod of their concerns. Regarding Overture 3, the committee basically will recommend it as is. Regarding Overture 13, the committee did not finish its work on this either. It is considering referring parts of this overture to another committee (the songbook committee).

The Missions Committee recommended to adopt Overtures 7 and 8, creating a volunteer missions coordinator with the method of Reformed Youth Services.
CERCU matters committee voted not to recommend moving into phase 2 with ERQ and RPCNA at this time.

The committee that took up the PRJC issues and Overture 2 (Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy) finished their work. It will recommend to Synod to petition, via the proposed letter, military and civilian authorities not to repeal DADT.

In response to Overture 2, the committee will be bringing a recommendation that classis be involved with the emeritation of Ministers and not bind consistories to provide for the Ministers Emeritus if they cannot do so.

July 27, Evening

After opening hymns from the Psalter, Synod dove right into business. First up was a request that Committee 7 (PJCO/Church Order) had submitted to the chair who, in turn, submitted on the plenary floor: Committee 7 was feeling strained and overwhelmed by their business and asked whether Committee 9 would take Overture 12 regarding classis exam voting procedures. The Committee 9 Chair agreed to consider it tomorrow.

The Missions Committee presented their recommendation to accede to Overture 8 to evaluate the need for a volunteer position of URCNA coordinator of missions. There were four points to their recommendation, and the amendment process began, but ultimately, the entire overture was sent back to committee because the delegates had a difficult time understanding what the mandate of the committee was. The committee will be working on it tomorrow.

The same committee presented their recommendation to accede to Overture 7 to relieve Cornerstone URC of their missions newsletter updates. With minor amendments, the recommendation was taken and the motion adopted.
Committee 12 presented their recommendation on Overture 4 (CECCA term limits) next (that Synod accede to Overture 4 as presented). There was debate on the floor (and from the chair) concerning an officer never having to be re-elected throughout his service in the URCNA and similar arguments. Ultimately, the item was tabled and the committee will be meeting again tomorrow.

The committee’s recommendation on Overture 11 was presented by Committee 8. The recommendation was that Synod approve Overture 11 as presented and the motion carried. This means that this will be sent to the consistories for ratification (since it amends the CO) before it is enacted. If ratified, it would mean that churches who are potentially provisionally accepted churches (into the URCNA) will first become provisional and then their minister will be examined, opposed to the other way around.

The Songbook and Liturgical Forms committee’s presentation regarding the Report 3 of the Psalter Hymnal Committee turned into a lengthy and strained debate. The committee’s recommendations were to receive the work of the committee to date, ask the chair to grant the floor to PHC members, and for Synod 2010 to affirm that the official songbook will be purchased and used by all URCNA churches. At issue, as you can imagine, was the idea that Synod would mandate to the consistories that they need to purchase the hymnal.

The grounds of their recommendation were that it was in keeping with Synod 1997′s decision to appoint the committee in the first place, that an official songbook would promote unity in the federation, that it would keep the cost of producing the songbook to a minimum, and that it would provide a positive impetus to a project on which the committee has spent thousands of hours.

Delegates spoke to both sides of the issue with conviction. Against the motion, most of the speeches centered around a concern that Synod could bind consistories to purchase the hymnal and mention of the very low funding for it as of yet. For the motion were speeches shaming those who were looking at their pocketbook instead of the unity that the hymnal would provide and the work that the committee had done. There was concern that the committee would be disheartened if the motion was not carried.

At one point, the presenter was frustrated and laid on the table the sentiment of the committee: “Do you want to do this book? We think it would be good, but if you’re not going to accept it, then that’s fine,” his point being that Synod cannot change its mind back and forth and must commit to an action either way, and if they decide they are not committed to it, that they should stop going down the road that they are. Their preference, however, was to continue forward with the songbook. Several amendments were made to the motion, but ultimately, what passed was language stating that “Synod 2010 affirms the production of an official songbook that will be purchased and used by all URCNA churches.”

Rev. den Hollander of the Canadian Reformed Church made an impassioned plea to the body of delegates to continue moving forward to make progress in the merger, to recommit the Church Orders committee to complete its work, to go back to the pre-2007 songbook goals.

While a federationally-controlled seminary may not be mandated by Scripture, he said, he touted the benefits, said that it was a principle that the CanRC hold dear, and is rooted in all three forms of unity, therefore should be given the highest priority.

A question and answer period was had this evening with two seminary professors in the Canadian Reformed Church (CanRC): Dr. Gerhard Visscher and Dr. Jason VanderVliet. All of the questions were pre-determined and follow below with a synopsis of their answers (note these answers are not direct quotes).

Q1. What is the CanRC position regarding creation? How do you view the Framework Hypothesis? What is the view promoted in the Theological College and held by pastors and members in the CanRC? Are there any ministers or professors who hold to the Framework theory or any kind of theistic evolution? Are the CanRCs concerned about the views on Creation held within some URCs?
A1. Dr. VanderVliet: First, a caveat that we cannot answer on behalf of every minister in the CanRC. We do not adopt various positions papers, so whatever the confessions summarize, we affirm. Theistic evolution is not taught at the seminary and I am aware of no pastor that holds to it. As for framework, there is confusion as to what it means precisely, but based on the definition that I researched for it, I understand that it views Gen 1 as not literal or scientific but rather, an ancient text that outlines a symbolic structure to reinforce God’s purposefulness in creation. We believe in beautiful parallelism between days but that is because the days were ordered as Scripture writes, that 6 days were work days and then there was the Lord’s day. The 6 days need to be understood in conjunction with each other. Gen 1 is not a literary tool but a revealed account of history in what the Lord did on His first day of work. There are questions in our churches as to the views on creation in the URCNA.

Q2. We have sometimes been left with the impression that there is a rather widespread problem among the youth of the CanRC churches with respect to lifestyle (for example: drinking and/or partying among the youth, inappropriate language and conduct at hockey tournaments, etc.). While we acknowledge that the URCs also have moral behavior issues within its young people the questions we would have are these: How are the covenantal responsibilities of the youth and the call to holy life dealt with in terms of preaching, pastoral care, and church discipline in the Canadian Reformed Churches? Are parents held accountable for the promises they made at the baptism of their children? How is the doctrine of the covenant practically applied? Are the youth instructed in both the blessings and the demands/curses of the covenant? Are the
attitudes of the youth a reflection of what lives in the hearts of the adults?
A2. Dr. Visscher: I highlight the words “widespread” and “impression” and believe it to be unfair to many of young people. They are committed to serving the Lord, are involved in youth groups, college and career groups, camping groups, etc and sometimes they are the drive behind those events. Re: hockey, we have made strides in improvement. There are less faithful young people but parents and elders are involved. Excessive drinking and worldliness are not condoned and we have home visits. “God only knows if we have more problems with our youth than you.” If so, recognize that the division that brought about our federation is considerably further in the past than yours, and youth tend to get caught up in the spirit of a new federation. Also, understand that it is the nature of our covenant community that we take all youth along which means those who are committed but also less committed youth who we hope will become more committed. We have spent millions on covenant community. Also, a tangent: We need to remain firm on justification as well as youth in covenant. In reaction to the FV approach, some go off in a baptistic view of youth, much resembles the Baptists. As we correct the error of covenant theology, must we swing the other way so wildly?

Q3: It has been our perception that there has been a tendency over the years in Canadian Reformed preaching to neglect the preaching of the first use of the law, coupled with a clear call to repentance and faith in Jesus Christ.
A3: Visscher: This is just an example of different emphases. We would agree with your Appendix 3 as to how to view a congregation.

Q4: It has also been our perception that the need for the new birth (as the beginning of new life in the human heart) is not really emphasized in their theology and preaching in general.
A4: The redemptive historical method grew out of man-centered preaching and we are not fond of topical preaching where it is loosely connected with text. Redemptive historical preaching, when used wrongly can be hurtful. The fault is not with the method but the improper use of it. We don’t need to mix RH with exemplary, we need to do RH well and move from that context to our own. In seminary, we need to help students to apply text without descending into the realm of human opinion. Different preachers have different styles and approaches and may move into this style to a different degree.

Q5: Skipped (already answered)

Q6: What kind of preaching is promoted and taught at the Theological College of the Canadian Reformed Churches? Does the redemptive-historical approach in the CanRC also encourage practical application and the call to godly living? Does it demand repentance and faith? Does it proclaim and witness to all unbelievers and such as do not sincerely repent that the wrath of God and eternal condemnation abide on them so long as they are not converted (Lord’s Day 31)? Is the preaching of the Word directed not only to the heads but also the hearts and consciences of the members of the congregation?
A6: What is taught at the seminary, from the answer the homiletics professor gave him, was that good preaching does 3 things: explains text passages, agrees with the whole council of God, and applies to the life of the congregation today. Christological, Trinitarian, Historical. Preaching needs to function as the key of the kingdom, encourage true believers, warn hypocrites, and address the whole person.

Q7: It has been the experience of many of our members, that the attitude of our Canadian Reformed Churches and its members, with regards to us as United Reformed believers, changed for the better only once the URCNA was formally accepted by their synod as a sister church. This raises the serious question whether the attitude of the majority of Canadian Reformed people is determined by synod decisions and the letter of the Church Order, or by the Word and Spirit of Christ. It has been our perception over the years, that the Canadian Reformed Churches see only themselves and churches with which they have ecclesiastical fellowship, as true churches of Christ.
A7: Church order is important from day to day and week to week, and I understand how it may have seemed that the decisions of our synod to recognize your churches as faithful churches, etc. were major turning points. What you perceive there is the difference between our church orders. Ours: we agree that in ecumenical activity, we will do as much as possible to move forward as a federation. So if there are two churches and one of them finds another faithful church, the church holds back until the whole federation as a whole is able to join together with that church. Yours: regarding ecumenical activity, you go farther and could do certain things need to be reported (Art 34). Don’t misunderstand what you perceived – it is merely a difference in our church orders, not that we’re trying to by synodical or hierarchical.

Q8: Are the Canadian Reformed churches in accord with or accepting of our current practice of fenced communion?
A8: Most CanRC use letters of attestation or testimony signed by elders of the congregation who had given them the sacrament elsewhere. There are two components: 1) elders of the local church are the ones ordained to supervise sacrament, and 2) it is wise that others would testify concerning character, soundness, and doctrine, rather than ourselves. These components led to our practice. There are some CanRC which use interview by local elders of guests – it is not most common but it does happen. The most important element is that the table is properly guarded by local eldership. Concerning guests, we tend to defer to elders of the whole congregation because how much can you find out in interview of 10 or 20 min? The table must be guarded and church order committees can work out exact arrangements.

Q9: Are distinctions regarding the nature of the church that are identified by such terms as visible and invisible, local and universal, organization and organism, militant and triumphant generally accepted in Canadian Reformed circles? What are the benefits or dangers of using such language and assuming the concepts they represent? Are there dangers in not appreciating the concepts represented by such language?
A9: We cherish our confession and the TFU without explicitly using all of those distinctions or any one of them. There may be someone who says yes but certainly concerning the church, there is an invisible aspect. Church is not about buildings or being visible, but unity in spirit that works in our hearts. We agree the Holy Spirit’s working in our heart is divine work, but if you go further with the term “invisible” – here is an example. Someone may say “the consistory can excommunicate me but I’m still a member of the invisible church.” We would all agree that is a misuse of speaking in that term. That is why we refrain from using these types of distinctions and prefer to use language in the confessions.

Q10: What are we to understand about how the Canadian Reformed understand the nature of the church when members leave a Canadian Reformed congregation for another reformed church and an announcement is made to the effect that they have “left the true Church”?
A10: I’d like to make a clarification about that announcement: I have not heard an announcement that _____ has left the true church. When someone withdraws, an announcement is made that ___ withdrew himself from the supervision of this consistory of this church. We have no article in our church order that deals specifically with this. What do you do if a person writes a letter to withdraw from the consistory? Each local church has to deal with this. This pastoral situations are challenging and difficult. We want to do full justice to what we confess in our Art 28. No one ought to withdraw from church – we don’t want to take person who withdraws lightly. It is not a matter of just deleting him from a database – it involves a lot of pastoral work, elders visits, exhortation, etc. There may be acquiescing but not in agreement of withdrawing from church. Also, when we don’t have an official relationship with another church and they withdraw to go there, we don’t want to make any judgment about the other church unless we do together with the other CanRCs (as our CO states) – so a person that withdraws and an announcement made, we are not making a statement on other churches – only saying to the congregation that this is what this brother and sister has done – they have withdrawn from the supervision of our church.

Q11: If a member of a CanRC congregation would date or marry a member of another Reformed church (for example, a member of a Free Reformed congregation, or PCA congregation) would the consistory approve the marriage? We have a copy of a pastoral letter written by the consistory of a Canadian Reformed Church regarding “courtship with those who do not belong to a sister church”. When the pastoral letter was written (January 2000) there was “as yet no mutual recognition of each other as sister churches” therefore courtship with a member of a URC was very strongly discouraged. The document even states that such a relationship “would not be right. It would also be wrong for our member to attend the church services of the URC”. Is this view commonly held by Consistories in the Canadian Reformed Churches? (Note: the above quotations are taken directly from the Pastoral letter). If such a marriage takes place, and the Canadian Reformed member leaves her church to join the Reformed church where her husband is a member, is it a common practice to publish a note in the bulletin(s) stating that the member has “left the church of Jesus Christ”?
A11: A – I can’t speak for that consistory but this teaches us that when we have questions between each other, we need to talk to that consistory. More generally, about marriages, it’s a pastoral situation and if there is a couple, and each belongs to a different federation, and we have no official relationship with that federation, it has to be dealt with pastorally, case by case, and it can go any way depending on how the couple does. There is no official method in our book of order.

Q12: Skilled. Already answered.

Q13: Does unity require uniformity? For example: should the URCs and the CanRCs decide to federate do you believe all the churches must sing out of the same hymnal/Psalter? Must we all practice the same process for allowing visitors to the Lord’s Table? Is it important that we all use the same version of the Bible? Must candidates for the ministry come from one theological seminary?
A13: This question gets into contrasting unity and uniformity, but I suggest we ask a different question – on what basis do we have our unity? The Word, our confessions, and a need for church order to work out practical details. All these things depend on what CO you have and consent. Will there be more flexibility left to local churches or will CO circumscribe that this is what must be done, will be done, ought to be done? As much uniformity as we agree by common consent in CO, and as much flexibility as needed for local churches – it will be all according to CO.

Q14, 15, and 16: It has been our perception over the years that a casual attitude towards the use of alcohol, particularly in public, and even regarding intoxication, has been tolerated by some consistories, to the detriment of their Christian witness the world. It has been our conviction that modesty in dress, particularly among the ladies, could be stressed much firmer in Canadian Reformed circles in general. It has also been our perception that there is a fairly widespread tendency among Canadian Reformed worshippers in many of their churches, not to reach out in love to strangers and visitors in their midst on Sundays.
A14, 15, and 16: We have addressed this already. No one knows if these perceptions are true and if it’s better in your church than ours. Western society promotes alcohol abuse of youth and adults. There is a concern with intoxication? I was not aware of that. If there are churches that have knowledge of such a thing, we should be applying Matt 18 and talk to our consistories. Clothing: I can’t say I don’t see a difference in this regard. we challenge our sisters and young people to be modest. You will find incidents but that is the nature of a covenantal community – some are further along in the process than others. The same is for hospitality – one church is better as one individual is better. They are encouraged on a Biblical basis. We attempt to live faithfully to scripture and confession, in a healthy lifestyle in a positive reformed manner.

Questions from the floor:

Q: How is catechism preaching viewed?
A: Yes, it is important, we preach it in second worship service all Lord’s days, it is the summary of the Word of God. We preface it with : focus on the Word as summarized in Lord’s Day ___ . Generally, the Lord’s Day is not window dressing. We preach and engage in catechism. We are always remembering that the reason is that the authority is derived from the Word of God. “Brothers and sisters, confess this because here you see in Scripture.” If you see something a number of times, dig more into the text and show the catechism.

Q: Classis Michigan seeks to ask Synod to reassign CERCU to see if there are real or perceived differences between our federations. Point 3 says that the URC adopted the 9 points, and especially point 6 appears to be at odds regarding covenant – will you give further clarification on this alleged thing?
A: I’m not sure about the context you are referring to but I can comment on the point. When we initially read these 9 points, we didn’t read them against the background of FV but against our own history so took them as attacks on our own position. I know for myself that when I read them with the context of FV, I came to understand. In that context, I agree with what you are saying. When we read point 6 against our own history background, part of that is doctrine and teaching of presumptive regeneration which was rejected in our history. Covenant is something that is real for the whole covenant meaning. All baptized members are truly in the covenant. That is what we are trying to address with inward/outward. We thought what are they (the URC) saying? That some are not in the covenant? You say, no we believe all children are in the covenant, but some aren’t. We have the same understanding but different terms.

Q: Going back to question 1, is CanRC concerned about the framework views of URCs? I am concerned about views held by some in CanRC. Our history shows we had to deal with theistic evolution, starting at Calvin College. You are now dealing with that as well. How is that being dealt with by your church?
A: The concerns you raise are concerns we raise among ourselves. At seminary, the erred views are not views that get sympathy from us, our faculty, or student body. We dialogue and encourage discussion to go off in a different direction.
Q: Are women allowed to vote for church officers in CanRC and what is the background on that?
A: As of this last Synod 2 months ago, they are now allowed to vote for church officers. Prior to that, they were not. It is a long history of discussion but presently they are we would see that as a form of advice for ruling in churches. Synods were fuzzy on if it was yes or no, so one church they thought they could, but it went through the whole process and it presently is allowed.

Q: Do the majority of CanRC pastors want closer relations with us and why? How badly do the people in the pew want it?
A: It’s honest to say, and it was reflected in comments of Rev Hollander, in CanRC there will be different degrees of enthusiasm in members, but we did come together and wrote that letter through the delegate body that comes to you from the Synod of CanRC churches and we stand behind the words of the letter because we do wholeheartedly believe that the Lord would have us pursue the deepest unions that we can. We live in a broken world but have God’s commands and direction.

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