Friday, August 12, 2022

Churchill and Orwell: Champions for the Equality and Freedom of the Individual

  Thomas E. Ricks Churchill and Orwell: The fight for freedom. Penguin. NY. NY. 2017 (275 pages, 51 pages end notes; 13 pages index; 16 pages photos).

Thomas Ricks has (in 2017) presented a new biography on Churchill with a parallel biography of George Orwell. Ricks compares the two giants on the 20th-century stage and notes their parallel lives: one as an upper-class politician, the other as an author with working-class roots. Both of these men championed the cause of the Western social value of equality and freedom of the individual.

Understanding and valuing what these men fought for has become more pressing in the past year with the black lives matter campaign, the predominance of intersectionality, and the rise of critical theory” These three phenomena promote the concept that personal identity is defined by the groups we are part of. Some groups are victims; some groups are oppressors. Proponents of critical theory want us to pay attention to gender, race, class identities and inequities. Intersectionality studies the interconnectedness of race, class and gender as they apply to groups, creating intersections of overlapping systems of discrimination, disadvantage and oppression. The black lives matter campaign will not admit the slogan every black life matters. Their movement is not about the individual but about the collective. It’s all about systemic racism and the victimization of the group or class.

Ricks shows us how these two giants on the 20th-century's stage fought against tyranny; the tyranny of the Marxists and of the Nazis and how they fought for the freedom and equality of the individual. The opening chapters describe their vast dissimilarities and very different life trajectories (pg 3). As flamboyant as Churchill was, Orwell was phlegmatic and introverted. But “together in the mid-20th  century, these two men led the way, politically and intellectually, in responding to the twin totalitarian threats of Fascism and Communism (Pg 3).”

Both these men saw clearly the threat of the state subverting “the value of the individual … and all that that means: the right to dissent from the majority, the right even to be persistently wrong, the right to distrust the power of the majority, and the need to assert that high officials might be in error—most especially when those in power believe they are not (Pg 5).” Orwell once wrote, “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they don’t want to hear (Pg 5).”

The book traces the lives of the two men from early childhood, to their careers as writers. Thomas Ricks, the author, has been a war correspondent who wrote news items for American news media from Iraq and the Middle East. He saw in Churchill and Orwell an interesting parallel with himself: both were war correspondents. Churchill reported from India and the Afghan border, went to Sudan, then back to India and then South Africa. Orwell wrote from Spain during the Spanish civil war.

It was during the 30s, at the time of the great depression, that many believed that liberal capitalist democracy was tired and failing: the only solutions that were being advanced were fascism or communism. Churchill had been in government in the 20s but the 30s proved to be a political wilderness for him. His peers did not want to hear him on the “Nazi threat.” Orwell, on the other hand, had developed into a leftist pro-communist champion of the working class in his writings (though his books were not popular) and in 1937 he joined the anti-rightist forces in the Spanish civil war. Joining the communists against the fascists, he had “a feeling of having suddenly emerged into an era of equality and freedom (Pg 66).” But he learned differently. While he was in Barcelona he saw how the Stalinists murderously purged their own, and how no one was safe from the communists. This was no utopian egalitarian society. It was a ruthless battle for power and influence. It was not freedom, but bondage from which to escape and flee. And flee he did, back to England. From then on Orwell wrote not only against the totalitarianism and oppression of the right (Naziism) but because of his experience in Spain he now also took up his pen in opposition to the tyranny of the left (Communism).

When in 1939, Nazi Germany invaded Poland and the British and the French declared war, Churchill came into his own. Chamberlain stepped down and Churchill became prime minister. He spoke in the British House of Commons about the coming war: “This is not a question of fighting for Danzig or fighting for Poland. We are fighting to save the whole world from the pestilence of Nazi tyranny and in defence of all that is most sacred to man. This was no battle for domination or imperial aggrandizement or material gain; it was not a conflict to shut any county out of its sunlight and means of progress. It was  a war, viewed in its inherent quality, to establish on impregnable rocks, the rights of the individual and it is a war to establish and revive the stature of man (pg 85).” Orwell wrote, “if this war is about anything at all, it is a war in favour of freedom of thought (pg 85).”

Ricks then recounts the war between the Allies and the Nazis and the rise of the USA and the Soviets as world powers and the decline of the British Empire. After the war, Orwell wrote his satire on communism, Animal Farm, and Churchill wrote his memoirs in 6 volumes. Then in 1949 Orwell published 1984, about a dystopian world of totalitarianism; a society where there is no equality and no freedom; where the protagonist is Winston! Where WAR IS PEACE; FREEDOM IS SLAVERY; IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH. Big Brother is watching you!

Ricks ends his book with a review of especially Orwell’s literary significance in 2016, He wrote this book prior to Donald Trump’s rise to power, the advent of Black Lives Matter; prior to the rise of Critical Theory, and the advance of intersectionality. Churchill stood against Fascism, which is based on a conflict of races, meaning no freedom; Orwell stood against communism based on a conflict of classes, meaning no equality.

Ricks applies the lessons from Churchill and Orwell to the civil rights movements of the 60s and the failure of the Soviet Bloc in the 80s. He reflects on the post 9/11 World and the rise of the data gathering of the Silicon Valley giants: Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon, and Microsoft. They are watching you!

But Trumpism on the right and intersectionality on the left should give us pause. Are we entering a new crisis with no leaders? Will we lose our freedom of thought and our equality before the law while we post pictures of our latest Amazon purchase on Facebook? Will we care? You will if you read this book!

 

Thursday, January 6, 2022

1 Corinthians 11 and Visitors at communion



The Context (Context is king!)

The Letter to the Corinthians are occasional letters. These letters deal with pastoral issues in the church. Some of "Chloe's people” have reported to Paul on troubles in Corinth and Paul has received at least one other letter from Corinth, and perhaps another delegation has come seeking advice. 

Don Carson writes,

When students of the Bible speak of Paul’s letters as “occasional,” they do not mean that they were infrequent or sporadic. They mean, rather, that in most cases they were written on specific “occasions,” perhaps to combat a particular error (as in Galatians), or to ask someone for something specific (as in Philemon), or to respond to a church’s questions (as in large parts of 1 Corinthians).

However, reading the Paul’s occasional letters is often like listening to one side of a phone conversation. We need to reconstruct the issues at hand.

The first Corinthian letter opens up with Paul admonishing the members about division in the church. (Chapter) 1 Who is to lead? This theme about division in the church goes on to dominate this letter. In Chapter 2. Is about Human wisdom vs godly wisdom. In Chapter 3. Paul considers ”Who to follow?” Chapter 4. Describes how Human pride causes division Chapter 5. Describes how Immorality causes division,. In Chapter 6 The apostle declares that Lawsuits are evidence of division. He goes on in Chapter 7 to discuss how here are divisions in marriage. Then in Chapter 8 he shows the way forward when food sacrificed to idols has become reason for division. In Chapter 9 the Apostle Paul gives his defense of his Apostleship against detractors who are sowing seeds of division in the church. He then in Chapter 10 he begins his discussion on worship. And in Chapter 11-- (the final part of this chapter has our attention.-- in Chapter 11 he continues with worship. And we will see how the matter of division in the church returns. This division is has become evident in the worship of the church—not just division among leaders and followers; not just among members and leaders in the church; or between husbands and wives in marriages; not just in lawsuits among brothers; not just against Paul But division has appeared in the worship of God, and even more seriously: division in the church has appeared at communion services.

The civic context is this: In Corinth there we many pagan temples that celebrating temple prostitution, debauchery and drunkenness. There we many trade guilds in Corinth and the business owners would sponsor feasts at the temples and to which the working-class members of the guilds were invited. However, there would be no socialising between rich and poor in the pagan temples. Often the sponsors of the festival would engage in gluttony and many would have too much wine, while the working class would get the scraps and the dregs. The Corinthian temple orgies were well known in the Roman Empire of the day. To live a completely sensuous life of immorality was commonly known as “to Corinthianize!” Some of these practices seems to have infiltrated the church.

In the church, at communion the rich are getting drunk and the poor get nothing. This is an outright denial of the hospitality of God.

The early churches met in the homes of the rich. These homes had open walled courtyards that often could easily accommodate 50 or 60 members of the church for worship. The dining room, the triclinium would only accommodate 10 or 12. It seems that the rich would sponsor the festive meal, but that the would not wait for the lower class to be finished work for the day (Christians didn’t get Lord’s Day rest till Constantine!). By the time the day laborers and slaves showed up for worship, the rich had eaten all the food, and some had had to much wine! In Corinth the rich are not waiting for the poor to arrive and are getting drunk and overindulging while some people are going hungry.

As we said, “This is an outright denial of the hospitality of the Lord” who welcomes all who come to him. Now we are not getting drunk on a sip of communion wine, or being gluttonous when we take a morsel of bread. But we are denying the hospitality of God if we make a division in the church between “the haves” and “the have-nots.”

We must see the whole OT narrative as telling the story of the creator God restoring he fellowship he had with mankind in the Garden of Eden on Adam’s first full day, the Day of Rest; when Adam enjoyed the hospitality of his creator.. The Tabernacle was picture of a Garden where the priests would eat the sacrifices in the holy presence of God, enjoying his hospitality. So also, the temple. The Land of Promise was a land flowing with Milk and Honey and under Solomon’s reign, the prince of Peace (His name means Peace) the land had Rest, and everyone could enjoy the hospitality of God.

But the old covenant in the blood of bulls and goats was insufficient to take away sin, so Jesus instituted a New Covenant in his own blood.

And that New Covenant has restored our fractured relationship with God.

And at the communion table we share in the peace, and the rest and the hospitality of God.

Jesus Christ has restored fellowship between God and mankind. That was the purpose of his life and death. The communion service is meant to be a celebration of the restored relationship, where all people are invited into the love relationship that the persons of the trinity enjoy. (John 15:9ff 17:13ff). At the communion table we are all invited into and share in the hospitality of the Lord. Moreover, Lord Jesus after the Passover supper took the cup and said, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you. We see the disciples in the upper room (were there 120 people present?) enjoying the hospitality of the Son of God, who was presiding over this Exodus meal.

This parallels Exodus 24:8-11, where immediately after the Lord confirms his covenant with the sprinkling of blood of the covenant, Moses & Aaron, Nadab & Abihu, and 70 Elders eat and drink in the presence of God. They were invited into the hospitality of God.

In Exodus 24 we read: that Moses then took the blood, sprinkled it on the people and said, “This is the blood of the covenant that the Lord has made with you in accordance with all these words.”9 Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and the seventy elders of Israel went up 10 and saw the God of Israel. Under his feet was something like a pavement made of lapis lazuli, as bright blue as the sky. 11 But God did not raise his hand against these leaders of the Israelites; they saw God, and they ate and drank.

The Apostle in his grief over division in the church enjoins the Corinthian ‘saints’ (see1:2) to self examination (11:28-34). We should note however, that this passage when it is quoted in Eucharistic liturgies is often lifted out of its context. The context is Paul’s insistence on the unity of the body of Christ.

5 times in 11:17-22 and 33-34 the Apostle uses the same word: “come together.” This is a technical term designating the gathering for worship. It implies unity—the unity of the gathered ones. But in Corinth the “coming together” has become a fiasco. There are divisions among you. The apostle uses a word Schismata that directly underlies our word Schism: an ungodly division in the church. I chapter10:17 Paul hints toward this when he sees the unity of the church in the one loaf of bread, and one body of believers. The elements of the Lord’s Supper not only symbolize the sacrifice of our Saviour, but the bread accents the unity and ecumenicity of the church.

The Lord’s Supper, a memorial meal of the deliverance that all believers have in Christ, and of the hospitality of God, has become a function of division. There is a schism in the church. There is a division between rich and poor and between upper classes and lower classes. We are reminded of Paul’s denunciation of racial and class divisions in Colossians 2:11 where he writes ”...but Christ is all and is in all.Self-examination does not mean individual introspective contemplation on one’s personal worthiness to participate in communion. Rather, Paul’s injunction to self-examination is a command to the Corinthians to reflect on whether or not they are the cause for division in the body of believers. They are to discern the body. The body of the church.

Are the members of the church shaming others by denying them participation in LS?

Paul’s instruction is not “examine yourself: are you worthy to participate?” Did you have a fight with your wife?; have lustful thoughts about another woman?; been greedy or a gossip?

But “examine yourself: have your been participating in an unworthy manner?” Are you, in the manner by which you participate, causing a division, a schism among the believers? Discern the body.

Because some in Corinth did not “discern the body” and thus they became guilty of “The body and blood of the Lord” (In other words, as the apostle to the Hebrews writes in 6:6 and 10:29;guilty of trampling the Son of God underfoot (10:29), and crucifying him all over again (6:6).)

We, however, do not dispute the command for self-examination in the Form because the Form acknowledges that self examination will lead to the conclusion that we need to be accounted worthy to partake by the Lord himself. However, we believe that Paul’s injunction to self-examination in 1 Corinthians 11 points directly to division among believers in worship.

True self-examination consists of:

1. Consider your sins and sinfulness (also the sins of division among believers) and how God has punished them in his Son?

2. Do you believe the promise of God that the righteousness of Christ is yours by faith?

3. Do you desire to show your love for God in your walk of life, and to live with your neighbour in love and UNITY!

The third part of self-examination: that it be “our sincere desire…. to live with our neighbour in true love and unity” has our attention!

How can we possibly be doing this when we deny communion to guests who as members of Bible-believing churches, desire to have their faith generated by the preaching of the gospel and strengthened by the use of the sacraments?

We are convicted that Paul’s instruction about division between the rich and the poor should be applied in the case of visitors. We make long announcements about how we only allow members of our churches and sister churches to the table. And then we say, “we are not judging you.” But why would we say that? “Because our guests feel judged.” That is not “living in love and unity” with our neighbours.

We say, “we don’t doubt that you love the Lord, but we want to make sure that we keep the table holy.” And that is quite a judgment!

In my 25 years of ministry, I can tell you of hardened sinners, adulterers, and child abusers who as members of the church continued to come to the table, lest they be found out. They were the hypocrites. But they did not defile the table, even as Judas the betrayer did not, nor Peter the denier; nor the other 10 who fled into the dark later on the night the Lord Jesus instituted this covenant meal. They did not defile that which is holy, even as the lepers and the unclean, nor the demoniacs nor the dead, made the Lord Jesus unclean! 
The table is profaned when the church does not warn the unbelieving and unrepentant to withhold themselves and abstain!

Confronted with this understanding of 1 Corinthians 11 we ask ourselves, “Will we live in love and unity welcome guests at the communion table, or will we approach them with a hermeneutic of suspicion?”



Friday, December 3, 2021

WAS JUSTICE DONE? III


Proper Procedures Were Not Followed: Responsible Record-Keeping Was Not Executed.

In 1989, Langley church appealed the changes to the questions in the forms adopted by the 1983 synod. Among other arguments put forward, this church pointed out that proper procedures were not followed, and that responsible record-keeping was not executed.

All Recommended Changes to the Church Book Are Subject to Prior Review by the Churches

Langley wrote:

the basic rule governing the translations and revisions of the Creeds, Forms and Prayers for the complete Book of Praise in our churches has been that these translations should be accurate and that any recommendations for change be only considered after proper study has been made, and after the churches have been allowed to study the recommended changes and the reasons for making them;

Langley’s position is based on the long-standing tradition of not introducing and adopting changes to our Church book (The Book of Praise) without the churches receiving a report in a timely manner (6 months is the present standard) allowing the churches to study the recommended changes and evaluating the reasons for those recommendations.

The ‘89 Synod noted Langley’s concern in its Observations 4.f. The basic rule is that change be considered only after proper study.    

Furthermore, grounds for a decision must be given so that the decision can be tested by the Word of God or the CO.

The 1989 Synod responded in a very interesting way.

  1. The brs. are correct in stating that the Committee for Liturgical Forms [w]as given the mandate by the General Synod of 1977 to “update the language” and therefore the General Synod of 1983 had no right to change the meaning of the forms.  But from the above (2), it is evident that the meaning of the forms is not changed by the linguistic revision which was made.

The 1989 synod excused the 1986 Synod’s position on the way the 1983 synod made the changes by arguing the meaning of the forms didn’t change. Implied in that response is the following: Because the meaning of the forms was not changed (ie. The questions in the forms always meant that a positive response was about giving allegiance to the Reformed Confessions) the synod was not obligated to first propose the change to all the churches for study and evaluation. But why then have a committee draft a report with linguistic updates for review by the churches in the first place. The very fact that the 1977 Synod appointed a committee with a mandate to update the language of the forms and report to the churches in a timely manner clearly demonstrates the fallacy in the 89 Synod's response.

The 1989 Synod could not with integrity say, “the meaning didn’t change, so it need not have been proposed to the churches for discussion ahead of time.” That would mean that the 1977 Synod appointed the committee to propose a linguistic update was worthless. However, it is clear from the Acts of Synod that the churches took the duty of reviewing the proposed linguistic updates seriously. This is evident in Art 171 of Synod 1983 on the revision of the Canons of Dort where the Acts report that 8 churches interacted with The Committee report. Art 132 reports 10 churches provided significant disagreement and feedback on the proposed linguistic updates to the Prayers. Art 145 records the suggestions of the Australian sister churches, 9 local churches, and 4 individuals on updates on the liturgical forms. The very fact that there was lively disagreement on the meaning of the proposed changes in the linguistic update proves that the synod should not have implied “that since the meaning did not change, there was no wrong done by the 1983 synod’s revisions” and thus deny the appeals on that basis.

This interpretation of the meaning behind the synod’s decision is underlined by the fact that they provide no answer to Langley’s concern that the basic rule is that change be considered only after proper study. The synod noted this protest but did not answer it! That is grounds for appeal

Not Properly On The Agenda

In 1992 the Church at Abbotsford appealed to General Synod. They argued that the changes to the forms were illegally made by previous synods. This church presented as grounds that the changes in the forms had never been dealt with by any minor assembly, as is required in the last paragraph of Church Order Article 30. This synod denied this appeal with the following consideration:

Subsequent Synods have maintained that the resulting change from “articles of the Christian faith” to “confessions” was a linguistic revision.  This is not a matter which has to be initiated at the minor assembly.[i]

We wonder why Blessings church of Hamilton was told by the 2019 Synod that it had to initiate discussion at the minor assemblies in order to have a general synod consider a request to revert the questions to previous formulations.[ii] It can’t be both, can it?

Responsible Reporting Was Not Executed

No Grounds; No Authority

The Regional Synod East 2017 sustained an appeal because no grounds were given in a classis decision. The classis had judged that a practice of a local church was “not in agreement with the Church Order” but failed to provide any reasons why it had made this judgment.  The church asked Regional Synod to judge that the decision of the classis was deficient in that it did not provide any considerations or grounds. RSE 2017 recorded in its Considerations that “A decision gains its authority from the grounds that have been provided.” Decisions without grounds are untenable and should not stand.

In 1989 Langley Church argued that

None of the Acts of 1980 or 1983 or 1986 give any reason or grounds as to why the specific reference to the Apostles’ Creed was changed to a more general reference to all the creed/confessions;

Maranatha Church in Surrey argued:

Synod 1980 did not give any grounds for bringing about change in the first place. It is rather striking that in all the discussions that have taken place at various synods about this matter, we are never given any indication as to why the original wording had to be altered…  Likewise, there is no reason given whatsoever for not accepting the considered advice of the synod committee which suggested adopting the wording "summarized in the Apostles' Creed.”

Though Langley and Surrey’s appeals predate the RSE 2017 decision by nearly 30 years, it is evident that the churches expected the broader assemblies to provide considerations or grounds for its decisions. “A decision gains its authority from the grounds that have been provided.”

The 1989 Synod responded to the appellants this way:

Synod 1980 and 1983 may not have given grounds for this specific revision, but to consider the previous Synods’ decisions for this reason as “inconse­quent” and “poorly considered and impulsive” is an overstatement. Synod 1983 responded to a specific question with a clear answer, “in order to avoid misunderstanding ...” (Acts 1983, Art. 145 Cons. C 4 A 8).

Remarkably the 1989 synod grants that no grounds were given and yet denied the appeal. A travesty of justice.

The 1980 synod provisionally adopted the change from “Articles of the Christian Faith” to “Creeds” without providing grounds.  The 1983 Synod, when adopting the final text of the forms, changed the questions again. “Creeds” became “confessions.” Now they read, “summarized in the confessions” instead of “summarized in the creeds.” No grounds were given why The Committee’s recommendation was rejected. Nor were grounds were given for the subsequent change. The only word from the 1983 synod was “in order to avoid misunderstanding…” What misunderstanding isn’t clear. No observation or consideration mentions misunderstanding.  The 1989 synod suggests that this was done by the 1983 synod in order to “[respond] to a specific question with a clear answer.” But no reference is made to what the question is or why this change provides a clear answer.

The 1989 synod did not answer Langley or Surrey’s concern that no grounds were given for the 1980 provisional change. Nor were their concerns answered about why no grounds were given for not adopting the recommendation of the committee in the first place. (which we note was reviewed by the churches.)

We can, perhaps, gain some insight from the letter from Smithers Church. In its Art 145  Observations the 1989 Synod recorded the following:

The Church at Smithers urges Synod to maintain the present formulation.

Grounds:

a. “It states more accurately what persons, making a profession of faith in the Canadian Reformed Churches, are subscribing to”

b. the expression “taught here in this Christian Church” is clarified when connected to the word “confessions”

c. by maintaining the present formulation “we remove all thought of making an unwarranted distinction between clergy and laity”

However, the Synod in its Considerations did not reflect on these Observations. In denying the appeals and its silence on the position of Smithers, we begin to understand the reasons for the changes made by the synods. By not rejecting Smithers’ arguments and by its rejection of Langley and Surrey’s arguments the synod implicitly supported Smithers’ position: That 1. making a public profession of faith is equivalent to subscription. 2.“taught here in this Christian church, modifies the word confessions and not “the doctrine of the Old and New Testament,” and 3. there should be no clergy / laity distinction.

Major Error

We also note that the 1983 Acts contain an egregious error. In Acts 1983: Art 145 (page 107) we can find, following the provisional adoption of the Marriage Form, a non-sequential list of comments: # 2, 5 & 6. #2 refers to a discussion on male headship and likely was meant to refer to a point in the Marriage Form. #5 refers to Synod’s changes to the forms (from ‘creeds’ to “confessions’) as the synod’s answer to W. Vanderkamp’s question. #6 pertains to the printing of the Book of Praise. It is not clear how these three points function in the Acts or if their appearance on the tail end of the Marriage Form is actually a major typographical error! Clearly, something went seriously wrong in the final edit of Art 145!

These three do not fall under any rubric and are not recorded as adopted. Therefore, they cannot be accepted as part of the Acts. They are not Observations, Considerations or Recommendations. They lie between the provisionally adopted marriage form and the Final Recommendations of Art 145.

Conclusion

Proper Procedures Were Not Followed

All recommended changes to the Church Book are subject to prior review by the churches

We have clearly demonstrated that the 1980 and 1983 Synods did not follow proper procedures. The 1977 Synod mandated a committee to provide a linguistic update for the forms, confessions and prayers, that the churches could study and improve if necessary. Clearly, when language is updated, meaning will change. Not every reader will agree on the recommended changes. When subsequent synods received protests, the synods said, “the meaning didn’t change, so the revisions need not be subject to prior scrutiny.” However, the fact that all the edits to the confessions, forms, and prayers were language updates that were not intended to change the original meaning, and yet were subject to the scrutiny of the churches exposes the fallacy of this position. All language updates were subject to scrutiny. This error is grounds for appeal.

A Broader Assembly Cannot Put Matters On Its Own Agenda

Abbotsford rightly pointed out that this change should have come from the churches via the assemblies. The 2019 Synod rejected Blessings’ request for a revision of the 1980/83 decisions and revert to the original. Historically the CanRCs have not accepted the legitimacy of ‘revisions” and directed Blessings to approach the next synod via the minor assemblies. By adopting this recommendation, the 2019 synod exposed the illegitimate actions of the 1980/83 Synods. This decision by the 2019 synod is grounds for appeal.

Responsible Reporting Was Not Executed

No Grounds; No Authority

The Regional Synod East 2017 judged that “A decision gains its authority from the grounds that have been provided.” Decisions without grounds are untenable and should not stand.

Langley and Surrey presented their case that the 1980 and 1983 Synod’s failed to give clear grounds or considerations for rejecting the recommended revisions (1980) and without grounds inserted a completely untested revision (1980). These churches went on to protest that the subsequent synod (1983) again with no clear grounds or consideration made new untested revisions to the forms.

The 1986 synod granted the appellants position when in its considerations said

Synod 1980 and 1983 may not have given grounds for this specific revision, but to consider the previous Synods’ decisions for this reason as “inconse­quent” and “poorly considered and impulsive” is an overstatement. Synod 1983 responded to a specific question with a clear answer, “in order to avoid misunderstanding ...” (Acts 1983, Art. 145 Cons. C 4 A 8).

The Synod conceded the point that thought the previous Synods had not given grounds, the 1983 synod was responding to a specific question with a clear answer. However, it is not clear what the specific question was, nor why it considered the revision to be a clear answer. No synod described what misunderstanding was in view.

Though the errors of the synods predate the 2017 RSE decision by several decades, it is clear that churches expected the broader assemblies to provide proper transparent grounds for their decisions. “A decision gains its authority from the grounds that have been provided.” The decision of RSE 2017 clearly articulates grounds for appeal. 

Major Error

The egregious error at the end of Acts 1983 Art 145 makes the reference to Walter Vanderkamp’s letter void of any authority. It cannot stand as part of the Acts. It is not part of any activity of the Synod. The three completely disconnected comments have no place in the official record. Walter Vanderkamp was taken to the Lord many years ago, but the synod recorded no response to his letter!


 




The Promises of God or of Men?

 Was Justice Done? II

Introduction

In the first installment in this series of articles, we learned of the changes made by our Synods in 1980 and 1983 to questions in the Forms for Baptism and Public Profession of Faith. The questions, before the changes, asked:

Do you acknowledge the doctrine which is contained in the Old and the New Testament, and in the articles of the Christian faith, and which is taught here in this Christian Church, to be the true and complete doctrine of salvation?

After the changes the questions read:

Do you confess that the doctrine of the Old and New Testament, summarized in the confessions and taught here in this Christian church, is the true and complete doctrine of salvation?

When some members of the churches as well as several churches challenged this change on historical, linguistic, and church polity grounds, subsequent synods in 1986, 1989 and 1992 maintained that the changes were only a linguistic revision and that the meaning had not been changed because “the questions asked never excluded the allegiance to all the confessions which are maintained by the Canadian Reformed Churches.”

The Promises of Church Members or the Promises of God? 

Here it is that the synods went wrong. The questions in the forms prior to 1980 did not ask for “allegiance to the confessions.” With the Heidelberg Catechism in Lord’s Day 7, we confess that Christians must believe “all that is promised in the gospel, which the articles of our catholic and undoubted Christian faith teach us in a summary. There is a crucial link between the promises of the gospel and the Apostles’ Creed. This ancient creed summarizes what the promises of God are, as do the Forms for Baptism. The language of the catechism in Lord’s Day 7 underlines and accents the covenantal context of baptism. The parents of a child being presented for baptism, or the adult candidate desiring baptism, or the young members of the church professing their faith, were asked prior to 1980, “Do you acknowledge the promises of the covenant.” That is what the catechism says. We must believe: “All that is promised us in the gospel!” Those promises are “the doctrine of the Old and New Testament.”

The new rendition of the questions breaks the link between the questions in the forms and the promises of the triune God signed and sealed in baptism as explained in the forms and summarized in the Apostles’ Creed. The synods instead linked the questions to our promises. The assertion that we now are “promising allegiance” to the confessions turns the whole matter upside down. This was not updating the language (as per the original mandate) but a fundamental change in meaning. No longer are the parents of infants, nor the adult baptizand, nor the coming of age youth, asked if they acknowledge (or assent to) the promises of God; rather, now (according to our synods) they are asked if they promise allegiance to the confessions.  How is this essentially different from Baptist theology? Reformed theology (for 400 years) placed the sure promises of God at the heart of Covenant theology. Baptism is a sign and seal of the promises of God. This new interpretation (for 40 years) placed the promise and the faith of the members at the center. Baptism and church membership now are to be based on the allegiance of fickle people. This ought not to be!

Zacharias Ursinus, the principal author of the Heidelberg Catechism, was aware of the importance of this kind of distinction. In his work, Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, Ursinus elaborates on the content of Lord’s Day 7 and states, 

Having spoken of faith, it now follows next in order that we speak of the object of faith or enquire what is the sum of those things which we are to believe. Faith, in general, embraces the entire Word of God, and assents most fully to it, as is evident from the definition which we have given of it. Justifying faith, however, has particular respect to the promises of the gospel, or the preaching of grace through Christ. The gospel is, therefore, properly the object of justifying faith.

Further, he goes on to explain, 

Human traditions, the ordinances of popes, and the decrees of councils are therefore excluded from being the object of faith, for faith cannot rely upon anything but the Word of God, as an immovable foundation. The decrees of men, however, are uncertain, inasmuch as every man is deceitful and false. God alone is true, and his word is truth. As it is, therefore, not proper for Christians to frame or construct for themselves the matter or contents of faith, so it is not proper for them to embrace what has been conceived and delivered by others. Christians must receive and believe the gospel alone, as it is said: “Repent and believe the gospel.” “That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.” (Mark 1:15; 1 Cor. 2:5) The sum and substance of the gospel, or of those things which are to be believed, is the Apostles’ Creed, which we here subjoin.

From his commentary, it is clear that Christians are to believe the promises of the Gospel which the Apostles’ Creed summarizes. Christians do not give allegiance to the confessions, not even to the Apostles’ Creed, but embrace the promises of God, signed and sealed in baptism.

Sleight of Hand

We note, however the “sleight of hand” in the 1986 Acts, where the Synod—implying a quote from the new version of the forms—presented its case defending the changes. The synods argued that the changed formulation was valid. The 1986 Synod did acknowledge that it was historically correct that the formulation “the Articles of the Christian Faith” had been used. However, the Synod contended that the appellants removed this phrase from its context. They had thus, supposedly, overlooked that the questions asked never excluded the allegiance to all the confessions which are maintained by the Canadian Reformed Churches. The Synod claimed that the statement “... as is taught here in this Christian Church” means one gives allegiance to all the confessions of the church. This Synod argued that the previous Synod (1983) had already judged that the formulation, “the Creeds as taught here in this Christian Church,” means “the confessions as they are taught here in this Christian Church.” 

The 1986 Synod also dismissed the argument that the change was more than a linguistic change. It acknowledged that the appellants were correct in stating that the Committee for Liturgical Forms was given the mandate by the General Synod of 1977 to “update the language” and therefore the General Synod of 1983 had no right to change the meaning of the forms. But then the Synod stated that it is evident that the meaning of the forms was not changed by the linguistic revision which was made because (as stated in their previous argument), “the Creeds as taught here in this Christian Church,” means “the confessions as they are taught here in this Christian Church.”

But the forms don’t say this, even with the changes! The question is whether the respondent confesses “that the doctrine of the Old and New Testament (or Word of God), summarized in the confessions and taught here in this Christian church, is the true and complete doctrine of salvation. The two following clauses “and summarized in the confessions” as well as “and taught here in this Christian Church” are meant to modify “the doctrine”. The questions do not ask, “Do you confess the doctrine of the Word of God, summarized in the confessions as taught here in this Christian church…? In this (misquoted!) version, “as taught here…” no longer modifies the first clause, referring to “the doctrine”, but to the second clause, ”as summarized in the confessions.”

Have the Questions Always Referred to the Reformed Confessions?

Dr. N. Gootjes addressed this claim in several articles he published in Clarion in 1999.[1] Dr Gootjes disagreed with Rev. Peter DeBoer, who had written articles defending the changes. Rev. DeBoer argued that history showed that “only parents who held to the Reformed Confessions of the church of which they were members could have their children baptized." Dr. Gootjes points out however that in this context the Reformed churches did not use the plural "Reformed Confessions." Rather, they spoke of the "Reformed confession" in the singular. The Reformed fathers were not referring to specific confessional documents, but in general to the doctrinal conviction of the Reformed, versus that of the Lutherans and the Roman Catholics.

It is noteworthy that Dr. Gootjes did not comment on the subtle changes that DeBoer inserted into the questions from the forms. At one point, DeBoer misquoted the forms. He suggested that the questions say, “[as summarized in the confessions] which are taught here in this Christian church.” This phrase, according to DeBoer, “refers to how the Apostles' Creed was upheld by the adopted confessions. In other words, this expression refers to the Belgic Confession, the Heidelberg Catechism and the Canons of Dort.” DeBoer defended his position by quoting the 1986 Synod. "'[summarized in the confessions]...as taught here in this Christian Church' means one gives allegiance to all the confessions of the church." But as we have noted, the revised forms do not say (as misquoted by the Synods) “summarized in the confessions as taught here…” Neither do the revised forms say (as misquoted by DeBoer) “summarized in the confessions which are taught here….”

This then shapes the perspective of many with respect to so-called “confessional membership.” This is the claim: When members presented themselves for public profession of faith, or presented their children for baptism, they promised allegiance to the doctrine of the Word of God, summarized in the confessions as taught here in this Christian church. The synods argued that “as taught here in this Christian church,” always has meant “as taught in the Reformed confessions”. Therefore, the synods claimed, the members have always pledged allegiance to the Reformed Confessions.

Dr. Gootjes demonstrated from history that this could not be the case. The Belgic Confession, written in 1561 a year before the Catechism, was not yet known by the German and Dutch Reformed churches. It was at this time that Peter Dathenus published the Forms for Baptism in his church book. And the Synod of Dort would not draft and adopt the Canons for another 50 years. It is ahistorical to claim that “as taught here in this Christian church,” always has meant “as taught in the Reformed confessions.”

As well, Dr. C. Trimp wrote in his book Forms and Prayers on the question that has our attention:

This question contains an explicit reference to the doctrine of the church, which is a very old element in the administration of baptism. In Calvin's Geneva, the Apostles' Creed was read at this point as a summary of the doctrine of the church and as an early Christian baptismal symbol. Something similar used to take place in the Palatinate.[2]

Dr. Gootjes concluded “that the Reformed confessions were not directly mentioned in the second question of the Form for baptism. The confessions function in the background. They determine the preaching and the teaching in the Reformed churches. The parents [of children presented for baptism] however, had to state: that the doctrine

-                   contained in Scripture

-                   and in the Apostles' Creed

-                   and taught in this Christian church

is the true and complete doctrine of salvation.

To ask more would certainly have been overburdening parents of the 16th century.”[3]

Internal Contradiction

We should also note that the reading defended by the Synods and by Rev. DeBoer has an internal contradiction. How can a “summary of the doctrine” at the same time be the “complete doctrine” of salvation? Obviously, the original phrase “and taught here in this Christian church” modified the first clause about the doctrine of the scriptures, and not the second about the Apostles’ Creed which is a summary of the promises of God, and thus cannot be used to modify the 1983 version “and summarized in the confessions.”

Conclusion

Therefore, those who espouse “confessional membership” are wrong on the doctrine of the Covenant. In Reformed Theology, baptism and church membership are not predicated on the promise of allegiance to the Reformed Confessions, but rather baptism and the member's response to that baptism in their public profession of faith are founded on and based upon the promises of the triune God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Moreover, those who would use the interpretation of the questions presented by the 1986 and 1989 Synods have to admit that there is an essential internal contradiction at the heart of that interpretation. The summary of the doctrine as found in the confessions cannot at the same time be the complete doctrine of salvation.

They are also wrong in stating that the reference to the Apostles’ Creed always has included the further explanation as found in the Reformed Confessions. When the questions were first drafted, the Dutch and German churches were not yet aware of the Belgic Confession, and these churches would not draft and adopt the Canons of Dort for more than 50 years.



[1] Clarion Vol. 48, No. 5 (1999); Clarion Year End Issue (1999)

[2] C. Trimp, Formulieren en gebeden (Forms and Prayers) (39).

[3] Clarion 1999 Year End Issue  (590)

 

Thursday, December 2, 2021

Was Justice Done By Canadian Reformed Synods?

 WAS JUSTICE DONE? 

John L. van Popta (©2021)

A. INTRODUCTION

This essay will conclude with the recommendation that the churches should revert to the pre-1980 versions of the questions in the Forms for Baptism and Public Profession of Faith, which used the phrase “and in the Articles of the Christian Faith” relating to the faith of the members who are answering. In the early 80’s that phrase was replaced with “summarized in the confessions.” The main body of this essay will review the timeline from 1977 to 1992 and review the letters and appeals[i] submitted to our General Synods in 1983, 86, 89 & 92 that argued for a return to the previous versions. We will see that many of the arguments presented in these letters and appeals supporting a change back to the pre-1980 versions of the questions in the forms were simply overlooked by our Synods, dismissed out of hand, or ignored.[ii] Moreover, we will see that the revised questions are internally contradictory and theologically in error. This essay will demonstrate that justice was not done to the appellants.

Moreover, the latest General Synod, convened in 2019, judged  (concerning a request from Blessings Church in Hamilton for a revision of the 1983 changes) that to revert to the pre-1980 versions was too substantial a change in meaning, and that a federation-wide discussion was necessary[iii] prior to a Synod considering this request. However, when the changes were made in 1980-83 there was no discussion; the 1983 Synod simply made the changes. Several appellants argued in 1986, 1989 and 1992 that the changes were too significant for a Synod to implement without a federation-wide discussion. These appeals were dismissed by the synods with the argument that the new formulations which had been adopted did not change the meaning of the questions, but were simply linguistic updates, and thus a federation-wide discussion had not been necessary. Can it be both?

B. 1980 SYNOD

In 1980 The Committee on Translation and Revision of the Confessional and Liturgical Forms (hereafter: “The Committee”) reported to the 1980 General Synod, having been mandated in part by the previous General Synod, to update the language of the forms.[iv] Before that time the second question in the Form for the Baptism of Infants[v] read as follows:

Do you acknowledge the doctrine which is contained in the Old and the New Testament, and in the articles of the Christian faith, and which is taught here in this Christian church, to be the true and complete doctrine of salvation?

Among other changes to the liturgical forms, The Committee proposed replacing the expression “and in the Articles of the Christian Faith” with “and summarized in the Apostles’ Creed” in the questions in the Form for the Baptism of Infants, the Form for the Baptism of Adults, as well as for the Form for Public Profession of Faith. This proposal could be considered a linguistic update since the two phrases refer to the same credal document. Synod 1980, however, did not follow this recommendation of The Committee but, instead, replaced the expression “and in the Articles of the Christian faith” with “and summarized in the creeds.” s

C. 1983 SYNOD

Letter from Brother W. Vanderkamp

The provisionally revised forms were printed after the 1980 Synod and made available to the churches for testing. The following Synod, convened in 1983, received a letter from Brother W. Vanderkamp.[vi] He wrote, “In the revised liturgical forms for baptism and confession of faith, Synod 1980 has proposed to change adherence to ‘the articles of the Christian faith’ into ‘the creeds.’” He had been told by his pastor that this had to be understood as adherence to the three ecumenical creeds and the Three Forms of Unity. He inquired of the Synod if this was correct, and if that were the case why was this not clearly expressed?

Because of this query the 1983 Synod, when adopting the final text of the forms, changed the questions again. Now they read, “summarized in the confessions” instead of “summarized in the creeds,” and said this subsequent change was made “to avoid misunderstanding.”[vii] Nowhere in the Acts do we read any consideration of what significant misunderstanding was being avoided. Again, this newer formulation was adopted by the Synod with no mandate to make this change, nor with prior discussion in the churches. This change was simply recorded as synod’s reply to Vanderkamp’s letter.[viii]

D. 1986 SYNOD

Appeal from Brothers B. Moes, P. Roukema, D. Vanderboom, W. Vanderkamp

At the Synod in 1986, an appeal was received concerning these changes in the forms from four members of the churches.[ix]  In their appeal, they argued that in the Heidelberg Catechism we confess that a Christian must believe "all that is promised us in the gospel, which the articles of our catholic and undoubted Christian faith teach us in a summary."[x] The following Q & A explains that these articles are the articles of faith as found in the Apostles’ Creed. Ursinus (the author of the catechism) explained the authority of the Apostles’ Creed in his commentary on the Catechism. He wrote that “. . . although other confessions were formed, the Apostles’ Creed greatly surpasses all others in importance and authority.” Ursinus then pointed to the priority of the Apostles’ Creed. He wrote “. . . it is of the greatest antiquity and was first delivered to the church by apostolic men . . . ” Furthermore, Ursinus defends the superiority of the Apostles’ Creed. He wrote “. . . it is the basis and type of all other Creeds which have been formed by the consent of the whole church and approved of by Synods, for the purpose of preventing and refuting the perversions and corruptions of heretics  . . .”

The appellants then pointed out that in 1923 our sister churches in the Netherlands rejected exactly the change that the 1983 Synod had made: the change from “the Articles of the Christian faith” to “the confessions.” They buttressed their point by pointing to the writings of Dr. H. Bouwman, professor in church polity at the Theological Seminary in Kampen, who in his well-known work Reformed Church Polity [Gereformeerd Kerkrecht] emphasized the necessity of maintaining the formulation which refers to the Articles of the Christian Faith, instead of making reference to the Three Forms of Unity. He maintained that we must not change the questions in the forms to include the Three Forms of Unity. He wanted to speak of the Christian faith and the Christian church, because the Reformed Church, also with respect to the sacraments, must not separate itself from the Christian Church, but desires to preserve her historical unity with the ancient church.[xi] Bouwman wanted to preserve the historical character of ecumenicity. He maintained that a change in the questions to refer to the Reformed confessions would isolate the Reformed Church from the church of all ages.

The youth of the church are taught the classic stuff of catechism: faith, ethics, and prayer. The church uses the Heidelberg Catechism to teach these three parts of the doctrine: The Apostles Creed, The Ten Commandments, and The Lord’s Prayer. The focal point of the public profession of faith is the desire and commitment to persevere in these three: faith, ethics and prayer.

Furthermore, the appellants argued that these changes would endanger inter-church relations, especially with the Dutch sister churches, since the Church-book of the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands contained a formulation that echoed Ursinus and the decision of the Synod Utrecht 1923. Since attestations are issued based on one's public profession of faith and walk of life, it would be inconsistent to admit members of the Dutch sister churches unless they declared agreement with what the new formulation asked of members of the Canadian Reformed Churches.

The appellants also pointed out that these changes were not in line with the mandate given to The Committee which was in part “to update the language.” No mention is made in its mandate of changing the meaning of the existing forms.

Moreover, the current formulation had reached the floor of Synod not by a proposal of one or more churches or by way of the minor assemblies but was simply made and adopted by the Synod. The change “as summarized in the confessions” was never presented in a committee report to the Churches but was introduced at and adopted by the 1983 Synod, with no prior discussion in the churches.

The appellants also suggested that it is questionable whether every believer must, or even is able to give allegiance to all formulations used in the confessions in order to be admitted to the sacraments. The Committee reporting to the Dutch Synod of 1923 argued in favour of retaining the old formula. That Synod noted that it is mostly young members of the church who make a public profession of faith. They are, by this profession, acknowledging and accepting their baptism. The question should not be put in such a way that only more mature believers could respond.[xii]

The appellants, therefore, requested that the 1986 Synod revert to the previously used formulations.

1986 Synod’s Response

The 1986 Synod responded with the following arguments to deny the appeal. The Synod argued that it was wrong to state that the present formulation is incorrect because when the catechism references the Apostles’ Creed as to what a Christian must believe, it does not suggest that this basic summary excludes the further confession given in the Three Forms of Unity. The Synod acknowledged that it was historically correct that the formulation "the Articles of the Christian Faith" had been used. However, by removing this phrase from its context, the Synod contended that the appellants had overlooked that the questions asked never excluded the allegiance to all the confessions which are maintained by the Canadian Reformed Churches. The statement “. . . as is taught here in this Christian Church” means one gives allegiance to all the confessions of the church. This Synod argued that the previous Synod (1983) had already judged that the formulation, “the Creeds as taught here in this Christian Church,” means “the confessions as they are taught here in this Christian Church.” 

The 1986 Synod also dismissed the argument that the change was more than a linguistic change. It acknowledged that the appellants were correct in stating that the Committee for Liturgical Forms was given the mandate by the General Synod of 1977 to “update the language” and therefore the General Synod of 1983 had no right to change the meaning of the forms. But then the Synod stated that is evident that the meaning of the forms was not changed by the linguistic revision which was made because (as stated in their previous argument), “the Creeds as taught here in this Christian Church,” means “the confessions as they are taught here in this Christian Church.”

The Synod also considered that although the Dutch sister churches had a different formulation, the meaning is not different, as is evident from the above. The formulation adopted by the General Synod of 1983 does therefore not introduce “tension and endanger Inter-Church relations . . . ”

The Synod also considered that the appellants did not prove that the revised formulation asked more of young people than they can answer.

The Synod denied the appeal.

E. 1989 SYNOD

The next General Synod, convened in 1989, received several appeals and letters on the changes made to the forms by the 1983 Synod. Correspondence came from several churches: Langley, Surrey Maranatha, Burlington Ebenezer, Lower Sackville, and Smithers, as well as an appeal from one of the 1986 appellants, Br. B. Moes.

Langley Church’s Appeal

Langley requested that Synod 1989 return to the original wording or the formulation proposed by the Committee. This appeal presented several arguments. In their appeal, Langley argued that for more than 400 years our Reformed churches have referred to the Apostles’ Creed in the second question of the Forms for Infant and Adult Baptism. This church pointed out that this formulation goes back to the church book of Peter Dathenus of 1566. The reference to the Apostles’ Creed was always deemed fitting because of the manner in which this Creed confessed the church’s faith in the Triune God in relation to the sacrament of baptism. Langley also pointed out that this reference was still used by our sister churches in the Netherlands. Moreover, the retention of this reference was recommended to General Synod 1980 by The Committee.

This church also noted that none of the Acts of 1980 or 1983 or 1986 give any reason or grounds as to why the specific reference to the Apostles’ Creed was changed to a more general reference to all the confessions.

It also pointed out that the basic rule governing the translations and revisions of the Creeds, Forms and Prayers for the complete Book of Praise in our churches had been that these translations should be accurate and that any recommendations for change be only be considered after the churches have been allowed to study the recommended changes and review the reasons for making them. No Synod had supplied the churches with proper grounds for this change. They could therefore only conclude that the changes were made without proper study by any committee, and without any requests for input from the churches.

Maranatha Church at Surrey’s Appeal

Maranatha Church at Surrey asked the Synod to bring the churches back to the historic Reformed phrasing. This church considered the changes adopted by the 1983 Synod to be regrettable. Maranatha Church requested that the 1986 Synod adopt the recommendation of the Committee, which had advised Synod 1980 to adopt the wording "in the Apostles’ Creed.” In support of this request Maranatha church asked: If the claim of Synod 1986 is true that: "the questions asked never excluded allegiance to all the confessions which are maintained by the Canadian Reformed Churches", then one can only wonder, “why did Synod 1980 and 1983 change the wording in the first place?”

Moreover, this church pointed out that our synods had not considered the historical background of these questions. A historical review would reveal that ever since the Great Reformation, though various wordings of the questions existed, they were all very similar to the version which we had prior to 1980. The liturgical book of Peter Dathenus (1566) used the phrase “and understood in the Articles of the Christian Faith; another church book used in the southern Netherlands and prepared under the direction of VanderHeyden (1580) read “and understood in our Articles of the Christian Faith.” In 1591 and 1611 R. Schilders published versions of the church book which both read “and understood in the Articles of the Christian Faith.” This version was adopted by the National Synod of 's Gravenhage (1586). Likewise, an edition by L. Elsevier of Leiden read, "and understood in the Articles of the Christian Faith[xiii]. These early Reformed forms clearly demonstrate that the pre-1980 version of the question was the one that was historically correct. Hence, only very weighty reasons should cause the synods to alter it.

Maranatha church also argued that our Synods have not considered the catholic nature of the original wording. In the discussions that have taken place, our synods seem to have completely overlooked that it was with a view to the catholicity of the church that this question was worded as it was. Reference was made to the Apostles’ Creed in the baptismal form because, as is well known, the Apostles’ Creed was originally a baptismal creed, professed by catechumens in the early church at their baptism. As such this reference surely is still today to be regarded as valuable, since it expresses the unity that we have with the early church, and with the church of all ages and places. In this regard, they drew Synod's attention to the appropriate words of Dr. C. Trimp, in his handbook on Reformed liturgy.

In the middle [of the question] stands the striking reference to the summary of the doctrine of the Holy Scriptures in the Apostles’ Creed. This is a direct reference to the ancient-Christian practice to have the person receiving the baptism to confess the faith in the Triune God. The Apostles’ Creed came into being and grew as a baptismal confession…. We, therefore, have in this a precious heritage from the ancient-Christian liturgy.[xiv]

In harmony with other appellants, Maranatha church noted that Synod 1980 did not give any grounds for making this change in the first place. This church observed that it was rather striking that in all the discussions that had taken place at the various synods about this matter, the synods never had given any indication as to why the original wording needed to be altered. The only possible motive that we can find is in the enigmatic phrase that appears in the Acts of Synod 1980: "Consistency should be maintained with respect to 'summarized in the Creeds.” It is totally unclear, however, what consistency needed to be maintained. Likewise, there is no reason given whatsoever for not accepting the considered advice of The Committee which suggested adopting the wording "summarized in the Apostles’ Creed.”

This church concluded that the decisions of our Synods on this change seem to have been rather poorly considered and impulsive. When they took note of the careful and well-researched manner in which a sister church has considered what exactly the liturgical forms should ask,[xv] Maranatha church wondered how our 1980 Synod could so swiftly and without giving any grounds, change the wording that had served the churches for more than 400 years. Even more so, they were amazed that in response to a letter from one brother, the 1983 Synod again changed the question! Because "a Brother requested Synod to inform him whether the interpretation of the word 'creeds' in the questions found in the Forms for Baptism and for the Public Profession of Faith includes the Three Forms of Unity", the 1983 Synod decided that "In order to avoid misunderstanding, the word 'creeds' in the second question should be replaced by 'confessions'." [xvi]

Maranatha Church at Surrey requested Synod 1989 to bring back the historic formulation in the forms and to rescind the decisions of former Synods and cause our liturgical forms to read once again "contained . . . in the Articles of the Christian Faith, or to adopt the recommendation of the Committee and change the forms to read "summarized in the Apostles’ Creed.”

Burlington Ebenezer

This church contended that the change was a change of meaning and not a linguistic update. Moreover, it is a formulation that has been with the church since the Reformation. It also appears in Lord’s Day 7. No Synod may change something like this without providing grounds. No Synod had clearly presented any.

Appeal from B. Moes

The appeal from brother B. Moes stated that the current Forms for Public Profession of Faith and Infant Baptism contain a phrase that historically had never been used in this context within the Canadian Reformed Churches. The appellant stated that this was a departure from accepted historical practice. Therefore, he requested the Synod to return to the wording which was used by the Churches from their inception until the recent Synods of 1980 and 83 brought this to an abrupt end. He based his appeal on the following arguments.

The original Form for the Baptism of Infants was a translation of the one found in The Dutch Psalter of Petrus Dathenus (1566). This church book also contained the Heidelberg Catechism which explained in Lord’s Day 7 that the phrase Articles of the Christian Faith referred to the Apostles’ Creed.

Br. Moes noted, that while it is true that the GKN’s Synod decisions are only binding for the Dutch churches, their 1923 Synod correctly understood that the phrase Articles of the Christian Faith did not refer to the Three Forms of Unity. In fact, this Synod explicitly rejected an attempt to have the words changed to “the confessions of the Reformed churches.” In agreement with this understanding, The Committee proposed that the 1980 Synod adopt the words Apostles' Creed to replace the old wording of Articles of the Christian Faith. In 1982, the Synod of the GKNv also changed the words Articles of the Christian Faith to Apostles' Creed.” Thus, they too, maintained the historical meaning of the phrase as explained in the Heidelberg Catechism.

The 1989 Synod Response

The Synod answered these appeals by summarizing the objections and harmonizing the appeals. The Synod noted similarities in the arguments and dealt with the four appeals together. We can note some grand themes in the appeals: 1. whether the change was a linguistic update or a substantial change; 2. whether or not (sufficient) grounds were given; 3. did the previous Synods address the historical nature of the questions or not; 4. did the Synods consider the catholic nature of the questions or not; 5. did the previous Synods consider the relationship between the Apostles’ Creed and the Sacrament of Baptism; 6. did the previous Synods consider that our Dutch Sister churches did not make this change and why not; 7. the 1980 report recommended the change to “the Apostles’ Creed;  8. a change to the forms should only be made after careful study, and that no study or recommendation for this change ever arose from, or was submitted to, the churches.

In response, the 1989 Synod judged that the 1986 Synod had already judged the change to be a linguistic update and not a substantial change. Furthermore, the Synod acknowledged that though “the 1980 and 1983 synods may not have given grounds for this specific revision . . .  Synod 1983 responded to a specific question with a clear answer, ‘in order to avoid misunderstanding . . . ’”[xvii] But, as noted above, nowhere in the 1983 Acts do we read any consideration of what significant misunderstanding was being avoided. Again, this newer formulation was adopted by the Synod with no mandate to make this change, nor with prior discussion in the churches. This change was simply recorded as synod’s reply to Vanderkamp’s letter.[xviii]

The 1989 Synod also judged that the historical character of the expression “summarized in the Articles of the Christian Faith” had been considered by Synod 1986 and that the appellants did not offer any new grounds on this point. It argued that “a contextual reading of the original wording (“. . .  taught here in this Christian church . . . to be the true and complete doctrine of salvation . . . ”) shows that the present formulation is not a material change which is in conflict with the spirit of catholicity.” Furthermore, this Synod (1989) considered that Synod 1986 had dealt with the formulation used in the Dutch sister-churches and did not agree that there was any real discrepancy in confessional practice.

The 1989 Synod decided not to grant any of the appeals.

F. 1992 Synod

In 1992 the Church at Abbotsford appealed to General Synod. They argued that the changes to the forms were illegally made by previous synods. This church presented as grounds that the changes in the forms had never been dealt with by any minor assembly, as is required in the last paragraph of Church Order Article 30. This synod denied this appeal with the following consideration:

Subsequent Synods have maintained that the resulting change from “articles of the Christian faith” to “confessions” was a linguistic revision.  This is not a matter which has to be initiated at the minor assembly.[xix]

We wonder why Blessings church of Hamilton was told that it had to initiate discussion at the minor assemblies in order to have a general synod consider a request to revert the questions to previous formulations.[xx] It can’t be both, can it?

G. Future Articles

Several subsequent articles will appear on this blog in the coming days. In the first follow-up, we will see that the adopted formulations introduced a theological error into the heart of our church life. We will also see that the questions contain an internal contradiction.

A second article analyzing the history here presented will defend the premise that what the 1980 and 1983 synods did was not in harmony with our Church Order, nor with our common understanding of what should be recorded in the Acts of our assemblies.

A final installment will review the historical arguments that were never considered by examining the following questions: 1. did the previous Synods address the historical nature of the questions or not; 2. did the Synods consider the catholic nature of the questions or not; 3. did the previous Synods consider the relationship between the Apostles’ Creed and the Sacrament of Baptism; 4. did the previous Synods consider that our Dutch Sister churches did not make this change and why not; 5. did the synods consider all the historical arguments presented by the appellants.

We trust that you the reader will clearly see that justice was not done by our synods and that for justice to be done, we need to return to the pre-980 formulations of the questions in our Forms for Baptism and for Public Profession of Faith. If thereafter, this change should as yet be made, let a church present an overture to the minor assemblies and present its case.



[i] The author of this essay has accessed the synod archives and based his analysis on the original documents. The appeals and letters have never been published and prior to this essay had only been seen by the delegates to the various general synods.

[ii] Several of the original documents have extensive quotations in Dutch. All Dutch quotations have been translated into English by the late Dr. Freda Oosterhof.

[iii] Acts 2019, Art 64 Recommendation 4.4

[iv] Acts 1977. Art 61 Recommendation 4.

[v] The forms for Adult Baptism and for Public Profession of Faith had similar formulations.

[vi] Acts 1983. Art 145 B. 8 (pg. 100).

[vii] Acts 1983. Art 145 C. Consideration 4.A.8 (pg. 101).

[viii] Acts 1983. Art 145. Found on page 107, following the provisional adoption of the Marriage Form, in a non-sequential list of comments ”2”,  “5”,  6”. “2,” refers to a discussion on male headship and likely was meant to refer to a point in the Marriage Form. “5“ refers to Synod’s changes to the forms (from ‘creeds’ to “confessions’) as the synod’s answer to W. Vanderkamp’s question. “6” pertains to the printing of the Book of Praise. It is noteworthy that no Considerations accompany the revision of the Marriage Form. It is not clear how these 3 points function in the Acts or if their appearance on the tail end of the Marriage Form is actually a typographical error! Clearly something went seriously wrong in the final edit of Art 145!

[ix] Acts 1986 Art 144

[x] Lord’s Day 7

[xi] Bouwman wrote:We spoke not of the Reformed faith and of the Reformed Church on purpose, but rather, of the Christian faith and the Christian Church, because the Reformed Church, also with respect to the sacraments, must not separate itself from the Christian Church, but wishes to preserve her unity. The main points of the Christian doctrine wherein the youth of the congregation are taught are, according to the classical expression with respect to faith, commandment and prayer: The Apostles’ Creed, the 10 Commandments, and the Lord’s Prayer. In the teaching ministry of the Church, these three parts of the doctrine, explained further in the catechism, are taught. And it is the heart of the confession of faith therein to persevere and to lead a Christian life. (Dr. H. Bouwman, Gereformeerd Kerkrecht, J.H. Kok, Kampen, 1921, pp. 382- 383.)

[xii] The GKN Synod 1923 stated that . . . over against all sorts of wrong ideas that one sometimes meets, it is well to make clear that the Public Confession of Faith is not just an expression of general agreement, but a very personal thing of each individual. Thereby we have to remark immediately that precisely the character of this confession, as the acceptance of one’s baptism, implies that those who make this confession are generally young. Therefore, the formulation of the personal element in no case may be of such a nature that only more mature believers would be in a position to respond. It is more the need than the possession, more the desire than the certainty, that must therein be clearly expressed. (Draft report on the Questions in the Form for Public Profession of Faith; the Revision of the Liturgy; and the Survey and Expansion of Hymns Selection: by the ad hoc deputies; to the GKN General Synod to be convened in 1923.)

[xiii] In the originals, these phrases are not identical, but have several alternate spellings and words but translate into similar English phrases.

[xiv] De Gemeente en haar Liturgie: een Leesboek voor Kerkgangers [The Congregation and Her Liturgy: A Handbook for Church Members. ] (Vandenberg, 1983, p.188).

[xv] The 1923 GKN Synod received a report from a committee mandated by a previous synod to recommend what the questions in the forms should ask. This committee had circulated their report to the churches for review prior to the synod being convened.

[xvi] See footnote VIII

[xvii] Acts 1983, Art 145 Consideration C.4.A.8 pg 101.

[xviii] See footnote X

[xix] Acts 1992 Article 122

[xx] Acts 2019 Article 64

[1] Acts 1983, Art 145 Consideration C.4.A.8 pg 101.

[1] See footnote X

[1] Acts 1992 Article 122

[1] Acts 2019 Article 64