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