Visitors at Communion: History, The Scriptures, the Confessions, the Forms, and Church Order (powerpoint)

 Visitors at Communion: History, The Scriptures, the Confessions, the Forms, and Church Order

 On this blog, you can find two brief exegesis papers that I wrote on Galatians 2 (2019) and 1 Corinthians 11 (2021) explaining the significance of these chapters with respect to welcoming guests at the communion table.  More recently (2022), the Fellowship Elders were called on to explain our practice to a neighbouring church. I prepared an extensive PowerPoint presentation describing how we got to our position. I explain the history behind our changes, then the Biblical data, the confessional background, the instruction in the forms, and the church polity behind our decisions,

Here is a link to a presentation on Practicing Hospitality at the Lord's Table. (Please note that you will leave this page.)

Visitors at Communion Gal 2

 Should we Deny Communion to Visitors? 

In Clarion, Dr. Bill de Jong recently touched a sensitive spot in the Canadian Reformed psyche. In his collegial discussion with Dr. Jason van Vliet, he mentions the Apostle Paul “upbraiding Peter in Antioch to his face” for withdrawing from table-fellowship with Gentile believers. Dr. De Jong points out that Paul warns Peter that this strikes at the very heart of the Gospel: ultimately, it is a denial of the doctrine of justification by faith (Gal 2:16.)[i] Dr. van Vliet demurs. He contends that when a consistory denies table-fellowship to non-Reformed Christians, they are “not adding, in any way, the requirements of ‘works of the law’ to faith. Instead, it is simply and rightly ascertaining that the content of someone’s faith is in line with God’s revealed Word.”[ii] For many years, in our ecumenical conversations, how visitors are welcomed to communion has dominated much of our dialogue. The position Dr. De Jong has articulated is relatively unusual among us. However, Dr. Van Vliet’s position only restates the status quo. This is a topic worth looking into more deeply.

What is happening in Galatians 2? What is the apostle Paul speaking of? And why? Paul wrote to the Galatians Christians because some of them were teaching that being a Christian was all about what you do. Among them were those who insisted that the Jewish customs needed to be followed. They were teaching that circumcision was still necessary for Christians (2:4-5). Even Christians who were not of Jewish descent were required to be circumcised. They insisted that the Christian church needed to continue with the ancient food laws and cleansing rituals (2:12).  But Paul insists that this is not the case. The Apostle teaches us that the only way to be right with God is by faith in Jesus Christ. In Galatians 2, he illustrates this from an event in the life of the apostles. He underlines his point that a man is justified by faith and not by rules that he follows, by recounting how he had rebuked Peter.

From Acts 10 we know that Peter had come to learn that the gospel was not just for Jews but also for the Gentiles. The good news was also for all the other nations and peoples of the world. For the Jews, there were two kinds of people: themselves—God’s covenant people—and the rest of the nations. And the Jews segregated themselves from Gentiles. We need to turn the account of Peter’s vision while on the rooftop patio of his friend’s house. While he was in a trance, he saw a large sheet with all sorts of unclean animals lowered from heaven, and a voice said, “Kill and eat.” But Peter balked. Three times, the sheet came down. Three times, he was told, “Eat of these unclean creatures.” But he said, “I’ve never eaten anything unclean.”

As he pondered this vision and wondered at its meaning, messengers came looking for him from afar. They had been sent to find Peter and bring him to their master, Cornelius, who was a Gentile. Because of the vision and the invitation to come to Cornelius, it became clear to Peter that though he was to be separated from the Gentiles in the past, this was no longer valid. With the coming of the Christ, the message of hope in the Gospel was for all. Food laws were obsolete, and segregation was no longer necessary. More than that, segregation was now forbidden!

Peter then said to those who sent for him, “You know that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with or visit a Gentile. But God has shown me that I should not call anyone impure or unclean” (Acts 10:26). He went with them, and stayed with the Gentiles for a time, teaching them of Jesus Christ, while living among them and eating with them. He shared table-fellowship with them.

When the leaders of the church in Jerusalem heard this, they wondered what Peter was up to. How could he be sharing a table, a meal, with Gentiles? They were unclean, were they not? In response to their concerns, Peter went up to Jerusalem to tell the church leaders there what he was doing and why. He told them of his vision and the messengers from afar and how he now understood that food laws were no longer valid and that Gentiles were not unclean. When they heard Peter’s explanation, they had no further objections and praised God, saying, “So then, even to Gentiles, God has granted repentance that leads to life” (11:1-18). Gentiles can be right with God, too!  

In Galatians 2, Paul recalls what happened later. Paul was back in Antioch, an important city for the early church. This is the church that had sent Paul and Barnabas out to preach the good news of Jesus to the Gentiles. Here, Christians from both Jewish and Gentile families came together as one. It was the first multinational, inter-racial church. It was some years later, and Paul had heard something about Peter. It seems that Peter and others were no longer sharing table-fellowship with Gentile Christians, even though God had made clear to Peter in that vision that the OT food laws were no longer necessary, and from this Peter had also understood that he no longer needed to avoid association with Gentiles. He should not deem anyone impure or unclean. There was no need for Gentile Christians to “do certain things” to be permitted to enjoy table-fellowship with Jewish Christians.

But somehow, pressure had been put on Peter to change back to former practices. The free and easy fellowship the church enjoyed in Antioch and other places had upset some who claimed to be sent by the leaders the church in Jerusalem. James and the others there were trying to reach their Jewish brethren with the gospel, and it seems that Peter’s (and the church at Antioch’s) new ideas were considered scandalous. This was, it would seem, to be a detriment to the church in Judea (Antioch was far to the north in Syria.) We are not sure where Peter was preaching, but some came from James in Jerusalem to Peter and told him to cease and desist this fraternizing with the Gentiles.

Of course, we can be pretty sure that Peter was focused entirely on the cause of Jesus and on the advance of the church. If his table fellowship with Gentiles was a cause for offence, he might have reasoned that slipping back to previous ways wouldn’t hurt too much. Paul notes that Peter’s return to Jewish ways even caused Barnabas, Paul’s missionary partner to the Gentiles, to do the same. Peter, Barnabas, and the Judean church were no longer sharing table fellowship with Gentile Christians. In the culture of the day, this would have been considered normal. The Jews had been scattered throughout the world, and in every place, they would have refrained from table-fellowship with non-Jews.

We must remember, however, that in the early church, it was at fellowship meals that the Lord’s Supper was celebrated. During a communal meal, bread would be broken, and wine shared in remembrance of the Lord Jesus Christ (Cf. 1 Cor 11:17-34). But now Peter and Barnabas had segregated the church: Jews at this table, Gentiles at that.  

They were not denying that the Gentiles in the church were Christian, but to enjoy table fellowship with Jewish Christians, the Gentile Christians needed to follow some more rules. Peter likely said something like, “We are not judging you, but we can’t share communion at the same table with you because you don’t follow our rules! Of course, you’re a Christian; we just can’t express our unity in Christ with you at the Lord’s Supper.” When the Apostle Paul heard this, he was indignant. God had shown that none were to be considered unclean. The gospel message is the same for all.  As the Jerusalem leaders said earlier, “So then, even to Gentiles, God has granted repentance that leads to life!” (Acts 11)

Paul recounts to the Galatians how when Peter came to Antioch, Paul took the opportunity to rebuke him for his hypocrisy. (“Cephas,” he calls him. That was Peter’s Jewish name. “Cephas” is “Peter” in Aramaic.  Peter the Rock: the solid guy. Paul uses the Jewish rendering of Peter’s name, not the Gentile one, for this hypocrite.) He rebuked Jewish “Cephas” for refusing table fellowship to Gentile Christians and for refusing to share communion with other Christians based on rules. It seems that Peter was no longer following the Jewish customs concerning food, and yet he segregated himself from Gentiles who were not circumcised. “You who don’t follow the rules anymore, are insisting others do!” Peter and the others had misjudged the matter. They were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel (2:14). I know of several CanR "snowbirds" who spend Canadian winters in the southern states and attend churches that welcome them to communion with an invitation and warning, but when at home again in Canada, defend our rules. Is this not similar to Peter, who didn't follow the rules , and yet insisted others did.

Paul insists that adding just one rule beyond the gospel to bar others from table-fellowship undermines the gospel of free grace. It strikes at the very heart of the gospel. Denying table-fellowship based on rules undermines the truth of God that declares “that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ” (2:15). If we say to another professing Christ-following, Bible-believing Christian, “You can’t have table-fellowship with us because of one of our rules,” we are in danger of destroying the gospel. It strikes at the unity of the church by imposing segregation. It binds Christians to the law, which Peter himself earlier had said was a burdensome yoke (Acts 15). And it sets aside God’s grace (2:21).

How does that square with our own practice? In our history, we have consistently denied table fellowship to all kinds of Christ-followers from Bible-believing churches who come as visitors to our worship services. We have taught generations of our own members to deny themselves table fellowship, even when they visited other churches in our own federation, unless they had a travel attestation. I contend that that undermines the doctrines of grace, of the unity and ecumenicity of the church, and introduces a new legalism.

Some will argue that we are to “keep the table holy” but no such scriptural mandate exists. The holy supper is holy! Even as the Ark of the Covenant was holy. When David had it transported in ways not mandated (on a cart) and someone reached out to steady it, the Ark was not defiled: the offender was struck dead by God (2 Sam 6)! The Belgic Confession even notes that Judas communed at the Last Supper, and the Lord knew what was in his heart. Nowhere in the confessions of the church will you find a mandate for elders to “keep the table holy.” As well, there is no mandate in the Church Order for elders “to guard” or “to fence” the table, nor to “keep” it holy. Nor is there a mandate for that in the ordination forms or even in the Form for the Celebration of the Lord’s Supper itself. 

For many years, some have interpreted Article 61 of the Church Order to mandate the elders to require a “travel attestation” from visitors to permit their participation in communion. However, this article does not speak of visitors but of the requirement that baptized members and new members make a public profession of faith before becoming church communicant members. It is by their public profession that they are admitted to the holy supper (See Form for the Public Profession of Faith). Members are not “re-admitted” at every communion service but rather only once at their public profession of faith. Afterward, both members and visitors are welcomed to the table.

Moreover, several of our churches will welcome visitors through an interview or some other sort of confirmation, which shows that this article does not require a travel attestation. There is no regulation in the CO that demands an attest prior to welcoming a visitor to communion. I am thankful that our churches have never adopted nor approved a standard rule for welcoming visitors to communion.

---

[i] “The Invitation to the Table.” Clarion. Vol 68.5. March 8, 2019. (pg 131.)

[ii] “Response to Dr. Bill de Jong.” Clarion. Vol 68.5. March 8, 2019 (pg. 133). Italics in original

Visitors at Communion and 1 Corinthians 11

 

1 Corinthians 11 and Visitors at communion

The Context (Context is king!)

The letters to the Corinthians are occasional letters dealing 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. 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 are infrequent or sporadic. They mean, instead, 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 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. Chapter 2 Is about Human wisdom vs godly wisdom. In Chapter 3. Paul consider ”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 there 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 defends his Apostleship against detractors who are sowing seeds of division in the church. 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 prayer. And we will see how the matter of division in the church returns. This division 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 were many pagan temples that celebrated temple prostitution, debauchery and drunkenness. There were many trade guilds in Corinth, and the business owners would sponsor feasts at the temples, to which the working-class members of the guilds were invited. However, there would be no socializing 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 they would not wait for the lower class to finish 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 a 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 the 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"  Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and the seventy elders of Israel went up and saw the God of Israel. Under his feet was something like a pavement made of lapis lazuli, as bright blue as the sky. But God did not raise his hand against these leaders of the Israelites; they saw God, and they ate and drank.

In his grief over division in the church, the Apostle enjoins the Corinthian ‘saints’ (see1:2) to self-examination (11:28-34). However, We should note that this passage, when 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 them. The Apostle uses a word --Schismata-- that directly underlies our word Schism, which describes an ungodly division in the church. In chapter 10:17, Paul points this out when he sees the unity of the church in 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, given as 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 of 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..

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, they became 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 love for God in your walk of life and 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 convinced that Paul’s instruction about the 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?

Should Christians support the Freedom Convoys

From my facebook 

I stopped regularly listening to MSM and instead turn to Rebel News, and to citizens reports who do live stream walk-throughs of downtown Ottawa on YouTube. You get a very different picture of what's happening in Ottawa! Of course we don't agree with everything that said and done there, even as we would not agree with everything that every Canadian soldier said and did on the battlegrounds of WW II. But yet we say the cause they fought for was just and right!

Didn't John Calvin say that a rebellion was legitimate if under magistrates agreed and participated. There are several MP's who publicly supported and have spoken up for the "Freedom  Convoy" participants. 

When the prime minister judges the views being expressed as that of "a small Fringe minority with unacceptable views" and condemns the participants as "racists and misogynists and white supremacists" he is no longer acting like the leader of a Nation, but as a spokesman for a  segment of society that has a particular viewpoint.  In effect he has declared as unacceptable, the views of the many Christians who are protesting their loss of freedom to worship, of expression, of association, of movement, of privacy.

This is similar to Hillary Clinton, who said that half of Donald Trump’s supporters belong in a “basket of deplorables” characterized by “racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic” views.

Moreover, in our civil society we are permitted to protest against our governments at the ballot box. But we're also permitted to protest against our governments by marching in the street. We do it every year with a pro-life March. The freedom convoy is different only in the matter of degree: the March for Life is not much of an inconvenience to the people who live in downtown Ottawa; The Freedom Convoy is. 

The present protest is peaceful (except for the air-horns). The brou-haha about the Terry Fox memorial should cause the leftists to be ashamed. A Canadian flag was draped over the shoulders of the Statue of Terry Fox and a placard was put in his arms. The leftists were appalled because Terry Fox, they said, should not be appropriated by antivaxxers; his memory belongs to those who believe in universal health care! Go figure! I find it interesting that those who complain about the Terry Fox memorial have not complained about the BLM protests tearing down John A McDonald's memorial in Montreal, or the beheading of the Statue of Queen Victoria.

Of course we disagree with those who think it appropriate to fly a swastika or a Confederate flag.  

But Justin Trudeau's allegation that truckers were stealing food from homeless people is leftist spin on an unverified news bit that some protesters tried to get some free food from a homeless soup kitchen. That is a far cry from stealing food from homeless people.  Now we see the protesters providing free food for anyone who wants some. I can't imag6ine they would turn the homeless away! We don't hear the prime minister recognizing that! (The soup kitchen is also now receiving hundreds of dollars of unsolicited donstions!)

It may be true that some protesters treated the grave of the unknown soldier with disrespect, but since then many have laid flowers on the grave.  The prime Minister has not recognized this act of contrition and acknowledgment of wrong doing by some at the protest. 

The prime minister in his pronouncements is purposely misleading the citizens of the country that he is supposed to be leading. When several under magistrates agree with a significant segment of the population that the government must go, then organized protest and civil disobedience is not unbiblical nor unChristian. It can and may be employed by Christians to advance the cause of the church and to build up the kingdom of God. Especially when the prime minister declares our views "unacceptable"!

By the. Liberal Party spin, our government is swiftly losing credibility and legitimacy.  I fully support the Freedom Convoy. If people don't want to be vaccinated that should be their choice. I've had "two and a boost" but that's my choice. If I would get COVID and be unvaccinated, because of my Parkinson's I would probably die of pneumonia. So I made an informed decision. 

In our country we don't penalize smokers or the obese or those who engage in extreme sports, by making pariahs out of them banning them from civil society. Why should I with "2 and a boost" be afraid of unvaxxed. Why should they lose their jobs. Why ban them from restaurants, museums, airplanes, concert halls,  theaters, bowling alleys, gyms and spas... (and in Quebec even from worshipping) Let them be! 

I wonder at the inconsistency of the leftists, who in their pro-abortion rhetoric will state that a woman's body is her own, and what she does with her body is between her and her doctor. But a freedom loving right of center Christ follower is denied the opportunity to use that argument with respect to vaccines.  The left will bludgeon freedom loving libertarian into submission. This is the time for Christians to speak out. We have a legitimate (and I think God given) opportunity to reclaim civil freedoms that are a legacy of the Great Reformation and that the ungodly left will be pleased to steal from us: Freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of religion, freedom to worship, freedom to travel inside our own national borders without being tracked, freedom of privacy! 

They will use their arguments to support their positions but deny Christians the right to use similar defenses. The is no reasoning with a post-milleniaĺ post-modern.  Our views, opinions and worldview are that of  "a small fringe minority and are unacceptable." 

Trudeau has shown his true colours and we, judged by him to be "The Small Fringe Minority" should take that up as a badge of honor! We of the unacceptable views!  

In Dutch history, in 1566, among the leaders who bound themselves to assist in defending the rights and liberties of the Netherlands against the civil and religious despotism of Philip II of Spain, were the nobles, Louis of Nassau and Hendrick van Brederode. On April 5 1566, permission was obtained for the confederates to present a petition of grievances, called the Request, to the regent, Margaret, Duchess of Parma. About 250 nobles marched to the palace accompanied by Louis of Nassau and van Brederode. The regent was at first alarmed at the appearance of so large a body, but one of her councillors, Berlaymont, allegedly remarked "N'ayez pas peur Madame, ce ne sont que des gueux" ("Fear not madam, they are only beggars"). (Wikimedia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geuzen)

"They're only gueux", a French slur. The protesters took on the slur in pride. And when they used their  ships to blockade the harbour at Brill, they called themselves the Water Geuzen. The action at Brill by the Water Beggars is some what paralleled by the Freedom Convoy. Except that the Water Beggars protest became an armed military uprising. The Dutch rebelled against the Roman Catholic Hapsburgs and established a free Calvinist State.  

Full disclosure: my mother's maiden name was De Geus and and family tree goes back to a fellow Jacob the (knife) Sharpener, who took the surname '"de Gueuz" in 1572, (the year the Beggars captured Brill and Vlissingen, which marked the beginning of the final stagesprotest of the Dutch revolt.) 

The Water Beggars were privateers or pirates depending on your point of view (though sanctioned by William of Orange) yet I've never heard that their actions against the Roman Catholic Hapsburgs was illegitimate, or that the Dutch revolt was unChristian nor was the establishing of the calavinist Netherlands.

And we could mention Bonhoeffer and his involvement in the plot to assassinate Hitler. If I remember correctly, Bonhoeffer was Dr Jelle Faber's beloved heretic, because of his nvolvement. Faber told us of the vile memories of Amsterdam Jews being rounded up. It was duing his last month of teaching that the Berlin wall fell-- Nov 9 1989--and we asked him what he thought about it. He said he feared German reunification. I don't think Dr Faber thought that Bonhoeffer was wrong.

Daniel's friends stood up against the king of the great city of man, Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon. With the whole world as witnesses, they defied great king of the City of the world and would not submit. When prayer was forbidden, Daniel didn't go and hide when he prayed, but publicly defied the great king of the city of man, because he had his eyes set on the city that has foundations, whose architect and builder is God.

Let us, the SFM, the Basket of Deplorables, allied with the Trucker Beggars do the same. We have a legitimate protest; which we as God's people may and should use to protect our Christian freedom.

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!

 

1 Corinthians 11 and Visitors at communion

The Context (Context is king!)

The letters to the Corinthians are occasional letters dealing 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. 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 are infrequent or sporadic. They mean, instead, 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 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. Chapter 2 Is about Human wisdom vs godly wisdom. In Chapter 3. Paul consider ”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 there 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 defends his Apostleship against detractors who are sowing seeds of division in the church. 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 prayer. And we will see how the matter of division in the church returns. This division 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 were many pagan temples that celebrated temple prostitution, debauchery and drunkenness. There were many trade guilds in Corinth, and the business owners would sponsor feasts at the temples, to which the working-class members of the guilds were invited. However, there would be no socializing 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 they would not wait for the lower class to finish 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 a 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 the 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"  Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and the seventy elders of Israel went up and saw the God of Israel. Under his feet was something like a pavement made of lapis lazuli, as bright blue as the sky. But God did not raise his hand against these leaders of the Israelites; they saw God, and they ate and drank.

In his grief over division in the church, the Apostle enjoins the Corinthian ‘saints’ (see1:2) to self-examination (11:28-34). However, We should note that this passage, when 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 them. The Apostle uses a word --Schismata-- that directly underlies our word Schism, which describes an ungodly division in the church. In chapter 10:17, Paul points this out when he sees the unity of the church in 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, given as 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 of 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..

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, they became 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 love for God in your walk of life and 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 convinced that Paul’s instruction about the 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?”

Should We Deny Communion to Visitors II

 

You can find an essay I wrote on Galatians 2 and its significance with respect to welcoming guests at communion on this blog. It is the only entry I made in 2019. More recently, the Fellowship Elders were called on to explain our practice to a neighbouring church. I prepared an extensive PowerPoint presentation (Well, I used Google slides) explaining how we got to our position. I explain the history behind our changes, then the Biblical data, the confessional background, the instruction in the forms, and the church polity behind our decisions,

Here is a link to a presentation on Practicing Hospitality at the Lord's Table. (Please note that you will leave this page.)

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)