Was Justice Done By Canadian Reformed Synods?

 WAS JUSTICE DONE? 

John L. van Popta (©2021)

A. INTRODUCTION

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

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

B. 1980 SYNOD

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

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

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

C. 1983 SYNOD

Letter from Brother W. Vanderkamp

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

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

D. 1986 SYNOD

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1986 Synod’s Response

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

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

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

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

The Synod denied the appeal.

E. 1989 SYNOD

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

Langley Church’s Appeal

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

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

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

Maranatha Church at Surrey’s Appeal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Burlington Ebenezer

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

Appeal from B. Moes

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

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

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

The 1989 Synod Response

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

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

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

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

F. 1992 Synod

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

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

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

G. Future Articles

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

[iii] Acts 2019, Art 64 Recommendation 4.4

[iv] Acts 1977. Art 61 Recommendation 4.

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

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

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

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

[ix] Acts 1986 Art 144

[x] Lord’s Day 7

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

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

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

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

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

[xvi] See footnote VIII

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

[xviii] See footnote X

[xix] Acts 1992 Article 122

[xx] Acts 2019 Article 64

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

[1] See footnote X

[1] Acts 1992 Article 122

[1] Acts 2019 Article 64