Article 29

I have been asked why I keep looking at the past, and why I am meddling in affairs that I oh so wanted to be freed from. You ask a question you get an answer.

1. I am still talking about the past because there are people, in the present, who still disagree about how they view the past. And both parties have made their beliefs public. There are people who have said that they believed that Jamie, Leo, John and myself abandoned the Church.

I disagree!

And I will publically defend this position.

John received another call to plant a church...and he took the call. Has no other pastor ever received a call from another church...and accepted it?

People feel they know John's secret motives for doing this...funny I thought only God knew the secrets of mens hearts.

As for Jamie, Leo, and myself, we didn't step down from office until Edmonton had step in as oversight...no one was abandoned.

Some people may not like "how" we did it because it didn't fit in with their agenda but that is not the same thing as us leaving the Church without any spiritual guidance.



2. About my meddling...since when did "truth" and "Christ's Church" become someones personal property...it almost sounds like I am trespassing through someones backyard!
If someone is going to publically declare their beliefs, and some of these beliefs involve me...then I will take fully liberty to declare [publically] my own beliefs.


Some people were led to believe that in Synod 2007 that only the Covenant Reformed Churches leaders would not be allowed membership in the URCNA...this is not the case.

Look at the Church Order.
Article 29
If any assembly complains of having been wronged by the decision of another assembly, it shall have the right to appeal to the broader assemblies. An individual's appeal must proceed first to the Consistory, and only then, if necessary, to a broader assembly. All decisions of a broader assembly are to be received with respect and submission, and shall be considered settled and binding, unless it is proved that they are in conflict with the Word of God or the Church Order. Consistories who are convinced that they cannot comply with a decision of a broader assembly because it does not agree with the Word of God cannot be compelled to do so, provided that they state to the classis the points at which the decision of the assembly disagrees with the Word of God. If a Consistory refuses to comply with the final decision of the synod and a subsequent synod rules by majority vote that submission in the matter is essential for the unity of the churches, the congregation is no longer eligible for membership in the federation.

Do note that it is the "congregation" that is no longer eligible for membership in the federation...not just the consistory.


To repeat...this is from the Fifth Acts of Synod [the last Synod held].

Overture: The consistory of The Orthodox Reformed Church of Edmonton requests Classis Western Canada 2003 (Salem) to clarify the status and function of the decision of Classis 2000 (Lynden) that “The Confessions exclude non-professing members from participating in the Lord’s Supper.”

Grounds:

1. The unity of our churches in the faith requires agreement as to the proper recipients of the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper.

Motion: to adopt the Overture of The Orthodox Reformed Church of Edmonton
Motion: call for the question- PASSED
Motion: to adopt PASSED
Motion: that the following statement be received as a response of clarification.

• This decision [The Confessions exclude non-professing members from participating in the Lord’s Supper] is not an ‘extra-confessional’ statement that somehow has special status along side of our Confessions. It is rather an affirmation of the Confessions themselves on a specific point of their teaching. Therefore, agreement with this teaching of our Confessions as recognized and affirmed by classis has a direct bearing on Confessional Subscription. Any candidates or office-bearers who cannot affirm what classis has affirmed regarding the Confessions on this point cannot properly subscribe to the Three Forms of Unity.

[Do note that I removed the last three grounds from Edmonton as I wanted the first to stand out]

The first grounds to their overture against paedo-communion [an overture that was "passed"] was that it was against the unity of the Churches. The very thing that Article 29 spoke of.

In 2007, the Synod, if it followed the trend of previous broader assemblies [which it gave no indication of doing otherwise] would have not allowed the Covenant Reformed Church to sustain its membership in the URCNA.

We made our decision for those families who didn't agree with paedo-communion...that they wouldn't be forced out of a denomination that they wanted to stay in.