Steve Wilkins Speaks

After we [the previous consistory of the Covenant Reformed Church] had decided to leave the Church and start a new work, some people came to us and told us that they heard Steve Wilkins [a strong proponent of paedo-communion] teach that a Church should never “split” or “divide” over the issue of paedo-communion.

I knew that the situation that Mr. Wilkins was in [in the PCA] was much different then our own... so... I wanted to hear what he had to say about our situation, and our decision about leaving.

So is Mr. Wilkins for or against what we did?

There is much reading below that I sent to Mr. Wilkins, so for the sake of time I am giving you the first part of my letter [minus our letter to the congregation, and some judgments from the Fifth Acts of Synod, then I have Mr. Wilkins reply to my letter, last I have the second part of my letter to Mr. Wilkins.
This way you can read my question to Mr. Wilkins, and his answer to my question. I sent him the letter to the congregation and the readings from the Acts of Synod so he could make a better judgment. If you want to read this further readings you will have to go past Mr. Wilkins response. I hope this enlightens you...enjoy. In Christ, dale

p.s- Mr. Wilkins gave me his permission to print this on my blog.

----- Original Message -----
From: Dale Callahan
To: swilkins@auburnavenue.org
Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2006 11:13 AM
Subject: What would your judgment be?

Dear Mr. Wilkins,
I am seeking your advice. I have corresponded with you via email in the past. We were going to have you come and speak at a Hospitality Conference but the conference never happened.
I was an elder in the Covenant Reformed Church of Grande Prairie. The other office bearers were Rev. John Barach, Jamie Soles [elder], George Plante [elder], and Leo Wattel [deacon].
Back in late Jan Pastor Barach accepted a call to Oregon. This left us without a pastor and also left us without any future possibility of a pastor. All of the consistory held to paedo-communion and this had effectively disqualified us from office. The only reason why we were still allowed to be in office is that the procedure of the Church order [article 29] allowed us to disagree until two synod judgments ruled against us. This second synod was coming up in June 2007. This meant that if synod 2007 followed the same rulings that the earlier classis and synods made then we would no longer be able to maintain membership in the federation, after 2007. We have left our church, but not until we could leave the congregation under the spiritual oversight of another church within the federation. On April 10 the church voted to have Edmonton Church take oversight over them. At this same time we [consistory] gave our resignation from office and our release from membership. We are seeking membership within the CREC [under Christ Covenant Church, Langley, B.C].
I first listened to your tape series on paedo communion 7 years ago and was convinced of this wonderful truth. We have people in the church we left who are saying that they heard you preach that a church should never "split" over this issue. Stepping down from office and starting a new work was not an easy decision, nor was it our first choice. If our federation allowed office holders to hold to paedo communion as long as they didn't practice it, and if younger children were allowed to come to the table with a profession of faith, then we would have never left.
I just wanted to send you our letter to the congregation to see what you have to say [with what limited knowledge you have on our situation].
I will also send you the ruling of previous classis and synod rulings. And finally could I ask you what is the youngest age that children can come to the Lord's Table at your church...in our federation it is between 16-18 years old.
I would really appreciate your feedback.



From : Steve Wilkins
Sent : April 26, 2006 10:20:24 AM
To : "Dale Callahan"
Subject : Re: What would your judgment be?

| | | Inbox


Dear Mr. Callahan,

I'm very sorry to be so slow in responding to your note. No excuses, just busy.

I think your letter is quite good. I do not think churches should split over paedocommunion at all --- but your situation is distinctly different than the ones I had in mind when I said this. In your situation, Synod has stated that office bearers cannot hold office if they *agree* with paedocommunion. In other words, you're not being allowed the freedom I have to believe in paedocommunion but not practice it. I am in a position to continue to labor for reform --- but you are not. The only way you could retain office in the URC is to repudiate your conviction. Thus, it seems to me that your rationale is correct and the best alternative to preserving the peace of the Church in Grande Prairie.

I don't know the size of Grande Prairie but I would guess that the objection of the others stems (at least in part) from the fear that the town will not be able to sustain two reformed churches. That is reasonable, but I don't see an alternative given the recalcitrance of the URC on this issue. Thus, it seems to me the primary blame for this must be laid at the feet of the URC.

Regarding your question about the youngest child we have admitted to the table -- I believe the youngest was 3 years old. We are required by our Book of Church Order to receive a profession of faith from covenant children before admitting them. But there is no age limit and there is no "minimum standards" by which to judge the profession of faith. The only question is, "Is the profession 'credible'?" We judged that the professions of faith we have heard from very young children quite credible.

I'm sorry that I cannot be of more help --- if I have misunderstood something, please let me know.

God bless,
Steve W.


First, some of our federations past rulings

Overture #1: Edmonton
1. Background: Classis 2000 (Lynden) ruled that "The Confessions exclude non-professing members from participating in the Lord’s Supper."
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.

2. The meaning of subscription to our Confessions may be jeopardized if differing interpretations of those Confessions are allowable on such important matters.

3. Adhering to our Church Order regarding the settled and binding nature of the decisions of broader assemblies (Article 29) is also at issue here.

4. Christian integrity and fairness requires consistency in the application of the Classis 2000 decision as it relates to currently serving and retired office-bearers as well as to candidates to the ministry.

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.

Motion: to table that copies of this statement be made available for further review DEFEATED

Motion: to adopt this statement PASSED

NOTE: the Right of Protest was exercised by the following delegates:
Rev. John Barach, Mr. Dick Barendregt, Rev. Tim Kolkman, Mr. Henry Klooster

and last, our letter to the congregation [two months before we stepped down from office].

When we stepped down from office we did so with the majority of the peoples blessings.


To the congregation of Covenant Reformed Church of Grande Prairie, beloved in the Lord;

The office bearers of our church have spent a great deal of time in the past few years trying to see our way ahead as a church. As we are sure you know, there are many factors which present us as a congregation with significant obstacles to staying in the URCNA. At the same time, there are a number of you who have expressed to the office bearers that you have no desire to have us as a congregation leave the URCNA. Here, again, are the significant obstacles;

(a) All of us in consistory hold to paedocommunion, or covenant communion (i.e., we all believe that God desires all covenant members, including our children, to be at His Table, and that baptism, not profession of faith, is the key which grants such access.)

(b) Classis Western Canada Spring 2003 ruled that the confessions of our church require a profession of faith prior to anyone being admitted to the Table and that one may not legitimately hold office if one does not hold that interpretation of the confessions,

(c) Synod 2004 upheld that decision against our appeal and also adopted a statement to the same effect. We were also forbidden to interview for profession of faith any persons ten years old or younger, making us the only congregation in the URCNA unable to do so.

(d) We have let Classis 2005 know that we are not binding ourselves to abide by the decisions of synod, since these decisions violate our consciences before God. Our case is therefore to go to Synod 2007 for a ruling with regards to our church, if it is allowed to stay in the URCNA, or if it is no longer eligible for membership in the URCNA, in which case we would have to withdraw as a church.

(e) With Pastor Barach having recently accepted a call to a different church, a new obstacle arises; how could we call a new minister to replace him, given the current dynamics in the church? What man would come, if he knew his whole consistory were officially disqualified from office in the URCNA?

We don't believe it would be wise to try to lead the whole congregation out of the federation (as Lethbridge's overture to this last classis recommended) or to wait until Synod 2007, at which time it is likely the synod would tell the whole congregation to leave the federation. At the most recent classis, the main argument which defeated the motion advising us to leave was that it would not be pastorally sensitive to do so, given that there are significant differences of opinion within our church regarding covenant communion. We as a consistory agree: It would not be pastorally sensitive to try to pull the church out of the federation now, nor would it be pastorally sensitive to wait until 2007 and then to have to withdraw because of the synod's ruling.


After much discussion and prayer and thought, we as members of the consistory have decided the following;

1) That we will comply with the decisions of Classis Spring 2003 and Synod 2004 by stepping down from office so as not to cause more controversy in the church or in the federation,

2) To contact Edmonton to ask them to provide oversight to this congregation until such time as other elders can be installed here.

3) That our resignation from office will become effective on a date to be determined in consultation with Edmonton.

4) That at that time we will go, desirous of your blessing, to plant another work in Grande Prairie that will, with God’s help, accomplish what we believe is necessary.

We plan to do these things for the following reasons;

-We believe we are acting out of love for the body in doing this. We have a divided body. This is obvious every week when the Lord’s Supper is passed around. Some partake, some don’t, some can’t because we won’t let them. One may refuse to partake out of principial reasons, out of protest, or with many and varied hesitations, but let this be clearly understood; this ritual is the primary indicator of unity in the church (1Cor.10:16-17), and it is clear that we do not have unity. So how do we effectively minister to those who do not wish to go where we wish to go? Do we force them? We do not believe it is pastorally wise or effective to do so.

If we were to change our practice here, so that we would not only be doing weekly communion but covenant communion, we believe that it would be the equivalent of driving some of the sheep out of the fold. We want our children at the table, but we believe we would lose some of our adults by allowing them. We want them at the table too! Why does it seem that we are being forced to choose; either do right by the children or do right by the adults, but not both?

In order to address this tangle of problems, we believe that it would be wise for us to withdraw and start again elsewhere. We have no interest in hijacking the congregation and forcing you to walk a path which you do not believe safe. We thus desire to leave the church fully intact, with oversight from elders who are not officially disqualified by the URCNA. We ask for no money from the church, no building, no anything but your blessing and your continued friendship. We will not pressure anyone, nor even ask anyone, to come with us. We will step out so that you can stay in.

-As office bearers and as men who desire to honor Christ in all our actions, we believe that our consciences must be held captive by the Word of God. We are convinced from the Scriptures that our Lord’s displeasure is directed at those who would keep His little children from feeding on Him, and that we have been doing exactly this ever since we have been in office. We wish to please Him in this matter rather than displease Him, but we cannot do so and remain office bearers in the URCNA. Thus, in order to better honor and please Him, we will step down and begin again elsewhere.

-To this point in the URCNA, all of the wrangling and concern has been over a theory of covenant communion. We have never seen it practiced in this federation. By God’s grace and with His help, we intend to build something which actually practices it, for all the world to see. Most of us were much more solidly grounded in our convictions about covenant communion when we visited churches where it was the received practice.

We are NOT withdrawing for these reasons:

We are not regarding Covenant Reformed Church as a false church by our actions. We believe that there are many godly men and women both here and elsewhere who, for some reason unbeknownst to us, do not see in Scripture the things that we believe we see clearly. This is a mystery to us, and is not to be met by censuring those who do not agree, but by maintaining the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, and by not being in such a hurry to achieve doctrinal unity. We believe we must exercise grace and peace to our brothers who do not agree with us. We also believe that there is a lot of future ahead for the church in this world, and that what is not clear now may one day be clearer. In the meantime we judge one another with charity, believing and hoping the best for one another.

We are not being cowardly. We are taking steps to ensure that this congregation as a whole is cared for by those it can follow. One might say that we are running away from trouble, by not waiting for Synod 2007, but as far as we can tell, synod will show the whole congregation the exit door, and we are not willing to gamble our church’s future by hoping for a different result. We are also thinking about the future of reformed churches in this town, and how useful it would be for the sake of the kingdom of God if those churches actually got along with one another.

The Lord bless you and keep you
The Lord make His face to shine upon you
And be gracious to you
The Lord lift up His countenance upon you
And give you peace.

Jamie Soles _________________________

Dale Callahan _______________________

Leo Wattel __________________________