(Dealing with revisions to the Form for the Public Profession of Faith)

GENERAL SYNOD CLOVERDALE 1983 – Acts, Article 145
(Excerpts only)

Observations 8

Brother W. VanderKamp requests 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.

Considerations 4.C.  FORM FOR THE PUBLIC PROFESSION OF FAITH

1. In order to maintain the uniformity of expression the address on page 15 should read “We now ask you to answer sincerely the following questions before God and His Church:”
2. The formulation of the first question is similar to that of the fourth question in the Form for the Baptism of Adults.  There is, therefore, no need to add “… the true and complete doctrine of salvation.”
3. In the first question the word “Creeds” should be replaced by “confessions.”
4. To read “detest you sins” instead of “detest yourself” weakens the meaning.

Considerations 5

The use of the word “confessions” instead of “creeds” in the questions of the Forms for Baptism and for Public Profession of Faith answers the question posed by brother W. VanderKamp.

Recommendations 1

Synod adopt the Forms as amended above.

Letter re Form for Public Profession of Faith and Baptism

Committee 4 presents:

A.  MATERIAL, Agenda, VIII, B, 3 Letter from br. B. Moes c.s. re:

Forms for Public Profession of Faith and Baptism.

1. The brs. note that in the previous edition of the Forms for Public Profession of Faith in the first question and in the Form for Baptism in the second question the formulation was, “... the articles of the Christian faith and which is taught here in this Christian church to be the true and complete doctrine of salvation” and that the General Synod of 1983 decided that the formulation of this ques­tion in these forms be “summarized in the confessions and taught here ....” They request this synod to “rescind the current formulation and to return to the original wording.”
2. These brs. contend that the present formulation is “in conflict with the confes­sions” in that “it conflicts with question and answer 22 of the Heidelberg Catechism which teaches that a christian must believe ‘all that is promised us in the gospel which the articles of our catholic and undoubted Christian faith teach in a summary.’ Answer 23 goes on to explain that these articles are, in fact, none other than the articles of the Apostles’ Creed. No mention is made of additional confessions.”
3. These brs. contend that the present formulation is “in conflict with accepted reformed practice.”  They refer to the General Synod of Utrecht of 1923, and the formulation of the General Synod of Arnhem of 1981. From this they con­clude that “since attestations are issued on the basis of one’s public profession of faith and walk of life, it is inconsistent to admit members of the Dutch sister-­churches unless they declare agreement with what the new formulation asks of members of the Canadian Reformed Churches.”
4. The brs. question the procedure by which the General Synod of 1983 made a change in formulation from the committee report which used the word “creed” instead of “confession” to the present formulation without request from any of the churches. They state that “no mention is made of changing the meaning of the existing forms.”
5. The brs. contend that the present formulation is “in conflict with reality” because “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.”
6. Synod of 1983 observed (Acts, Art. 145, 8) that “brother W. VanderKamp re­quests 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.” This synod considered (under Consideration B, 4) that “in the fourth question on page 121, the wording should be as follows: ‘… the Word of God summarized in the confessions and taught­ here in this Christian church’” and it considered under number 5 (p. 107) that “the use of the word ‘confessions’ instead of ‘creeds’ in the questions of the Forms for Baptism and Public Profession of Faith answers the question posed by brother W. VanderKamp.”

C. CONSIDERATIONS

1. The brs. are incorrect in suggesting that the present formulation is in conflict with the confessions because when we confess in the Heidelberg Catechism, Q&A22, Q. “What, then, must a Christian believe? A. All that is promised us in the gospel, which the articles of our catholic and undoubted Christian faith teach us in a summary” it does not suggest that this basic summary excludes the further confession given in the “Three Forms of Unity.”
2. It is historically correct that the formulation “articles of the Christian faith” has been used. However, by removing this phrase from its context, the brs. overlook 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.  Synod of 1983 has 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” (See Observation 6).
3. 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 consideration “2”, it is evident that the meaning of the forms is not changed by the linguistic revision which was made.
4. Although the Dutch sister-churches have a different formulation “... in de Apostolische Geloofsbelijdenis is samengevat en in de christelijke kerk alhier geleerd wordt,” the meaning is not different, as is evident from the above con­sideration 2. The formulation adopted by the General Synod of 1983 does therefore not introduce “tension and endangers Inter-Church relations ....”
5. The brs. do not prove that the present formulation is “in conflict with reality” nor that it is impossible for anyone to keep the Scriptural command (Romans 10:9,10; Rev. 2:26) and “wholeheartedly believe (agree with) the doctrine of the Word of God, summarized in the confessions and taught here in this Chris­tian Church.”** This quotation is taken from the Form for the Public Profession of Faith. The same formulation is used in the Form for Adult Baptism, except that instead of the word “believe,” the word “agree with” is used. In the Form for Infant Baptism the formulation, “Do you confess the doctrine ...” is used.

D. RECOMMENDATION

Synod decide not to grant the request of the Brs. B. Moes, P. Roukema, D. VanderBoom, and W. VanderKamp.

The recommendation is ADOPTED.

Committee III, IV presents:
Agenda Items VIII, B, 3, a – f

A. MATERIAL

1. Letter from the Church at Burlington, ON, (Ebenezer) re Acts General Synod Burlington-West 1986, Art. 144 re Form for the Public Profession of Faith and the Form for Baptism.

2. Letter from the Church at Surrey, BC, re Acts Smithville 1980 (Art. 129, 130), Cloverdale 1983 (Art. 145), Burlington-West 1986 (Art. 144), re same.

3. Letter from the Church at Lower Sackville, NS, re same

4. Letter from br. and sr. L. Moes, Langley, BC, re same

5. Letter from the Church at Smithers, BC, re same

6. Letter from the Church at Langley, BC, re same

B. OBSERVATIONS

1.   The Church at Burlington-East requests General Synod to restore the original formulation in the Form for Public Profession of Faith (1st question) and the Form for Baptism (2nd question)

Grounds:

a.     This change is not just a “linguistic revision”

b.     The words “Articles of the Christian faith” are historical words and are also used in L.D. 7, Q.A. 22. Therefore no Synod may change this formulation without adducing any ground.

2.   The Church at Surrey requests to bring back the historic formulation.

Grounds:

a.     The decisions of our Synods in this matter are somewhat “inconsequent”, “poorly considered and impulsive.”

b.     Our Synods have not considered the historical background of these questions.

c.     Our Synods have not considered the catholic nature of the original wording.

d.     Synod 1980 did not give any ground for bringing about change in the first place.

3.     Br. and sr. L. Moes request the same on the ground that “historically the phrase ‘articles of the Christian faith’ refers to the Apostles’ Creed”.

4.     The Church at Langley requests to return to the old wording “the Articles of the Christian faith”.

Grounds:

a.   The historical origin of the expression

b.   The relation between the Apostles’ Creed and the Sacrament of Baptism

c.   Our sister churches in The Netherlands still use this expression

d.   A report which served at Synod 1980 recommended retention of this expression

e.   The Acts of 1980, 1983, 1986 give no grounds for the change.

f.   The basic rule is that change be considered only after proper study

5.   The Church at Sackville requests Synod not to accede to the request of Surrey.

Grounds:

a.   A change would remove clarity and re-introduce a measure of ambiguity

b.   “There is no difference in meaning between creed and confession”

c.   “it would impoverish the churches by clinging to the past while ignoring present realities.” “The present formulation in the Book of Praise does not in any way deny the unity with the church of all ages"

6.   The Church at Smithers urges Synod to maintain the present formulation.

Grounds:

a.    “It states more accurately what persons, making 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”

d.   the current expression maintains our Catholic character

e.   the “confessions” include the “creeds”.

7.     Both the Church at Burlington-East and Surrey state, “We have no problem with the remark of Synod Burlington 1986 (Article 144, C, 2) that ‘the ques­tions asked never excluded the allegiance to all the confessions which are maintained by the Canadian Reformed Churches’”.

1. The Church at Langley states, “The ‘doctrine’ of the Canadian Reformed Churches has always been based on the Bible and summarized in the six creeds/confessions that we have officially adopted”.

1.   The references to “linguistic revision” and to L.D. 7 Q.A. 22 (see above, Observation I, 1, 2) have been considered by Synod 1986 (Art 144, C, 1 and 2).

2.     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).

3.     The historical character of the expression “summarized in the Articles of the Christian Faith” has been considered in Synod 1986 (Acts, Art. 144, C, 2). The appellants do not offer any new grounds on this point.

4.     The Churches at Burlington-East and Surrey correctly note that the historical formulation “summarized in the Articles of the Christian Faith” should not be taken in a restrictive sense as if it pertains only to the Apostles’ Creed and excludes the other Confessions (Synod 1986, Acts, Art. 144, C, 1; see above, Observation VII)

5.     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 (see above, Observation II, 3).

6.     Synod 1986 has dealt with the formulation used in the Dutch sister-churches but did not agree that there is any real discrepancy in confessional practice (Synod 1986, Acts, Art. 144, C, 4; see above, Observation IV, 3).

7.     The appellants have not demonstrated any compelling reasons to return to the original wording.

D. RECOMMENDATION:

Synod decide not to accede to the requests of the churches of Burlington East, Surrey, Langley and br. and sr. L. Moes.
ADOPTED

GENERAL SYNOD LINCOLN 1992 – Acts, Article 122

Appeal of the Church at Abbotsford, B.C. re Acts General Synod Winnipeg 1989

Committee III presents:
        Agenda item VIII D17

Letter from the church at Abbotsford, B.C. re Acts General Synod 1989, Article 161.

The church at Abbotsford, B.C. claims that “changing ‘Apostles Creed’ to ‘confession’ in the second question in the form for Baptism and in the form for Public Profession of Faith was illegally dealt with by previous Synods.”  The ground adduced is “that the change in the above-named forms has never been dealt with by any minor assembly, as per what is required in the last paragraph of Church Order Article 30.

1. The church at Abbotsford, B.C. is mistaken when it states that the forms for Baptism and Public Profession of Faith used to speak of the “Apostles Creed.”  In fact, these forms spoke of “articles of the Christian faith.”

2. The church at Abbotsford, B.C. wrongly concludes that this change in the wording of the forms is a matter of the minor assembly since the forms in our Book of Praise are a matter of the churches in common.
3. General Synod 1977 mandated the Committee for Liturgical Forms to update the language of the forms in the Book of Praise.  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 initated at the minor assembly.

Synod decide not to accede to the request of the church at Abbotsford, B.C.
ADOPTED