PJCO Committee Press Release
Clarion came today (the Sept. 11/09 issue) and it includes a press release from the committee(s) drafting the Proposed Joint Church Order for a URC/CanRC merger. You can also find it on-line here. The most interesting item in this press release is the defense of Regional Synods and Deputies. I’m glad to read it. They make a good case. The Regional Synod is part and parcel of Reformed (Dortian) church polity and where it’s been lost, it ought to be recovered.
I’m thankful that the Church Order work has gone so well. Some day, hopefully all this work will be put to good service. But when? Building on my last post dealing with CanRC/URC relations, here’s a potential scenario: the PJCO goes to the CanRC Synod in Burlington next year. The CanRC Synod adopts it, still thinking that unity with the URCNA is realistically not far off. The URC Synod is held down the road in London. The URCNA Synod is cagey about it and balks. The CanRC get a new CO, whereas for the URC it’s business as usual with their old CO. I’m hoping it doesn’t go this way, but I’m not going to hold my breath.
But here’s an idea: the CanRC Synod is supposed to be first (May 2010), followed by the URC Synod (July 2010). Maybe the CanRC Synod should be postponed till September so we can see what our URC brothers will do first. What do you think?
It seems that we are so worried about a total “mirror image” that it is getting in the way with true unity. If we are trying to fulfill Christ’s command when he prayed that the church would “stay as one just as He and the Father are one” he did not mean that all churches must become Canadian Reformed in their every move. What it did mean, on the other hand, is that we must acknowledge and work with all true churches, not with only the ones that do what we do. God has called saints from all nations meaning that the diversity in the church is great and shows God’s amazing grace. There are only 2 things that cannot be changed and they are the 2 keys of the kingdom; true preaching of the word and church discipline. As long as we know that these two things are being followed then we should be happy. I would argue that we know this already because we have URC ministers on our pulpits and therefore all of this “who can stand where and how many are allowed to sit” kinda rules is only an interference.
I am wondering what response there was, if any, to Ben Faber’s Clarion article (September 2008) which pointed out that the introduction functions as a new confessional statement.
Dec.11’09 I think the can. ref. church’s have pushed too hard for this unity….people have been excommunicated as a result of this pushing(re. Hoogsteen and Vanandel and Bill Doekes…not directly but indirectly!I would like to know the real reason for this unity…..if I don’t know the reason I can only speculate….and that would bring to my mind, the need for “numbers”!Another great concern of mine is….we have family currantly in the URC. church….their concern is how the y view infant baptism…..I would think it only fair that can.ref. members should be made aware of what the issues are within that federation. I agree that the urc. should have their synod first……my gut feeling is ….let’s not waste any more time,money and effort on this “wanna be unity” until they signal their desire first!….besides, Christ will unifies all thoes who are His!