Canadian Reformed Synod 2010 (11)
The Acts of Day 5 (Monday, May 17) are available online. Highlights include:
- The decision to hold a theological discussion with the URCNA fraternal delegates (Article 43)
- The denial of an appeal of Attercliffe against membership in NAPARC because of concerns regarding membership transfers, etc. (Article 45)
- The denial of another appeal, this one from Coaldale, against membership in NAPARC because of similar concerns (Article 46)
- The denial of the appeal from Burlington-Ebenezer regarding Lord’s Supper to shut-ins. Burlington had appealed because “any suggestion to synod that something is living or not living in the churches is deemed immaterial to the case and should be flagged as such by synod or not be listed in the observations as it has no bearing on the case.” Our Synod was not persuaded.
I was there for the afternoon plenary session today. A number of interesting items were discussed, including the access to committee reports via the website, Bible translations, and whether or not a church can directly overture our synods. I hesitate to report what I observed because my memory isn’t clear as to which items were decided upon and which were sent back to committee for “tweaking.” But overall, I was pleased with the decisions or the directions that the advisory committees are going.
Tonight features one of the highlights of this synod: the theological discussion with the URCNA delegates. Rev. Bouwers, Rev. Zekveld, Rev. Vellenga and one other URC minister (whose name escapes me at the moment!) will be up front where the executive normally sits. They will be answering the questions that some of the churches sent in, as well as general questions from the delegates. The hope is to have the same sort of discussion take place at the URC Synod in July with two of our professors plus two members of our Committee for Church Unity. Unfortunately, due to a prior commitment I can’t be there this evening.
Also with regards to the URC, it is worth noting that a letter is being drafted from our Synod to theirs. All of this is unprecedented, at least amongst the Canadian Reformed Churches. Will we find each other and the way forward?
There seems to be a highy motivated effort on Synod level to get closer to the URCNA; a federation with the majority of their churches in another country, that possess limited knowledge of the CanRC.
I assume that the FRCNA has been given the same effort to get closer in the past. As far as I know, the FRCNA has a higher presence in our own country, and they know the CanRC quite well.