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 __________________________