Category Archives: Response to the Remits

Pray For GA 2022 – Week 1

Posted on by

Monday, May 9 – Sunday, May 15.

As friends, members, adherents, elders, and ministers in The Presbyterian Church in Canada, we are fervently praying for the 147th General Assembly, to be held online June 5-8, 2022.

We are praying in advance for the commissioners, the moderator, the clerks, the General Assembly office, and all of those who have a role of some influence on the gathering. We are praying for God’s holy hands to prepare us for something new. It might be something counter-cultural. But we submit ourselves to something that is entirely in God’s holy will, something that conforms to the authentic and timeless reading of Scripture.

This is the first of four weekly prayer guides leading up to the gathering. We invite you to consider setting aside a designated time each day to pray. Feel free to share insights with others who are praying on our dedicated Facebook page — search “Pray for GA 2022”.

This week’s prayer guide is authored by the Renewal Fellowship Executive Director, Rev. Andy Cornell.

Download the full-length Prayer Guide for the week to come.

No Middle Ground

Posted on by

This blog represents the thoughts of the author. While they may reflect the theological position of The Renewal Fellowship, they should not be seen as an official statement.

A recent survey from Renewal Fellowship asked readers where their minds were at four months after the historic change in doctrine of the Presbyterian Church in Canada (PCC). It was hardly a scientific survey, but the responses mirrored what we’ve been hearing in conversations: In general, “We are staying in the PCC for now, while waiting to see what the next General Assembly enacts.”

Within the tent of orthodoxy (defined roughly as those who aren’t comfortable with the formal adoption of parallel definitions of marriage by General Assembly in June) are those who are actively planning to depart no matter what (if they haven’t already), those who are being called to remain within the PCC and those who are hoping and praying for a positive response to the 31 overtures calling for action on the gracious dismissal study and 21 overtures seeking denominational restructuring along theological lines.

Big thanks to Barb Ferrier for taking many hours to research and compile a listing of all overtures submitted since 2015, all overtures on Gracious Dismissal, all overtures on Theological Separation, and a summary of all overtures on Gracious Dismissal and Theological Separation. It's a rich compendium of insight.

The “tent” analogy is a generalization and suggests that there are no firm boundaries; there’s movement within the camps — and great mutual love and co-operation also, for the record.

It’s the response to the overtures that has the attention of many, especially those who are in a “wait and see” mindset. As previously communicated here and in social media, we are actively praying for the members of Assembly Council (AC), who are actively discerning recommendations to General Assembly.

The AC has established (from its membership) a Departures/Alternate Governance Working Group, consisting of Brenda Butler, Henry Han, Peter Kinch (convener), Jeff Murray, Barb Sargent, Linda Shaw, John-Peter Smit, plus Clerks of Assembly Stephen Kendall and Don Muir. The group made a progress report to the November 21-24 Council meeting and hopes to make a final report to the next General Assembly.

As this group works actively to discern a possible response, I would suggest that three things need to be made abundantly clear. (These imperatives are not just to the working group but to the wider denomination, especially those who identify as progressive.)

First, the wider denomination is invited to recognize the profound sense of dis-ease over the changes in doctrine. The paucity of scriptural underpinnings supporting this doctrinal shift is deeply alarming to a significant number of active leaders in the denomination. They are looking for common ground and certainty in both canon and polity as presented in Matthew 7:24-27.

Second, we are invited to recognize and accept that on all sides of our theological spectrum, we are deeply entrenched. The aforementioned survey attracted most of its responses from ministers, which was not surprising. But what did catch our attention was that the most insightful answers came from non-clergy. Two of them hit the nail on the head.

“There is no middle ground,” wrote an Ottawa-area elder.

Said a Quebec elder: “A kingdom divided cannot stand.”

Pause and reflect on those.

Middle ground is defined as standing between two or more conflicting and opposing positions. Parallel definitions, anyone? I don’t think anyone can claim with any seriousness that there’s no appreciable division in the PCC.

On that note, there is, thirdly, an opportunity here to take bold leadership as denomination and seek accommodation for all. Realistically, “parallel definitions” of marriage and “liberty of conscience” are non-starters for many who either describe themselves as orthodox or as progressive. For them, the language of the remits does not provide middle ground. So, let’s allow birds of a feather to flock together or for others to leave the nest. What a wonderful opportunity to end the infighting.

I echo the prayer posted in recent weeks on the Pray for the PCC group on Facebook.

“May all voices, especially those in the minority, be heard, acknowledged and incorporated into any decision. May this not be a place where a weak majority, a 50+1, rules the day. May the Council be willing to submit to the awesomeness of God, whose ways may not be politically attractive or expedient or immediately gratifying but pave the way for kingdom living. Amen.”

Remit Response Survey

Posted on by

Along with the quarterly e-mailout of the Renewal News and Prayer Calendar, sent the last week of September, we included a survey, asking respondents to share their responses to the adoption of remits ‘B’ and ‘C.’

We received 21 responses:

  • Ministers        12
  • Elders              5
  • Members        3
  • Adherents      1

Responses arrived from Vancouver Island to Newfoundland and included some non-Anglo representation (but not a lot).

The results:

Personal response to the adoption of the Remits (check all that apply):

  1. I am staying in my congregation — 6 ministers, 4 elders, 1 member
  2. I am waiting to see what the next General Assembly enacts – 6 ministers, 3 elders, 1 member
  3. I am looking for another denomination – 3 ministers, 1 elder, 1 member
  4. I have already left for another denomination – 1 minister (retired),
  5. I am seeking the Spirit’s wisdom – 3 ministers, 3 elders, 2 members, 1 adherent

Other personal courses of action:

Minister (West Toronto): “The Clerk and I have passed along the info from General Assembly, but he we have not discussed the remits with the Session or Congregation over the past couple years at all. It may be a little of ‘head in the sand’ situation – perhaps not the best approach, but that is where we have happily been plugging along for years now.”

Minister (Oak Ridges): “I believe the GA made a poor decision preceded by poor process. However, if one just keeps working in their own congregation and acting in their own conscience, we could lower the rhetoric considerably.”

Minister (Barrie): “My congregation is traditional but vacant. I am retired and Minister-in-Association. If the congregation moves from its traditional position or calls a progressive as minister I will leave it and possibly the PCC.”

Adherent (Brampton): “When it became apparent that the Remits were likely to be adopted (as it turned out they were), I asked Session to strike my name from the nominal roll of members, and to tolerate me as an adherent if they cared to. I wish not to be a member of the PCC any longer. I feel that it has left me, and I have not forsaken it. The congregation of which I am now a mere adherent seems likely to go the way of the PCC – theologically and corporately dying. If I could hear of a congregation and denomination likely to uphold the beliefs and standards that used to be those of the PCC, I would want to explore the possibility of affiliating myself with it and supporting it; I haven’t heard of anything along those lines yet. I acknowledge that there are some congregations and denominations that I don’t consider seriously because I find their worship practices to be so deliberately distasteful and/ or disrespectful as to distract me from any involvement at all.”

Member (Hamilton): “I would like to stay with my congregation, but not if it stays with PCC.”

Minister (Barrie): “I am currently between charges and am not sure if I want to seek a new call within the PCC as I am concerned personally about the impact of the remits on my ordination vows.”

Minister retired (Pickering): “Preaching is irrelevant in present congregation, attending Northpoint by live stream, attend [congregation] by Zoom only to keep in touch with old friends.”

Elder (Ottawa): “Organizing a meeting of likeminded sessions to worship, pray, share perspectives and seek the Lord’s will.”

Minister (Montreal): “A schism seems inevitable. But leaving before all avenues of recourse have been exhausted is a betrayal of our ordination vows.”

Minister (Calgary-MacLeod): “We will not surrender our assets and property for the Presbytery to potential start another revisionist church as our legacy in our community.”

Elder (New Brunswick): “My wife and I will not be staying in the PCC with the adoption of remits, so staying in my congregation applies only if congregational action is taken after next GA, depending on what action that is.”

Member (Westminster): “I am part of a congregation who are tackling the issue through discussion and discernment but with a strong focus on the Word of God being the basis for how to live as Christians in a secular world. I will be waiting, along with our congregation, on future outcomes of General Assembly before making any decision on whether to leave or stay in the Presbyterian denomination.”

Elder (Quebec): “I have chosen to stay within the PCC. The testimony of the Rev. Dr. Greg Brawn, guest speaker for Renewal Day 2021, has impacted and encouraged me to be a voice of orthodoxy within our church and denomination. Graeme Lauber of Journey Canada has also influenced my decision to remain and love those who are struggling with same-sex attraction. I know I am not alone in my walk in the PCC, and I am very grateful for the men and women of the Renewal Fellowship that make it possible for us to meet together and pray for one another. I have also signed the RF PCC Covenant.
I am always seeking the Spirit’s guidance and wisdom, and pray for the PCC, Renewal Fellowship, and our little denomination . . . . God is still working, and may open a door in creating a sister denomination. If that be the case, I will be leaving the PCC.”

Elder (Kamloops): “I am ashamed to be a member of the PCC. The only reason I am still here is because my minister and session are committed followers of Jesus Christ. My church and the local CRC church are the only Reformed voices in town, so here I remain, for now. I do not expect the conversation regarding “gracious dismissal” to bear any fruit, but I will support any effort to find another denomination to join, or even create a new one.”

Congregational response to the adoption of the Remits (check all that apply):

  1. We are intending to stay within the PCC and support it – 3 ministers, 1 elder, 1 member
  2. We are waiting to see what the next General Assembly enacts – 2 ministers, 3 elders
  3. Our congregation is divided. We don’t know what we will do – 1 elder, 1 member
  4. Our congregation has little awareness of the seriousness of the Remit decisions – 3 ministers, 2 elders
  5. We will likely close in the near future.
  6. We have decided to leave the PCC with or without a gracious dismissal option – 1 minister (Eastern Han-Ca), 1 elder (New Brunswick)

 Other courses of action not listed above:

Adherent (Brampton): “The congregation of which I have become an adherent, lifting my lines from membership in it and thus in the PCC, is, to anyone who has eyes to see, demographically moribund. Moreover, it fails to fulfill a great deal of the proper role and functions of a congregation. I’m 86 years old, but it’s a toss-up which of us will die first.”

Elder (Ottawa): “Our church held several informational meetings and then voted to oppose the changes on human sexuality. Session recently reconfirmed their stand in a letter to the congregation.”

Elder (New Brunswick): “Session has adopted options 2 and 6, but there has been no congregational vote. I feel that options 1, 3 and 4 apply to parts of the congregation,
so session has work to do before a congregational vote on option 6.”

Elder (Kamloops): “The last response – We have decided to leave the PCC with or without a gracious dismissal option – is very close to where I would choose to go.
Currently, there is no way our congregation will surrender our building and assets to the national church. We will refuse to support our national office in every way we can.”

Member (Lanark-Renfrew): “I am an elder [Retired] I’m not sure where our session stands right now, but my family is waiting to see and if there isn’t a strong response, my family will be looking at moving to another Church. We do have options. However St. Andrew’s is a Bible based church and I’m sure there will be a strong response by our session and that’s the only reason we’re still here.”

Please share briefly any additional thought you may have on this issue:

Minister (West Toronto): “I appreciate the prayerful responses and pray that somehow God will bring good out of this situation. I believe the evil one does delight in the pain, division, and loss of Church connection that this issue has caused.
with hope in Christ.”

Minister (Oak Ridges): There is no gracious dismissal option at the moment … and no need to seek other denominational shelter as people care very little about denominational ties. So for the time being … staying put.”

Adherent (Brampton):  “If you’d care to hear what I think are the ‘proper role and functions of a congregation’ (a phrase I use in the answer above) let me know. I don’t mind identifying myself. [NOTE: Renewal Fellowship has invited him to share his thoughts; stay tuned.]

Minister currently without charge (Barrie): “Unless the denomination can separate into two theological streams I do not believe that it will be possible for me to follow my call in the PCC.”

Minister retired (Pickering): “It seems irrelevant/inconsequential/invisible/insignificant to congregation. Opinion of minister and session unknown.”

Elder (Ottawa): “There is no middle ground; some people are leaving because of the denominational stance while others are leaving because of the church’s stance.”

Minister (Montreal): “We, the dissenters of the current PCC doctrinal swing, spent so much time (understandably) in organising resistance that we did not develop fully how faithful to respond to a social situation radically different from that found in the societies of the New and Old Testament.”

Elder (Quebec): “Recently I was elected as elder, and tomorrow, October 3rd, I will be ordained. The PCC’s remits have been weighing heavy on my mind. At a session with the elders, I raised my concerns with the remits, and where we should stand as a church, and where I should stand as an elder; as I do not want to create any divisiveness within our church. A kingdom divided cannot stand. My concerns were brushed aside after a long and uncomfortable silence. One elder eventually said that the situation was very complex, and God is working, and we will revisit this question at a later date. That was that.”

Minister, retired (Vancouver Island): “I find this action of the last General Assembly having a painful disengaging affect on me. I have done all I can to remain with in the PCC through working on restructuring proposals. In June the Assembly voted ‘no’ to investigating such ideas. It appears that our days of negotiating are over! Therefore I find myself looking for a new church family.”

  • Questions developed by Robin Ross. Responses collated/organized by Andy Cornell

Reflections of a Random Nobody

Posted on by

I am neither a minister nor an elder. I don’t have a Ph.D or the title of YAR. I am a Canadian who came to accept Christ as an adult; I became a Presbyterian intentionally. God literally led me to the Presbyterian Church, of which I am still a member. I was not researching Presbyterian churches. Holding many orthodox views, small “o”, I land solidly on the Traditionalist “side” of the “debate” that has rocked The Presbyterian Church in Canada to its foundations.

Two of many repeated themes of the PCC’s General Assembly 2021 were:

1) Revisionists want Traditionalists in the PCC; they want the diversity and debate.
2) The Traditionalists feel like they are actively being ignored and so ultimately silenced.

How can these two sentiments both be true? At the end of the final sederunt of the GA 2021, two students of different theological colleges spoke of their experience at GA 2021 and their experiences related to their theological positions in general. They might as well have been describing parallel universes. The disparate lived experiences of these two students not only summarize GA 2021 so succinctly but also bring to mind the PCC’s newly changed definition of marriage for the church, formerly known as Remit ‘B’: “The Presbyterian Church in Canada holds two parallel definitions of marriage and recognizes that faithful, Holy Spirit filled, Christ centred, God honouring people can understand marriage as a covenant relationship between a man and a woman or as a covenant relationship between two adult persons.”

How can these parallel definitions be true at the same time? Note the word “parallel.” The creators of this definition were well aware that these two positions do not intersect. However, in concentrating exclusively on the new definition itself we lose sight of the absolutely brutal conditions under which the remits were created. These Remits were crafted during GA 2019, “after hours” so to speak — a desperate response to keep the PCC from schism. The Traditionalists felt forced out of their denomination. The historical position of the church had just been voted directly into the opposite posture. If people feel they are being forced out, their actions will be desperate and the responses to such actions will be equally reactive. Read: exit logic and grace.

A shattering of the PCC as we know it is what the “Breakfast club/Remit creators” were trying to avoid as that reality was already in process. Let’s give credit where credit is due — they succeeded in stopping The End in 2019. Yes, I hear you, there is the underlying recent history of GA 2017 (and the decades that led up to it) that culminated in GA 2019 and the events of that same year. All of that led to where we all are today; emotions have been raw for a long time . . .

Yet there are those in the PCC who hold Revisionist theological views who really do want the Traditionalists to remain part of the PCC. I know because the minister of the church of which I am still a member is one such person. As a result of my (never ending) questions and the issues with which the PCC was grappling in 2017 we found out that our theological positions largely do not overlap. This same minister taught me the terms Revisionist and Traditionalist (and the actual meaning of Traditional and Contemporary in regards to Worship). After discovering that our personal theological positions differ, she did not make me feel as though she was merely tolerating my presence in “her” church. At an individual level there are people, Revisionists, who accept Traditionalists in the PCC. However . . . at the national level I am not sure the sentiment rises to an even begrudging tolerance.

At the national level in the PCC that this random Presbyterian nobody has been able to witness through watching the GAs online (GA 2017, GA 2019, GA 2021) the overriding feeling of being actively ignored and silenced is what dominates. These feelings are why it is so critical to have all of the sederunts of the GAs openly available, unedited, on the PCC’s YouTube channel or on the official PCC website. If such conclusions have been formulated — as a result of “bad optics,” an inaccurate understanding of a speaker’s intent, or just unrelated actions that have followed one another in a sequence that unfortunately seem to create an unintended “narrative” of  “would you just SIT DOWN and SHUT UP” isn’t what is actually meant — then history can be reviewed as dispassionately as possible through the objective lens of an unedited camera that has been running for the last eight hours.

There is no “emergency after hours breakfast club” team meeting post GA 2021.

The idea that the Holy Spirit will convert all of the Traditionalists to the Revisionist perspective in the coming year is not realistic. Did the Holy Spirit convert the Revisionists to the Traditionalist perspective in all the years that have led up to this moment?

Saying the words “Gracious Dismissal” seems like defeat to many. I completely understand that. Back in 2019, Option ‘C’ (three separate theological “streams” or bodies within the PCC) was not something that sounded appealing to me either. But I will state the unstated obvious point: the PCC already is now operating under different theological “streams.” Holding “two parallel definitions” for one definition means that The Presbyterian Church in Canada is now, in practice, a church that has different theological streams. Sure, that hasn’t been formally acknowledged but it is the practical reality as the Remits have been passed. Option ‘B’ was not enacted. None of the proposed official options were put into effect. We are now a church body operating in practice with, at least, two different theological positions.

The remits were the unstoppable tidal wave that forced the PCC to look squarely at what its beliefs actually are and declare it publicly. As a result, many other beliefs that Traditionalists thought were “basic Christianity” were revealed to be entirely rejected by large numbers in the church . . . and the Traditionalists were like, “Wait . . . when did you stop believing this?” . . .

The PCC has spoken at a national level. Doctrine has officially changed and practice will change as well. Does The Presbyterian Church in Canada want to put those who hold orthodox views on various issues into a position where their only option, if they want to stay in the PCC, is to lie when accepting their ordination vows? That they would have to lie to the PCC and before God when performing actions with which they are not in agreement in their heart and soul?

Do you want ministers to be blessing marriages with their tongues and secretly praying to God to forgive them for performing these same marriages? We are not the secular world- what people are professing before God matters!

Post GA 2021, the questions before the PCC are:

Do you want a church full of lip service? A place where people flatter each other with their lips but their hearts are far from each other?

Can we look each other in the eye and be honest and say, “Okay, we have theological views that largely do not overlap. But we are all still part of The Presbyterian Church in Canada. Let’s form the structures that support our fundamentally divergent beliefs and still work together in what we have in common”?

or

Seeing that those who hold traditional views in the PCC are the minority . . .

Does the PCC only want a silent “partner”?

Allison Chung is a member of a PCC congregation. She resides in the GTA.

Hungarian Congregations Speak Out

Posted on by

This blog represents the thoughts of the author. While they may reflect the theological position of The Renewal Fellowship, they should not be seen as an official statement.

What’s inclusive for some is having the opposite effect for others.

A group of Hungarian Presbyterian congregations is the latest to go on the record about feeling excluded by the ongoing liberal theological drift in The Presbyterian Church in Canada.

“We sadly observe and experience that our beloved Church we have belonged to for decades as Hungarian Calvinists goes into a direction that may exclude us,” states a petition signed by the ministers of six congregations.

The May 21, 2021 statement describes how the PCC provided a welcome home for “Calvinist Reformed Hungarian immigrants arriving to Canada” at various times in the last 100 years. They describe being “received graciously, lovingly by The Presbyterian Church in Canada. We joyfully joined this denomination because of our confessions and traditions were very similar to the Canadian Presbyterians.”

They resisted the push toward an inclusive theological agenda in recent decades. The 2019 remits proposing dual definitions of marriage and the ordination of those in same-sex marriage represent a line they refuse to cross. The remits are on General Assembly’s June 6-9 agenda for approval.

The petition is the latest official statement by PCC ethnic congregations. It follows petitions by both Korean-language presbyteries, a statement from a coalition of Chinese congregations and a letter from a large Arabic congregation.

Rev. Miklos Szigeti, of First Hungarian Presbyterian Church in Vancouver, said in an email, “We just wanted to support our beloved brothers and sisters and also to demonstrate our unity.”

The petition appears to speak for most of the Hungarian-language congregations in the PCC. Szigeti said his Hungarian cohorts feel that those who are advancing a liberal theology are “pushing us with power to accept that is against the revelation of God – but we are unable to be in unity with that.”

The petition does not seek a specific remedy.

“We will listen to the Lord and also to our Korean, Chinese and other ethnic brothers and sisters. We are praying and waiting,” Szigeti wrote.

The Hungarian petition – signed by ministers from congregations in Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal – is too late to be received by this year’s General Assembly, but it provides powerful support for the landmark petitions by PCC’s Korean-speaking congregations.

In March, Western and Eastern Han-Ca presbyteries joined forces to adopt petitions alleging that they are being treated as “nothing more than a marginal group whose voice is deemed as one which can, and should be ignored.” They accuse the “primarily Anglo-driven dominant culture” of the denomination for sidelining the beliefs of ethnic minorities, most of whom adhere to conservative theology.

In response, GA’s Bills and Overtures Committee is recommending the appointment of a special committee to consider the allegations and report to a future Assembly.

The Han-Ca petitions are backed by a coalition of six Chinese congregations, known as the Chinese Consultation. In a May 10 statement, they declared a similar experience as the Koreans. The Chinese statement accompanies a letter asking General Assembly not to approve the remits.

In April the session of Chapel Place Presbyterian Church – an Arabic-speaking congregation in Markham, Ont. – released its own strongly-worded letter to the Clerks of Assembly, supporting the Han-Ca concerns.

General Assembly meets online June 6-9.

Support For Anti-Racism Petition

Posted on by

This blog represents the thoughts of the author. While they may reflect the theological position of The Renewal Fellowship, they should not be seen as an official statement.

Support is growing for the landmark petitions by Korean-speaking congregations which accuse The Presbyterian Church in Canada of racism by "demonizing" ethnic congregations.

This week, a coalition of Chinese congregations, known as the Chinese Consultation, issued a statement in support of the petitions.

"We thank the members of the Han-Ca Presbyteries for calling attention to the situation for visible minorities in The Presbyterian Church in Canada. Our experience as Chinese Christians is similar to the experience of our Korean Presbyterians congregations in Canada," the May 10 statement said.

The Chinese statement accompanies a letter asking General Assembly not to approve Remits 'B' and 'C' which propose a redefinition of marriage and the ordination of those in same-sex relationships.

The Chinese Consultation consists of six congregations – Vancouver, Montreal, Toronto, Markham, Mississauga and Celebration Chinese Presbyterian churches – whose ministers signed the statement. Rev. Hugo Lau of Mississauga Chinese is convenor of the group and says the letters will be presented to General Assembly by a commissioner from the Victoria, British Columbia, Chinese congregation.

In March, Western and Eastern Han-Ca presbyteries joined forces to adopt petitions alleging that they are being treated as "nothing more than a marginal group whose voice is deemed as one which can, and should be ignored." They accuse the "primarily Anglo-driven dominant culture" of the denomination for sidelining the beliefs of ethnic minorities, most of whom adhere to conservative theology.

"We have experienced treatment at the hands of many in the PCC which has caused us much pain and raises alarm, for we have collectively experienced many instances of slander, ridicule, racism, and even sadly demonization, which all unequivocally seems to be saying that there is no place for 'the Korean' in this denomination," the Western Han-Ca petition stated in part.

The Han-Ca presbyteries compare their treatment to that of Aboriginal peoples, whose "cultures, beliefs and practices" were subjected to assimilation into the "dominant culture." The PCC played a role in that abuse, for which it formally apologized in 1994.

"Is our denomination now really different from the denomination of our past, and should the dominant culture in our denomination not entertain the possibility that they are perhaps again following in the hegemonic sins of their ancestors?" both petitions ask.

Both the Han-Ca petitions and the Chinese statement claim to speak on behalf of other ethnic PCC congregations. They specify African, Arabic, Taiwanese, Hungarian, Spanish, Portuguese and others.

Some of those groups have already spoken out.

In April the session of Chapel Place Presbyterian Church – an Arabic-speaking congregation in Markham, Ont. – released a strongly-worded letter to the Clerks of Assembly.

"As an ethnic Arabic speaking congregation, with deep roots in the Presbyterian church in the Middle East, and history exceeding 50 years in the GTA (40 years of which as members of the PCC) we concur strongly and support the serious and genuine concerns expressed by our dear sisters and brothers in Christ within the Eastern and Western Han-Ca Presbyteries in their recent petition," the April 17 letter stated.

"We feel their petition describes our current perception of the strong trend within the PCC, and our sense of alienation within the denomination."

Rev. Miklos Szigeti, of First Hungarian Vancouver, says he and his ethnic colleagues find themselves in a similar position.

"The vast majority [of the Hungarian-language congregations in the PCC] are supportive, 100 per cent, of the petition from Han-Ca's. We are in the same shoes," he told Renewal Fellowship in an interview.

Pastors from six Hungarian-language PCC congregations meet weekly for Bible study, he says. While they have not published a statement, Szigeti says members of that group are in complete agreement with the message of the Han-Ca petition.

Rev. Sampson Afoakwah, Montreal West Presbyterian Church – an English-speaking multicultural congregation – says he can't speak for the African community, but "I will support it [the Chinese Consultation statement] and if I was to take a wild guess I'm 85 per cent sure that the other African Congregations would support it," he said in a statement.

The ethnic congregations maintain that the dominant culture has not given serious consideration to their requests for space to adhere to traditional doctrine, as expressed in the subordinate standards as currently written.

This theological issue extends far beyond ethnic lines. A total of 12 overtures seeking theological-based courts, rather than geographical or cultural boundaries, are before General Assembly along with 30 overtures seeking a process for a congregation to leave the PCC with its assets. Many of those requests come from Anglo or French congregations. Commissioners to 2021 General Assembly will be asked to refer those overtures to Assembly Council and the Clerks of Assembly, who are already working on responses to earlier requests.

As for the Han-Ca petitions, the Committee on Bills and Overtures is asking commissioners to receive them and refer them to a special committee for study and response to a future Assembly.

PCC Covenant

Posted on by

Diversity in Paths, Unity in Spirit

A word to those within The Presbyterian Church in Canada who consider themselves Evangelical, Conservative, Orthodox, or Traditional:

There is much that unites us: we worship and serve the same Lord, we hold the same convictions about the inspiration and authority of the Scriptures, and we seek to order our lives and our ministries under the authority of our sovereign God and His revealed Word.

Different circumstances will lead us to follow Christ faithfully in different directions, and none of these directions is a better or worse calling than another.

  • Some of us feel called to stay within the denomination and support the denomination.
  • Some of us feel called to seek theological separation within the denomination.
  • Some of us feel called to leave the denomination.
  • Some of us feel called to wait and pray rather than deciding upon any direction at this time.

The Lord will strengthen us if we come together as one body in Christ — we invite you to participate in an ongoing series of virtual townhall meetings.

Our purpose is to provide a place where we:

  • worship together at the feet of Jesus, and build our fellowship,
  • share specifics about chosen directions,
  • support each other within each chosen direction,
  • support those called to other chosen directions, and
  • discuss how to overcome any opposition.

This might include – but not be limited to – prayer, fellowship, encouragement and sharing of knowledge.

The overriding desire and intent is to be right with the Lord throughout this turbulent time.

Full details about the covenant can be found at pcc-covenant.ca/our-covenant/.

Eastern and Western Han-Ca Petitions re: Racism and Marginalization

Posted on by

Editor’s Note: These Han-Ca petitions have been supported by a letter from the Chinese Consultation, composed of six congregations – Vancouver, Montreal, Toronto, Markham, Mississauga, and Celebration Chinese Presbyterian Churches, and by a letter from Chapel Place, an Arabic-speaking congregation.

To the Venerable 146th General Assembly of The Presbyterian Church in Canada,

The Presbytery of Eastern Han-Ca and the Presbytery of Western Han-Ca question whether in this denomination we are nothing more than a marginal group whose voice is deemed as one which can, and should be ignored. This is no less clearly evident in our current debates regarding human sexuality and the lack of response to our serious concerns surrounding the recently proposed recommendations to change our doctrine and practice of ministry. Because we are not willing to abdicate our beliefs, which cohere with the vast majority of the global church, in favour of that which is promulgated by the dominant culture in our denomination, we have not only experienced a silencing, but much mistreatment, and therefore wish to petition The 146th General Assembly to confess their sins to the large ethnic contingent, Koreans being but one group, of our denomination and repent of its treatment of ethnic congregations in this denomination by also acknowledging that we are as well, equally, the Presbyterian Church in Canada.

WHEREAS the vast majority of congregations from both the presbyteries of Eastern Han-Ca and Western Han-Ca are questioning if there is a place for us in this denomination, and also whether those not holding to the agendas and adopted ideologies of the Western, primarily Anglo-driven, dominant culture are really welcomed, and

WHEREAS Eastern and Western Han-Ca presbyteries are extremely alarmed, not only because of the specific nature of the recommendations being handed down to change our doctrine, but more so due to the manner in which those who seek change have been attempting to do so, and what this trajectory of change indicates about the nature of our denomination, for we believe we are moving in a direction that betrays our longstanding theological beliefs and practices of ministry, as indicated in our subordinate standards, and

WHEREAS in the PCC many are seeking to redefine our relationship to our subordinate standards, and in similar fashion our scriptures, which in practice seems more like promoting or adhering to only that which we deem as amicable to us; or often repeatedly invoking the claim of relativity of interpretation so as to make it impossible for our subordinate standards and scriptures to function as that which we can subordinate ourselves to, or uphold as authority, and

WHEREAS if in the PCC we see the increasing erosion of the unity, clear-direction, and purpose that our subordinate standards and scriptures once provided, what now serves as their replacement and is able to again bring us together? In The Presbyterian Church in Canada (PCC) are our subordinate standards and scriptures now subordinated to the loud moral clarion calls of justice, the contents of which are dictated to us by our Politically Correct Culture (PCC’)? and

WHEREAS since those in the Han-Ca Presbyteries remain faithful to our subordinate standards, and do not follow the transient nature of current Western culture, nor adopt its today-popular moral standards, we have experienced treatment at the hands of many in the PCC which has caused us much pain and raises alarm, for we have collectively experienced many instances of slander, ridicule, racism, and even sadly demonization, which all unequivocally seems to be saying that there is no place for “the Korean” in this denomination, and

WHEREAS, similarly in our nation’s past, the actions of our forebearers indicated that there was no place for First Nations peoples who held on to their culture, beliefs and practices in this “new nation,” and such sentiments were promulgated by our own denomination as we established numerous denominationally-run residential schools, for which we have rightly confessed and spelled out the nature of our sins, as indicated in our confession:

We acknowledge that the stated policy of the Government of Canada was to assimilate Aboriginal peoples to the dominant culture, and that The Presbyterian Church in Canada co-operated in this policy. We acknowledge that the roots of the harm we have done are found in the attitudes and values of western European colonialism, and the assumption that what was not yet moulded in our image was to be discovered and exploited.
(The Confession of the Presbyterian Church in Canada, 1994)

However, is our denomination now really different from the denomination of our past, and should the dominant culture in our denomination not entertain the possibility that they are perhaps again following in the hegemonic sins of their ancestors? And for this reason congregations in our Presbyteries implore the larger PCC to take notice of our current plight of marginalization in our denomination, and provide a safeguarded place for us here, for we believe that we too are created in God’s image and have a specific mandate from God to live out our gospel calling in this nation, which is in complete accordance to our denomination’s subordinate standards. And therefore advise that the dominant culture in our denomination tread carefully as it attempts to dictate what should be considered to be authentic, faithful, Christianity, not only in our own denomination, but also to the wider, global church, with which it is at odds, and

WHEREAS we encourage The Presbyterian Church in Canada to be The Presbyterian Church “in” Canada, and not The Presbyterian Church “of” Canada, and we believe that for our denomination to live up to its name, it must take into account the multiple expressions of Presbyterianism not only embodied in our Han-Ca congregations, but as well wonderfully represented in many other ethnic expressions such as those found in Arabic, Chinese, Taiwanese, Hungarian, Spanish, Portuguese, . . . Presbyterian congregations of our denomination, and

WHEREAS there is a danger when the PCC does not take into account other forms of presbyterianism but only relies on one, Western cultural expression of it — it may find itself to be in error, but not able to recognize it, for when multiple expressions of presbyterianism (and Christianity) come together, the truest, most accurate and faithful expression of it will likely be found at the intersection of these multiple expressions. For this reason we hope that the PCC does not continue to ignore the many voices and expressions of presbyterianism in the PCC, of which the Korean expression is but one, to their overall detriment.

THEREFORE, we humbly Petition the 146thGeneral Assembly to confess their sins in written response to the large ethnic contingent of our denomination who have been mistreated by the dominant culture in our denomination because we and other ethnic minorities are not willing to abdicate our God-given expressions of Christianity to assimilate to the form of Christianity which the dominant culture dictates.

Western Han-Ca Presbytery Overture re: Sister Denomination

Posted on by

To the Venerable 146th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Canada:

WHEREAS, Korean congregations from 1967 onwards entered into a mutual covenant with the Presbyterian Church in Canada for the reason that our theological and doctrinal beliefs, expression of faith and worship, and governance were in consonance with those of the Presbyterian Church in Canada; and

WHEREAS, these beliefs of the Presbyterian Church in Canada are found in our subordinate standards – the Westminster Confession of Faith adopted in 1875 and 1889, the Declaration Concerning Church and Nation of 1954, and Living Faith (and its translations) adopted in 1998; and

WHEREAS, each minister and elder ordained in The Presbyterian Church in Canada has vowed to accept and uphold the teaching and doctrine contained in our subordinate standards, and under the continual illumination and correction of the Holy Spirit speaking in Scriptures; and

WHEREAS, the decisions and recommendations made at the 145th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Canada in 2019 indicate a departure in the beliefs, character and identity of the Presbyterian Church in Canada, and now presents itself to be a different denomination from the one which we first entered into mutual covenant with; and

WHEREAS, this change in the nature of our denomination is clearly evident in remits B and C of the 145th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Canada, which are in contradiction to our subordinate standards; and

WHEREAS, this change in the nature of our denomination is not only evident in the proposals outlined in Remits B and C, but are rather symptomatic of the wider departure in beliefs of our denomination as evidenced in the statement by the convenor of the Special Committee re Implications of Option B (Inclusion) that was received without objection, “In truth we differ theologically on many things; the role of scripture, the virgin birth, the resurrection, the place of children, of women and the priorities of the church” (2019 A&P, pg. 49), much of which also contradicts our subordinate standards (our Beliefs on Scripture – WCF I, XIV.i, XIV.ii, XVIIL.ii, XIX, XXI.v; LF – 1.3, 1.4, 5, 8.1.5; our beliefs on the virgin birth – WCF 8.2; LF 3.2.1; our beliefs on the resurrection – WCF VIII.iv, XL.i, XXXII; LF 2.1.4, 3.5.1, 3.5.2, 10.4); and

WHEREAS, this departure from the subordinate standards by many in the denomination is not without a damaging effect and impact upon Han-Ca congregations, and greatly undermines the evangelism and the public witness of Han-Ca congregations within the Korean-Canadian community, and poses a real and significant challenge for the Pastoral ministry of current members, some of whom have expressed the intent to withdraw their membership and leave the Presbyterian Church in Canada because of the change in the nature of the denomination as evidenced in the remits; and

WHEREAS, the continued movement away from the subordinate standards of the Presbyterian Church in Canada that were the basis of our covenant with the denomination, despite the unambiguous opposition of Han-Ca congregations, has functioned to silence the collective voice of the ethnically Korean congregations and threatens the existence of our congregations as we currently stand; and

WHEREAS, the provision for liberty of conscience and liberty of action in the remits does not mitigate the aforementioned threats and challenges to the healthy ministry of the congregations within the Han-Ca presbyteries because of the denominationally sanctioned departure from the subordinate standards; and

WHEREAS, the liberty of conscience and action in the remits cannot be guaranteed in perpetuity, according to the Book of Forms, and as evidenced in the history of that provision for the ordination of women which was granted in 1966 and revoked in 1982; and

WHEREAS, the joint petition of Western and Eastern Han Ca Presbyteries to the 143rd General Assembly in 2017 called for unity and expressed our desire to work with the denomination on moderate changes on the matters of human sexuality, and

WHEREAS, we, as Presbyterians, passionately love The Presbyterian Church in Canada, its mission and its ministry and in spite of our differences both culturally and theologically, we would prefer to remain one body and a part of The Presbyterian Church in Canada; and

WHEREAS in the face of potential passage of Remit B and C under the Barrier Act, the Western Presbytery, together with other traditionally orthodox congregations cannot accept the proposed changes in doctrine regarding the definition of marriage, nor the proposed practices of ordination as voiced in Remits B and C (2019) therefore feel we are being forcefully pushed to the edge of adoption of changes of doctrine and practice of the church or calling for a separation;

THEREFORE The Western Han-Ca Presbytery concludes that it is in the best interests of Korean congregations, sympathetically with other traditional-orthodox congregations, to seek departure from our beloved denomination, and we do so with great sadness. In the interests of enabling the mission of all congregations of the PCC, we hereby request that the General Assembly consider creating a partner or sister denomination (name to be determined), releasing the Han-Ca congregations and other traditional-orthodox congregations who wish to leave the PCC because of the understanding of the theological differences that divide us. This new partner or sister denomination would share common resources including the Presbyterian Pension Plan, enabling all congregations in their mission and ministries according to their theological convictions. The Western Han-Ca humbly overtures the Venerable, the 146th General Assembly to consider our cry and prayer on this subject seeking the immediate action of this Assembly, or to do otherwise as the General Assembly, in its wisdom, may deem best.

Letter to Assembly Council re: Gracious Dismissal

Posted on by

Following the Assembly Council’s refusal to receive the report of its own Gracious Dismissal Committee, several members of Psalt drafted the following letter to the Assembly Council, which was signed by 303 people. It was received for information, but unfortunately, no discussion or action was taken on it.

Stephen Kendall sent the following reply after the Assembly Council meeting:

“I wanted to let you know that the Assembly Council members all received your letter and it was placed on the agenda under correspondence. It was received for information. Given the timing of both the receipt of the letter and the work Assembly Council is needing to accomplish before the Assembly, we are not able to provide a more substantial response. However, very similar concerns have been raised with the Council and will be responded to in the Council’s report to Assembly.”

We have asked the Assembly Council to address this more fully at its May meeting.

March 1, 2021

To the Assembly Council,

First, we thank the members of the Council for devoting time and effort to the orderly running of the Presbyterian Church in Canada. Being willing to step into a leadership role shows a servant heart. We also acknowledge this may well be a stressful time for many of you, in which the weight of leadership is keenly felt. Know that we are praying for you regularly, asking God to grant you wisdom and a peace-filled “holy indifference” that leaves you truly open to God’s leading as you seek to care for the church Jesus paid for with his blood.

While at times the PCC’s careful following of our Book of Forms and our traditions can seem onerous, we recognize the wisdom of being very careful to follow tried and true protocols with faithful transparency. This will reassure all groups and build trust. We also believe it will protect the Assembly Council itself. Thus, we are deeply concerned to read that the Assembly Council has taken a significant detour from regular proceedings. The matter of Gracious Dismissal has been before the church since 2015. The General Assembly gave it to the Assembly Council to prepare a report and permission was granted for this report to be presented at the 2020 General Assembly. We are grateful the Council’s sub-committee worked hard to prepare a carefully researched report in a timely manner. We fully expected the Assembly Council to carefully consider the report of their task force and use that hard work to prepare an answer for the General Assembly’s prayerful consideration. You have voted to not follow this expected practice. We find this very troubling.

We quote from the dissent found in the minutes of October’s Assembly Council meeting, “The Assembly Council’s terms of reference includes the obligation to ‘assist the General Assembly in making responsible decisions by ensuring that both the Council, and the Assembly, have before them all the information that is needed and that is pertinent to the matter in hand in order to make a wise decision’. General Assembly specifically asked for such assistance and the Assembly Council has now chosen to deny such assistance during a time when the matter is contentious and relevant. That is a failure of leadership; that is a dereliction of duty.”

We believe the Assembly Council’s refusal to receive the sub-committee report in October is an unwise decision and potentially a dangerous precedent that will heighten tension and could place the Assembly Council in a difficult and defensive position. We also “find the recorded dissents in the October minutes compelling in their passion and reason”. While we recognize some in the Assembly Council felt the report should be left until after the remits have been addressed, we strongly feel complete, truthful and well researched information faithfully shared with transparency is always best. Decisions made out of fear and without all the relevant information are never good ones. Truth really does set us free, facilitating a prayerful and holy openness to God’s leading and avoiding any semblance of human manipulation or pressure.

We are also concerned that the Assembly Council has not even discussed the report. We are aware that David Jennings, Linda Shaw and Barbara Sargent have spent countless hours of volunteer time in meetings and research and believe “they have worked diligently and seriously to produce a report that would be fair to any and all congregations and not just one group”. We agree with another quote from the October minutes: “The debates about the human sexuality / authority of scripture / justice matters should be based on theology and ecclesiology, not on property. By providing a clear, neutral answer to the question of Gracious Dismissal as an option, the debates can focus on the issues themselves, without the fear of the practical imposition of results on a congregation feeling threatened with the removal of its sanctuary and other church property. If Gracious Dismissal as a concept is found to be both possible and desirable by the General Assembly, it is the goal of the Committee to make Gracious Dismissal accessible, just and rare.”

The Assembly Council receiving a report for consideration does not require unanimous agreement with the report. Our confidence and trust in the national leaders would be enhanced if Council had received the report, considered the concerns that motivated the overtures, and offered a theological rationale for saying no. As it is, Council’s decision not to receive the report suggests a disregard for the concerns behind the overtures.. We also believe it is the place of the General Assembly to make the final decision on this issue, bearing in mind the advice of the Assembly Council.

We understand the Assembly Council previously felt there was no possible way to move forward with Gracious Dismissal, but asked your sub-committee to research the question more deeply. Their report suggests there well may be a way forward that allows all to be treated with grace. Whether the remits pass or fail, there will likely be congregations who will seriously consider their future in the PCC, if not over this issue, then over other deeply held convictions. Those who prepared the remits have sought to show compassion and fairness to fellow brothers and sisters in Christ who hold different views on some matters; we believe carefully considering a Gracious Dismissal process continues on that same path of grace, compassion, fairness and justice.

Assembly Council has repeatedly indicated it welcomes input, a heartening and welcome message. Overtures are the accepted way for Sessions and Presbyteries to express their prayerful desires. They are not submitted lightly. Twenty or more overtures from across the country asking the General Assembly to address this issue have been submitted already. This is a broad concern. It is one thing to ask for input; how the Assembly Council responds to that input sends the real message. How can we feel we will be real partners in the future if concerns raised now are not taken seriously? The decision not to prepare a recommendation regarding Gracious Dismissal to the upcoming General Assembly has already damaged the bonds of partnership between the national leaders and local congregations. Dealing with the report on Gracious Dismissal and presenting a recommendation the Assembly can consider along with the remits this year won’t undo that damage, but it is a necessary first step in rebuilding trust.

We respectfully ask that the Assembly Council give this report the attention it deserves in a timely way. We ask that the report be made available for the upcoming General Assembly as planned. We also ask that this report be addressed before the Remits are discussed for the reasons given above.

Signed,

Jonathan Dent — David Chung — Rev. George Robertson — Jan Robertson — James A. Dunlop — Rev. Timothy Ferrier — John Matheson — Rev. Sandra Copland Dufour — Rev. Dr. Martin Kreplin — Joan Knox — Andy Van Bodegom — Carol Van Bodegom — Benoit Cousineau — Don Nicol — Len Wolstenholme — Freddie Saleh — Ronda Bosch — Mary Moore — Ron French — Philip MacFie — John Van Gyssel — Grant Wilson — Ken Oakes — Anne Hawes — Brian Wilson — Rev. Miklos Szigeti — Robert Ferrier — Norine Love — Rev. Stephen G. Dunkin — Susan Dunkin — Bernard Skelding — Jos Haye — Harry Austen — Myrna Austen — Alvin Kim — Rev. Joel Coppieters — Rev. Dr. Neal Mathers — Nagi Said — Ross Davidson — Jon Dykeman — Joan Wilson — Linda Clarke — Virginia Head — Karl Reichert — Blake William Walker — Douglas Cameron — Erin King — John Roycroft — George Malcolm — Anne Houston — Alan Brewster — Anne Stewart — Okechukwu Chukwu — Rev. Alex Douglas — Irene Oakes — Terry Hagen — Susan Mattinson — Cathy Faubert — Stephen Kwon — Ed Renaud — Jonathan Dennis — Donald Bartlett — Shannon Bell — Glenn Marnoch — Rev Grant Gunnink — Paul Barrett — James Statham — Bruce Wilcox — Henry Heung Ryeol Han — Yongwan Cho — Winston Newman — Kathy Newman — Alfred Lee — Shirley Quinn — Rev. Munhyun Ryu — Martyn Van Essen — Jong Woog Kim — Rob Allan — Hyo young Joo — Rev. Andy Cornell — Lois Wallace — David Charles Wakeham — Peter J. Morrison — George Habib — Donna Dawson — Dr. James Gordon — Adel Shenouda — Makram Barsoum — John Park — Stanley Cox — Daniel Nortes — Wadie Rezk — Kevin Livingston — Nan St. Louis — Don Lipsett — Sean Lee — Inkyu Park — Taesic Ha — Chris Little — Janet de Groot — Seong In Chin — Sunghwan Jang — Douglas Johns — Carey Jo Johnston — Sherif Bakhoum — Rev. Murat Kuntel — Christopher Jorna — J Richard Hendry — Mary Jane (Jay) Hendry — Heather Butterfill — Dr. Terry Fellows — Stuart W. McKim — Karen McKim — Tom LeBlanc — Nancy LeBlanc — Loreen Newman — Murray Park — Jean Park — Hugh clugston — Lorraine Clugston — Chris Gleimius — David Chambers — Priscilla Anderson — Donald Scott — David Spencer — Henk Vanden Beukel — Emese Zaduban — William Pettit — Terry Hibbert — Barbara Ferrier — Floyd McPhee — Jim Mason — Lyle Beckett — Roy Stevenson — James Knott — Ruth Ann Beckett — Linda Paquette — Linda Low — Steve Lindsay — Kenneth Kupisz — Cahl D. Brown — Jane Wright — Sylvia Dresser — Brian Wright — Ingrid Navidad — Heather Wilson — Wayne Dewart — Jerry Low — Rev. James Perrie — Marion R. Perrie — Les K. Ferrier — Lorraine Webber — Bill Harrison — Maureen A. Brewster — Philip Marais — Diana Wadsworth — Graham Finlayson — Colleen Finlayson — Bernard C. Coram — Duncan Cameron — Jim McIntosh — Rhonda McIntosh — Muriel Barrington — Joseph Mick — Peter Bloom — Pauline Gleimius — Gerry de Koning — Rev. David Leggatt — Tom Eyre — Richard Clough — Dr. Winston Dykeman — Monica McClure — Colleen Richardson — Bob Kettyle — Carol Kettyle — George Kodous — Saad Saad — Adel Ashamalla — Morgan Morgan — Shaddy Hanna — Rev. Emery Cawsey — Joseph N. Gray — Myung Soo Son — Michael Degazio — Nam Sun Choi — Doreen Dath — Robb MacHattie — Doug Austin — George Myers — Robin Davidson — Bill Kunkel — Mary Beth McLean — Lynda Smith — Wayne Smith — Rev. Dr. Mark Richardson — Linda Myers — Jim Robertson — ChangYong Park — Bruce Hunter — Rev. Dr. Wayne Hancock — Robert (Bob) Martin — Rev. Paul Robinson — John Fair — Martha Fair — Rev. Harvey Osborne — Dr. Gavin Richardson — Elaine Richardson — Philip Kim — Derrek Konrad — Olivia McMillan — Ellen Konrad — Bruce Metzger — Rev. Henry Huberts — Jean Clelland — Rev. Paula Hamilton — Rev. Dr. Tom Hamilton — Kristen Higgs — Larry McPhee — Lois McPhee — Sangheon (Eugene) Woo — Sangsoon Lee — Yealin Woo — Soohwan Woo — Moonjung Choi — Young Eun You — Joseph Choi — Jonathan Choi — Marion Burn — Myeongjin Nam — Kyoungsung Lee — Hyeryoung Choi — Dukki Kim — Hyanglan Lee — Atef Bakhiet — Marcelle Bakhiet — James Watson — Lynda Watson — Rev. Glen Sampson — Robert Telfer — Joan Stevenson — Rosemary Sanderson — Evelyn McCarthy — Joan Burdock — Dan Shute — Joan Kennedy — Norma Emmons — Janet Lee — Elaine Taylor — Rev. Carol Hamilton — Mark Carter — Brian Hession — Susan Hession — Larry Price — Bruce Boyes — Marianne Collin — Pauline McConaghy — Patricia Earl — Brian Earl — James Douglas — Saemeyna Oh — Alta MacFie — James MacFie — Hyangjin Lee — Rev. Edward Charlton — Rev. Dr. Don Faris — Neil Cameron — Colin Leonard — Jim Paterson — Daniel Lobb — Susanna Hamilton — Michaela Vandyke — Joanne Ferrier — Myrna Talbot — Elizabeth Matthias — Bobby Ogdon — Margit Meszaros — John Head — Ross McClelland — George E. Anderson — Marlene Larabie — Robert F. Richardson — Shelagh Stevens — Jan Kuehn — Reiner Kuehn — Tressa Oliver — Moheb Nasr — David Oliver — Allan Gunnesslal — Sharon Dowdall — Samy Said — Marie Gemmill — Walter Gemmill — Ken Fournier — Melissa Valliquette — Irene Nesbitt — Renee Guirguis — Guirguis Guirguis — John Sinton — Yohana Kimoun Ntienjem — Emad Ibrahim — Gamal Hanna — Sarah Choi — Donna Thomas