Office Bearers

GS 2025 Article 164 – Appeal against GS 2022 art. 155: Pulpit Access

1.   Material

  • 1.1    Appeal from Burlington (Fellowship) regarding GS 2022 art. 155 (8.6.3.1).

2.   Admissibility

  • 2.1    The appeal was declared admissible.
  • Grounds: It is appealing the decision of a previous general synod and it was received on time.

3.   Observations

  • 3.1    Burlington (Fellowship) introduces its appeal by stating that “by denying these appeals [in Art 155], GS Guelph (2022) has bound Fellowship Church beyond the plain reading of the CO. . .” (p. 1). Burlington (Fellowship) goes on to state that it “believes that there are certain axioms, or self-evident truths, which form the foundation for how the churches should understand and apply the Church Order. These are:
    • “Axiom 1. We affirm that the CO regulates matters that affect the churches in common.
    • Axiom 2. We affirm that the Word of God binds us and that we bind ourselves to the common consent given in CO 76.
    • Axiom 3. We affirm that the literal reading of the CO expresses the intent of the articles.
    • Axiom 4. We affirm that the articles are separated as individual articles for a reason” (p. 3).
  • 3.2    Burlington (Fellowship) continues to introduce its appeal by discussing how the aforementioned axioms appear to be evidenced in a series of past general synod decisions (pp. 4–11).
  • 3.3    In discussing the decision of GS 2022 (art. 155), Fellowship notes an “explicit argument made by RSE [2019] that GS made implicitly. RSE 2019 Article 11, in its Consideration 1, claimed that: ‘The central issue is “how to read and work with the CO.” The CO explicitly states matters and has principles at work.’ But these types of arguments have no basis. We do not bind ourselves to perceived principles or to implied intent but to the plain reading of the CO (Axiom 3)” (p. 9).
  • 3.4    GS 2004 observed that agreement was reached between the Church Order Subcommittee (CanRC) and their counterparts in the United Reformed Churches in North America (URCNA) to “include an extensive introduction to the Church Order, which introduces: 1. Biblical and Confessional Basis, 2. Historical Background, 3. Foundational Principles, and 4. Broad Divisions” (GS 2004 art. 76 obs. 3.5). GS 2004 decided to charge the Subcommittee to “continue in the evaluation of the differences between the current church orders of the federations in the light of the scriptural and confessional principles and patterns of church government of the Church Order of Dort” (GS 2004 art. 76 rec. 5.3.2.)
  • 3.5    Burlington (Fellowship) appeals to GS 2025 to judge:
    • 3.5.1    “that GS Guelph (2022) erred in Article 155 when it gave as Ground 4.2: ‘Our current practice that grants pulpit access has been determined collectively by the churches is based on synodical decisions as expressed in the rules for EF.’ The Synod failed to show that the rules for EF (CO 50) exclusively regulate whom the consistory may or may not invite to preach (CO 15) (Axiom 1);
    • 3.5.2    that GS Guelph (2022) erred in Article 155 when it acknowledged in Ground 4.3 that ‘Our current CO does not have a specific provision regarding pulpit access for guest ministers from non-sister churches.’ Calling on ‘our current practice’ is not sufficient grounds to bind the local consistory (Axiom 2);
    • 3.5.3    that GS Guelph (2022) erred in Article 155 when it ignored the literal reading of the CO 4 in favour of its perception of the CO’s intent or its determination of some underlying principle (Axiom 3);
    • 3.5.4    that GS Guelph (2022) erred in Article 155 when it acknowledged that ‘Our current CO does not have a specific provision regarding pulpit access for guest ministers from non-sister churches’ and yet judged that if a local consistory wanted to regain its authority and responsibility over the local pulpit, it could always seek to have that freedom defined by proposing a change to the CO. GS Dunnville (2016) correctly judged that where there was no explicit regulation in the CO, the churches had the freedom and competence as well as the authority and responsibility to draft their own regulations (Axiom 1);
    • 3.5.5    that GS Guelph (2022) erred in Article 155 when it judged in Article 48 in Grounds 4.1, ‘According to the CO, Classis has a role in giving advice concerning requests that have to do with temporary pulpit access’ and ruled that the appellants ignored ‘the relevant principle of classical involvement in granting access to the pulpit (e.g. CO Article 4.B.1 & 2) that can give guidance concerning the matter of giving pastors of non-sister churches temporary access to the pulpit.’ The Synod erred because it found its authority in what it determined to be a relevant principle and failed to show how the literal reading of CO Art 4 regulates whom the consistory may invite to preach (Axiom 3);
    • 3.5.6    that GS Guelph (2022) erred in Article 155 when it gave as Grounds 4.1 that there are relevant principles in CO Articles 44 and 76 where the churches agree to honour the decisions of the major assemblies (Axiom 3). It did not demonstrate that the appellants were not honouring the decisions of the broader assemblies or that they were not observing the adopted order when, in fact, they acknowledged that no decision had been made (Axiom 1);
    • 3.5.7    that GS Guelph (2022) erred in Article 155 because it failed to demonstrate how the regulation for eligibility for the call should be read into rules for EF regulated by Art 50 and thus, in some creative way, superseded CO 15, limiting the authority of the consistory has over the local pulpit. (Axiom 4).”

4.   Considerations

  • 4.1    The core issue in the appeal of Burlington (Fellowship) is how one is to interpret the Church Order. On the one hand Burlington (Fellowship) objects to GS 2022’s implicit use of the argument that there are principles at work behind what the Church Order explicitly states, and that such principles have to be borne in mind when understanding and applying the Church Order. On the other hand, Burlington (Fellowship) insists on a “plain reading” of the Church Order and then proceeds to state, elaborate on, and judge the decision of GS 2022 (art. 155) by means of four axioms drawn up by itself. These axioms are essentially four principles of how to interpret the Church Order. This is both ironic and an admission by Burlington (Fellowship) that there are inevitably some principles (stated or otherwise) that are at work whenever anyone interprets the Church Order. In principle, therefore, Burlington (Fellowship) cannot object to general synods using principles to interpret the Church Order since it does so itself. The issue comes down to: which principles of interpretation are deemed appropriate and acceptable by the churches? The proposed axioms of Burlington (Fellowship) have not been seen much less tested by the churches in the ecclesiastical way and thus the federation is not bound by these axioms. The entire federation, however, has agreed to a set of foundational principles which undergird the Church Order (see GS 2004 art. 76 obs. 4); further, the principles used by our ecclesiastical assemblies to understand and apply the Church Order have been seen in the acts of those assemblies, duly reviewed and even refined by the churches over many decades by way of appeals and overtures.
  • 4.2    Burlington (Fellowship) finds fault with GS 2022 pointing to “Our current practice” as “not sufficient grounds to bind the local consistory” (GS 2022 art. 155 dec. 3.5.2). However, GS 2022 was not merely pointing to the historic practice of our churches but rather to the “synodical decisions as expressed in the rules for EF.” In other words, the CanRC practice in question is the outworking of the principles which are given expression in various Church Order articles. The resulting practice is that the pool of ministers from which a consistory may invite a man to preach is established by the federation through its broader assemblies.
  • 4.3    Burlington (Fellowship) finds fault with GS 2022 art. 155 gr. 4.2 for failing “to show that the rules for EF (CO 50) exclusively regulate whom the consistory may or may not invite to preach (CO 15) (Axiom 1).” Burlington (Fellowship) incorrectly refers to CO 15 as regulating whom a consistory may invite to preach. In reality, CO 15 is set in the context of regulations concerning a minister within our federation (Articles 4–21) and as such forbids a minister from taking it upon himself to preach (or administer the sacraments) in “another church” without the consent of that church’s consistory. Further, GS 2022 did not need to show that the rules for Ecclesiastical Fellowship (EF) “exclusively” regulate whom the consistory may or may not invite to preach, but rather that said rules inherently restrict a consistory’s choice of invitee to ministers from churches with whom we have EF. GS 2022 was correct that this is an implication of our (then) current rules for EF (CO 50) for if it was understood that local consistories could already invite any minister from any church they wished, there would be no need to have such a rule for the churches in common.
  • 4.4    Burlington (Fellowship) faults the reasoning of GS 2022 art. 155 gr. 4.3 as being “not sufficient grounds to bind the local consistory.” However, ground 4.3 works together with ground 4.2 in which it is pointed out that rules for Ecclesiastical Fellowship (EF) (CO 50) implicitly restrict a consistory’s choice of ministers to those churches with whom we have EF (see 4.3). This logical implication was a sufficient ground for the decision of GS 2022 to deny the appeals.
  • 4.5    Burlington (Fellowship) faults GS 2022 for ignoring “the literal reading of the CO 4 in favour of its perception of the CO’s intent or its determination of some underlying principle (Axiom 3).” However, Burlington (Fellowship) does not show how GS 2022 does this. In fact, GS 2022 art. 155 gr. 4.1 simply communicates that there are principles of church governance at work throughout the Church Order (a truth our federation has long worked with as per observation 3.4 above), one of which is “classical involvement in granting access to the pulpit,” and then mentions the example of CO art 4.B.1. & 2. It would be inherently contradictory for the Church Order to carefully regulate access to the pulpit via classical examination in the case of students as well as in the case of ministers coming into the federation from a non-sister church (both in CO 4) and to also carefully develop rules for when pulpits may be open to ministers of churches we are developing ecclesiastical relationships with (via the rules for Ecclesiastical Fellowship (EF) per CO art. 50) to then leave it in the freedom of each local consistory to invite any minister from any church they wished. Logical consistency dictates that under our (then) current Church Order and adopted rules for EF, local consistories had bound themselves to wait until the churches together as a federation have chosen to regulate this matter differently.
  • 4.6    Burlington (Fellowship) faults GS 2022 art. 155 gr. 4.4 for judging that a local church could seek to propose a change to the Church Order in order to make provision regarding pulpit access for guest ministers from non-sister churches, believing that local consistories have this freedom already because it is not explicitly regulated in the Church Order. However, when one factors in the principle of supervising access to the pulpits of the federation by the broader assemblies of the federation (classis and general synod, as per Considerations 4.3 and 4.5 above) as expressed in CO art. 4 and the Rules for Ecclesiastical Fellowship (EF) adopted by general synod (per CO art. 50), then implicitly this matter is regulated by means of the Church Order and decisions of general synod. At the time of GS 2022, the churches had implicitly agreed that this matter rests with those broader assemblies, not the local consistory.
  • 4.7    The fifth request of Burlington (Fellowship) for judgment is in substance much the same as the third request and has been answered in consideration 4.3 above.
  • 4.8    Burlington (Fellowship) finds fault with the statement in GS 2022 art. 155 gr. 4.1 that “there are relevant principles in CO Art 44 and 76 where the churches agree to honour the decisions of the major assemblies,” when in fact the appellants acknowledged that no decision had been made. While the Church Order does not regulate every possible scenario, it applies principles to common situations of church governance. Such principles must be kept in mind when interpreting and applying the Church Order in uncommon or unusual situations. GS 2022 was correct to point out that the principles undergirding past decisions of a general synod regarding the Rules for Ecclesiastical Fellowship (EF) (thus CO art. 44 and 50), coupled with the principle of classical involvement regarding in-coming ministers from non-sister churches (CO art. 4.B.2) have a bearing on how the matter of guest ministers from non-sister churches should be handled. The clear implication of these principles and regulations (current in 2022) is that this matter is to be handled by the broader assemblies and not independently by the local consistory.
  • 4.9    Burlington (Fellowship) finds fault with GS 2022 art. 155 gr. 4.1 for “failing to demonstrate how the regulation for eligibility for the call [CO 4] should be read into the rules of EF by Art. 50 and thus, in some creative way, supersede CO 15.” However, GS 2022 did not “read” CO art. 4 “into” CO art. 50 but rather pointed to the underlying “principle of classical involvement in granting access to the pulpit” in CO art. 4 and lined that up with the “relevant principles” in CO art. 44 and the synodical decisions concerning Rules for Ecclesiastical Fellowship (EF). This led GS 2022 art. 155 gr. 4.2 to state, “Our current practice that pulpit access has been determined collectively by the churches is based on synodical decisions as per CO 50.” It was legitimate for GS 2022 to reason on the basis of the principles underlying the Church Order as they are given expression in the given articles.

5.   Recommendations

That Synod decide:

  • 5.1    To deny the appeal.

ADOPTED

J. Torenvliet, H. Jagersma, J. Jager, M. Jagt, G. Boot, and R. Bremer abstained as per CO art. 32.