GS 2025 Article 176 – Overture RSW 2024: CO art. 30 (Ecclesiastical Route)

1.   Material

• 1.1    Overture RSW 2024 Overture re CO art. 30 (8.4.3.1).
• 1.2    Letters from the following churches: Arthur (8.5.3.1), Barrhead (8.5.3.2), Burlington Waterdown (Rehoboth) (8.5.3.3), Caledonia (8.5.3.4), Calgary (8.5.3.5), Carman East (8.5.3.6), Carman West (8.5.3.7), Dunnville West (8.5.3.8), Elm Creek (8.5.3.9), Elora (8.5.3.10), Fergus (Maranatha) (8.5.3.11), Flamborough (Redemption) (8.5.3.12), Grand Rapids (8.5.3.13), Grand Valley (8.5.3.14), Grassie (Covenant) (8.5.3.15), Houston (8.5.3.16), Lincoln (Vineyard) (8.5.3.17), Neerlandia (8.5.3.18), Niagara South (8.5.3.19), St. Albert (8.5.3.20), Toronto (Bethel) (8.5.3.21), Willoughby Heights (8.5.3.22).

2.   Admissibility

• 2.1    The overture was declared admissible.
  • Grounds: It followed the very ecclesiastical route it is trying to change and was received on time.
• 2.2    The letters were declared admissible.
  • Grounds: The letters interact with an overture to GS 2025 and were received on time.

3. Observations

• 3.1    From the overture:
  • 3.1.1    Timeline of changes to CO Art 30, and guidelines:
    • 3.1.1.1   GS 1983 added to CO Article 30 the following, “A new matter which has not previously been presented to that major assembly may be put on the agenda only when the minor assembly has dealt with it.” This now caused the ecclesiastical route to apply to new matters.
    • 3.1.1.2   GS 2010 added the following to the general synod guidelines: “For all [emphasis added] matters of the churches in common, individual churches may address proposals or other significant submissions directly to general synod with the requirement that all such submissions are sent also to each church in the federation no later than six months prior to general synod” (GS 2010 Art. 62).
    • 3.1.1.3   GS 2013 rescinded the previous general synod guidelines as they were at odds with CO Art 30. Instead, it adopted the following guideline, “Since matters on the agenda of general synod involve the churches in common, regional synods shall distribute copies of adopted overture to all the churches in the federation no later than five months prior to the convening of a general synod” (GS 2013 Art 99).
  • 3.1.2    Two competing interpretations of CO Art. 30 have existed in the churches. The “older view” is that churches may submit overtures directly to general synod if the matter is common to all churches. The “newer view” requires all overtures first be processed through the ecclesiastical route, regardless of their nature. GS 2010 attempted to blend these views by allowing direct submissions with safeguards (e.g., six-month notice), but GS 2013 rejected this compromise, reinforcing the newer, stricter interpretation.
  • 3.1.3    There have been inconsistencies in the application and interpretation of the ecclesiastical route since the addition of the relevant sentence to CO Art. 30 in 1983. For example, GS 2007 admitted an overture directly from a church, bypassing the ecclesiastical route, on the grounds that it dealt with a matter common to the churches. This resulted in a back-and-forth as synods created a “battle of opinions” (GS 2010 art. 62 cons. 3.4), which GS 2010 itself described as “extremely unhelpful in establishing equity and fairness among the churches.”
  • 3.1.4    Despite the formal requirement of the ecclesiastical route, synods have not always enforced it consistently. Some overtures that bypassed the route were accepted. Others that followed the route were rejected for procedural or substantive reasons. This inconsistency has led to confusion among the churches about what is required for an overture to be considered admissible.
  • 3.1.5    The inconsistency undermines trust in the fairness and transparency of synodical processes. Churches are left uncertain about how to proceed with overtures, leading to frustration and inefficiency. This confusion is not merely theoretical—it has had real consequences in recent synods (e.g., GS 2016, GS 2019, GS 2022), where overtures were inconsistently handled despite following the prescribed route.
  • 3.1.6    While this process is intended to involve the churches and ensure broad support it often fails to achieve either. For example, GS 2022 rejected an overture that had been approved by both regional synods (GS 2022 art. 105), showing that even when an overture has passed through all the prescribed steps and appears to have broad support, it can still be denied at the final stage. Two reasons might explain this:
    • 3.1.6.1   Each assembly is a deliberative body that makes its own decision. An overture does not gain legitimacy simply by passing through multiple stages, but by the strength of the arguments presented.
    • 3.1.6.2   Churches might not engage early in the process for a variety of reasons. Some churches only respond to overtures once they reach general synod, even if they had opportunities to do so earlier at classis or regional synod, showing that the overture may not have broad support.
  • 3.1.7    The ecclesiastical route can undermine fairness when a classis or regional synod can prevent an overture from reaching general synod, even if the matter is of concern to churches outside their jurisdiction. This creates a situation where churches are subject to decisions made by assemblies they do not belong to.
  • 3.1.8    Appeals complicate the process. If an overture is denied, a church can appeal the decision. If that appeal is upheld, the overture may still reach general synod—but now through a more convoluted and delayed process.
  • 3.1.9    When considering the efficiency of handling overtures, from the perspective of an individual church, the existing process is not always efficient as many churches will need to deal with the same matter multiple times as it moves through the assemblies to which it belongs, even if it fails along the way. Considering the number of overtures that are denied at regional and general synods, classes and regional synods may not be efficient at filtering out weak overtures, which are then dealt with by assemblies, and churches responding to them.
• 3.2    RSW 2024 requests that synod:
  • 3.2.1    Change CO art. 30 to read: “A new matter which has not previously been presented to that major assembly and is common to its churches may be put on the agenda by one of its churches.”;
  • 3.2.2    Remove synod guideline I.F;
  • 3.2.3    Adopt a new guideline that reads, “For new matters common to the churches of the general synod, individual churches may address overtures directly to general synod with the requirement that all such submissions are sent also to each church in the federation no later than six months prior to general synod.”
• 3.3    From the churches:
  • 3.3.1    The current process ensures that only overtures which have won the support of many churches reaches the broadest assembly (Arthur, Fergus (Maranatha), Grand Rapids, Neerlandia, Niagara South).
  • 3.3.2    Failures to apply CO art. 30 properly in the past does not imply a need to change the CO today (Arthur, Houston, Lincoln (Vineyard)).
  • 3.3.3    The overture will increase the workload of our general synods (Arthur, Barrhead, Carman West, Dunville West, Elora, Grand Valley, Grassie (Covenant), Lincoln (Vineyard), Niagara South, Toronto (Bethel)).
  • 3.3.4    The current process allows minor assemblies to filter out weak overtures (Barrhead, Calgary, Fergus (Maranatha), Lincoln (Vineyard), Niagara South).
  • 3.3.5    Relying on the wisdom of minor assemblies is a benefit (Barrhead, Calgary, Dunville West, Elm Creek, Fergus (Maranatha), Grand Valley, Neerlandia, St. Albert, Toronto (Bethel)).
  • 3.3.6    If a request to forward an overture has been denied, and an appeal sustained by general synod, the overture can be submitted directly to general synod (Calgary).
  • 3.3.7    The current process provides more checks and balances (Carman East, Niagara South).
  • 3.3.8    The current process is cumbersome, complicated, and frustrating (Burlington Waterdown (Rehoboth), Willoughby Heights).
  • 3.3.9    The current process results in altered and adulterated overtures landing on the table of General Synod (Burlington Waterdown (Rehoboth)).
  • 3.3.10  Each church should have a direct voice in matters of concern and interest to it (Burlington Waterdown (Rehoboth)).

4.   Considerations

• 4.1    The historical development of CO art. 30 and its associated guidelines (obs. 3.1.1 above) indicates that the current formulation is not foundational but open to reconsideration.
• 4.2    The existence of two competing interpretations of CO art. 30 (obs. 3.1.2 above)—the “older view” allowing direct submissions and the “newer view” requiring the ecclesiastical route—demonstrates a lack of consensus historically. GS 2010 attempted to reconcile these views, but GS 2013 reversed that effort as it was in conflict with the Church Order. The ongoing tension suggests the need to either fix the current process or change the church order.
  • 4.2.1    The process involves all the broader assemblies, their regulations and guidelines. It is beyond the ambit of general synod to dictate how the minor assemblies regulate themselves.
  • 4.2.2    A general synod may rightfully change the Church Order if the interest of the churches demand it (CO art. 76).
• 4.3    The inconsistency in how general synods have applied the ecclesiastical route (obs. 3.1.3–3.1.5 above) has led to confusion and potentially undermines trust in the process. A Church Order provision that is not applied consistently fails to serve its intended purpose and should be reconsidered.
  • 4.3.1    At GS 2025 two virtually identical overtures were received from RSE 2024 (agenda items 8.4.2.4 & 8.2.4.5) and another virtually identical overture was denied by RSW 2024. This suggests that the originating church believed that by sharing the overture with multiple churches in other classes that it would increase the likelihood that the matter would land on the agenda of general synod.
• 4.4    The ecclesiastical route does not reliably ensure church involvement or support (obs. 3.1.6 & 3.3.1 above). The overture correctly points out, “since broader assemblies are assemblies of churches, churches should be aware of proposals being considered by the broader assemblies to which they belong and should have the opportunity to present their considerations on those proposals to the major assembly considering the proposal.”
• 4.5    The language of “lording it over” is an overstatement. Nevertheless, when a classis or regional synod blocks an overture from reaching general synod, it does indirectly affect churches outside their jurisdiction (obs. 3.1.7 above). In practice, this is minimal given the frequency with which churches communicate with each other on these matters. Further, these matters may end up on the agenda of a broader assembly by way of appeal (cf. obs. 3.3.6 above).
• 4.6    The appeals process (obs. 3.1.8 above) reveals an inherent inconsistency with the current process. When an appeal against a decision not to adopt a particular overture is sustained, it raises the question of what to do with the overture.
  • 4.6.1    If the overture is to go, for example, to the next general synod (obs. 3.3.6 above), then it must do so in violation of the guideline as a church is putting a new matter on the agenda of a general synod and not the minor assembly.
  • 4.6.2    If the overture is to go to the assembly that denied the overture, it would violate the Church Order as a major assembly cannot set the agenda of a minor assembly (CO art 30).
• 4.6.3    Requiring the overture to go back through the ecclesiastical route, that is resubmitting it to classis, would be frustrating and burdensome.
• 4.7    The arguments of efficiency and workload (obs. 3.1.9 & 3.3.3 above) are not definitive and somewhat subjective. It depends greatly on whether one is looking at all the churches or general synod alone.
  • 4.7.1    Multiple churches argue (obs. 3.3.4 above) that the current process allows weak overtures to be filtered out before reaching general synod. The overture demonstrates that the “pass rate” of the broader minor assemblies does not bear this out (obs. 3.1.9 above).
• 4.8    The overture’s proposed changes (obs. 3.2 above) aim to address these issues by allowing churches to submit overtures directly to general synod, provided all churches are notified 6 months in advance. Since the churches normally receive many synod reports 6 months in advance, it would be better to have overtures submitted 12 months in advance.
• 4.8.1    To ensure that general synods are not overloaded with weak overtures and to benefit from the wisdom of minor assemblies, churches could seek the judgement and help of classis (as per CO art. 44) in preparing overtures (obs. 3.3.5 above).
• 4.9    Another way to address the practical issues (obs. 3.3.2 above), would be to change the regulations of the broader minor assemblies such that they filter weak overtures more efficiently (obs. 3.3.4 above). Doing so is outside the ambit of general synod (CO art. 30).

5.   Recommendation

That Synod decide:

• 5.1    To adopt the overture;
• 5.2    To change the last line of CO art. 30 from:
  • A new matter which has not previously been presented to that major assembly may be put on the agenda only when the minor assembly has dealt with it.”
• To:
  • A new matter which has not previously been presented to that major assembly and is common to its churches may be put on the agenda by one of its churches.
• 5.3    To remove the current Guideline 1.F from the Guidelines for Synod;
• 5.4    To add to the Guidelines for Synod the following new Guideline 1.F:
  • For matters common to the churches of the general synod, whether “new” (CO article 30) or “once decided upon” (CO article 33), individual churches may address proposals directly to general synod with the requirement that all such submissions are sent also to each church in the federation no later than twelve (12) months prior to general synod.

ADOPTED

For the Guidelines as revised by GS 2025, see Appendix 25.