The general synod shall be held once every three years. Each regional synod shall delegate to this synod six ministers and six elders.
If it appears necessary to convene a general synod before the appointed time, the convening church shall determine the time and place with the advice of regional synod.
The following was adopted:
5. Recommendations
Synod decide:
5.2 To amend the first paragraph of Article 49 of the Church Order to read:
The general synod shall be held once every three years. Each regional synod shall delegate to this synod six ministers and six elders.
Appendix 22 – Guidelines for General Synod (Updated)
GUIDELINES FOR GENERAL SYNOD
I Convening and Constitution of Synod[1]
A. The convening Church shall set the date on which Synod shall meet (cf. Art. 49, CO). The convening church shall publish the date along with the rule:
All material for Synod should be received by the convening Church (in digital format, and five paper copies)[2] no later than six weeks prior to the convocation date of General Synod. Material received after this date shall ordinarily not be added to the agenda unless Synod is satisfied that the reasons given for later arrival are reasonable.[3]
B. Correspondence from the convening church, including the notice of convocation, agendas, reports, and proposals may be sent to the churches and/ or delegates as digital files. However, in order to maintain the confidentiality of potentially sensitive material, personal appeals as well as other documents which contain personal information (e.g., letters of appointment) must be sent from the convening church as password-protected digital files.[4]
C. The convening Church shall send the first Provisional Agenda to all the Churches at least six months prior to convocation.
D. All material submitted to the convening Church together with a copy of the current Guidelines for General Synod shall be sent to all delegates and the first alternates.[5] All material submitted to Synod, including Reports, Appeals, and Overtures which quote any foreign language source must provide in the text of the submission a full English translation and in a footnote the citation in the original language.[6]
E. All material for Synod should be received by the convening Church (in digital format, and five paper copies)[7] no later than six weeks prior to the convocation date of General Synod. Material received after this date shall ordinarily not be added to the agenda unless Synod is satisfied that the reasons given for later arrival are reasonable.[8]
F. Since matters on the agenda of general synod involve the churches in common, regional synods shall distribute copies of adopted overtures to all the churches in the federation no later than five months prior to the convening of a general synod.[9]
G. The minister of the convening Church or its counselor shall act as chairman until Synod has been constituted.
1. He shall call the meeting to order in an ecclesiastical manner (cf. Art. 34, CO);
2. He shall have the credentials examined as to whether General Synod can be constituted.
H. Officers of Synod shall be chosen by ballot in this order: chairman, vice- chairman, first clerk, and second clerk. Election to office is to be by majority of valid votes cast.[10]
I. Although advice can be requested in particular matters, advisory members shall not be appointed.
J. The convening church shall arrange to have people present during Synod to assist the clerks in preparing the Acts and to do other paper work.[11]
II Duties of the Officers
A. The Chairman
1. He shall have, and duly exercise, the prerogative of declaring a motion or a person out of order. If his ruling is challenged, it shall be submitted to Synod for decision by majority vote.
2. If the chairman feels the need to speak on a pending question, he shall relinquish the chair to the vice-chairman for that period of time. While holding the chair, he may speak to state matters of fact or to inform Synod regarding points of order.
3. He shall place before Synod every motion that is made and seconded, in accord with the accepted order; and he shall clearly state every question before a vote is taken, so that every member may know on what he is voting.
4. He shall welcome fraternal delegates or other guests and respond to greetings received or appoint other members for this purpose.
5. He shall call the meeting to order at the appointed time, call the roll and shall see to it that each session is properly opened and closed.
6. The chairman shall see to it that business is transacted in the proper order and is expedited as much as possible, and that members observe the rules of order and decorum (cf. Art. 34 and 35, CO).
7. The chairman shall retain his right to vote on any question.
8. In case of a point of order, the chairman must make a ruling at This ruling may be reversed by a majority of Synod, if any member is dissatisfied with the ruling of the chair and appeals to the floor.
9. The chairman shall close the Synod with appropriate remarks and prayer (Art. 34, CO).
B. The Vice-Chairman
1. The vice-chairman shall, in the absence of the chairman, assume all his duties and privileges.
2. The vice-chairman shall render all possible assistance to the chairman as circumstances require.
3. He shall prepare the Press Release.
C. The First Clerk
1. Every morning, after the roll call, he shall read the Acts of the previous day.
2. He shall keep a proper record of the business of Synod. This record should ordinarily contain:
a. The opening and closing of sessions and roll call.
b. All motions whether carried or defeated.
c. All final reports of committees and all decisions of Synod.
d. Any document or part of debate or address that Synod by a majority vote has decided to insert in the
3. He shall not include in the Acts any motion that was withdrawn.
D. The Second Clerk
1. The second clerk shall serve in the absence of the first clerk.
2. He shall render assistance to the first clerk as circumstances require.
3. He shall handle outgoing mail on behalf of Synod.
III Synodical Committees
A. Advisory Committees of Synod
1. The officers of Synod shall propose advisory committees, with a convener, to serve for the duration of Synod.
2. The officers of Synod shall propose an arrangement of matters on the agenda to the appropriate committees.
3. All reports shall be distributed in ample time before they are presented for discussion.
4. The committee reporter shall present the reports.
5. If there is a minority report as well as a majority report, both reports shall be given into discussion, but the majority report shall be voted upon first.
6. During the discussion, the task of defending the report shall rest primarily with the reporter of the committee. Other committee members shall receive the privilege of the floor to elaborate on or clarify any point.
7. In order to facilitate the discussion on a pending issue, the chair shall ordinarily call for the discussion in two parts (rounds). In the first part opportunity is given to members to express remarks related to the issue in question. In the second or following parts, members may react to the discussion or the issue in question.
8. The discussion may be extended by discretion of the chairman or by a decision of Synod.
9. If anyone has been requested to advise Synod on any matter, he shall address synod on this point only when asked to do so by the chair.
2. Synodical Committees
1. All committees appointed by Synod shall see to it that they send a copy of their report in digital format to each of the local churches.[12]
IV Rules of Order
A. Closed Sessions of Synod
1. A closed session shall ordinarily mean a session where members of Synod and office-bearers may be present. This shall be used in delicate or unusual situations.
2. A closed-restricted session shall, as a rule, mean a session where members of Synod only may be present. This shall only take place when Synod judges that such a course is dictated by due regard for personal honour or the welfare of the Churches in extremely delicate situations.
B. Main Motions
A main motion is one which presents a certain subject for consideration or action.
1. A main motion is acceptable under the following conditions:
a. The mover has been recognized by the chair.
b. The motion has been seconded.
c. The motion is also presented in writing.
2. A main motion is not acceptable if another main motion is before Synod or if it conflicts with any decision already made by Synod.
3. A notice of motion may be given during the discussion.
C. A Motion to Amend
This is a proposal to alter a main motion in language or in meaning before final action is taken on the motion.
1. A motion to amend may propose any of the following: to strike out, to insert, or to substitute certain words, phrases, sentences or paragraphs.
2. A motion to amend is not a proper amendment if it nullifies the main motion or is not germane to it.
3. A motion to amend an amendment is permissible and is called a secondary motion.
D. Call for a Division of the Question
At the request of one or more members of Synod, a motion consisting of more than one part must be divided and voted upon separately, unless Synod decides that this is not necessary.
E. Objection to Consideration of a Question
If any member is not satisfied with the ruling of the chair, the matter is referred to Synod for a decision.
F. Right of Protest
It is the right of any member to protest against any decision of Synod.
Protest should be registered immediately, or during the session in which the matter concerned was acted upon. Protests must be registered individually and not in groups. Members may, if they feel the need, ask to have their negative vote recorded. Such requests must be made immediately after the vote is taken.
G. Motion to Bring Matters Once Decided Again Before Synod
Any member of Synod, for weighty reasons, may move to have a matter reconsidered, which was previously decided. The purpose of this motion is to propose a new discussion and a new vote.
H. Discussion
1. To obtain the floor, a speaker must be recognized by the chair.
2. If any member has spoken twice on a pending issue, others who have not yet spoken twice shall, as a rule, be given priority by the chair.
3. When the chairman believes that a motion under consideration has been debated sufficiently, he may propose cessation of debate. If a majority of Synod sustains his proposal, discussion shall cease and the vote shall be taken.
4. Any member of Synod, when he deems a matter to have been debated sufficiently, may move to close the discussion. Should a majority be in favour, the vote shall be taken, but only after those who have already requested the floor have been recognized.
I. Voting
1. It is in the freedom of the chair to determine how the vote is to be taken: by calling the roll (in any order) or by show of hands.[13]
2. Voting about persons shall be by ballot.
3. Voting about delicate matters and other matters of a critical nature shall also be by ballot.
J. Revision
These Synodical Guidelines may be suspended, amended, revised or abrogated by a majority vote of Synod.
[1] Synod Cloverdale 1983, Article 45.
[2] Synod Carman 2013, Article 173.
[3] Synod Abbotsford 1995, Article 111; Synod Chatham 2004, Article 118.
[4] Synod Carman 2013, Article 173.
[5] Synod Burlington 1986, Article 76; Synod Abbotsford 1995, Article 111.
[6] Synod Winnipeg 1989, Article 131.
[7] Synod Carman 2013, Article 173.
[8] Synod Burlington 1986, Article 162; Synod Abbotsford 1995, Article 110.
[9] Synod Winnipeg 1989, Article 131.
[10] Synod Smithers 2007, Article 147.
[11] Synod Burlington-Ebenezer 2010, Article 174.
[12] Synod Abbotsford 1995, Article 110; Synod Carman 2013, Article 173.
[13] Synod Burlington-Ebenezer 2010, Article 174.
The following was moved by Elder A. Witten and seconded by the Rev. C.J. VanderVelde:
To add to the Guidelines for General Synod as “I.4 – voting”:
The tabulation of votes of decisions made in open plenary sessions – upon request by two delegates at general synod – may be recorded.
Following discussion the motion was
DEFEATED
Sections I.A, I.D and III.B.1 (See Acts of Synod Burlington 2010, Appendix 11, p.340)
The old rules are as follows:
I.A. The convening Church shall set the date on which Synod shall meet (cf. Article 49 CO).The convening church shall publish the date along with the rule:
All material for Synod should be received by the convening Church (in thirty copies) no later than six weeks prior to the convocation date of General Synod. Material received after this date shall ordinarily not be added to the agenda unless Synod is satisfied that the reasons given for later arrival are reasonable.
I.D. All material for Synod should be received by the convening Church (in thirty copies) no later than six weeks prior to the convocation date of General Synod. Material received after this date shall ordinarily not be added to the agenda unless Synod is satisfied that the reasons given for later arrival are reasonable.
III.B.1 All committees appointed by Synod shall see to it that they send as many copies of their report to the local churches as each has office-bearers.
Proposal to change Section I.A (re: the convening church) as follows:
The convening Church shall set the date on which Synod shall meet (cf. Article 49 CO). The
convening church shall publish the date along with the rule:
All material for Synod should be received by the convening Church (in digital format and five paper copies) no later than six weeks prior to the convocation date of General Synod. Material received after this date shall ordinarily not be added to the agenda unless Synod is satisfied that the reasons given for later arrival are reasonable.
Proposal to add a new Section I.B (re: the convening church) as follows:
Correspondence from the convening church, including the notice of convocation, agendas, reports and proposals may be sent to the churches and/or delegates as digital files. However, in order to maintain the confidentiality of potentially sensitive material, personal appeals as well as other documents which contain personal information (e.g., letters of appointment) must be sent from the convening church as password-protected digital files.
Proposal to change Section I.D (re: the convening church) [to be changed to I.E] as follows:
All material for Synod should be received by the convening Church (in digital format and five paper copies) no later than six weeks prior to the convocation date of General Synod. Material received after this date shall ordinarily not be added to the agenda unless Synod is satisfied that the reasons given for later arrival are reasonable.
Proposal to change Section III.B.1 (re: synodical committees) as follows:
All committees appointed by Synod shall see to it that they send a copy of their report in digital format to each of the local churches.
ADOPTED
Article 25 – Synod Guidelines re: Voting Procedure
Synod Guidelines I.1 stipulates that “The chair shall call the roll (in any order) when a vote is taken.” Given how long this takes, the chairman proposed that voting take place by show of hands to speed up the process.
The proposal was put to a vote by roll call and ADOPTED.
Section IV.I.1
The old rule is as follows:
I. Voting
1. The chair shall call the roll (in any order) when a vote is taken.
Proposal to Change Section IV.1.1 as follows:
I. Voting
1. It is in the freedom of the chair to determine how the vote is to be taken: by calling the roll (in any order) or by show of hands.
Add as I.E:
For all 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.
Add as I.F:
Since matters on the agenda of general synod involve the churches in common, regional synods shall distribute copies of adopted overtures to all the churches in the federation no later than five months prior to the convening of a general synod.
Add I.J:
The convening church shall arrange to have people present during Synod to assist the clerks in preparing the Acts and to do other paper work.
ADOPTED
The following was adopted:
To change the Guidelines for General Synod I.A to read: “All material for Synod should be received by the convening Church (in thirty copies) no later than six weeks prior to the convocation date of General Synod….”
2. Observation
2.1 Hamilton requests Synod Smithers to instruct the convening church for the next general synod to schedule the 2010 synod in July in order to make the work of the general synod accessible to more brothers since the timing in the month of May prevents most members of the consistory at Hamilton to be considered for delegation.
3. Considerations
3.1 Although Hamilton makes this request, there is no evidence that convening a synod in July instead of in May would be of benefit to the majority of the churches.
3.2 July is traditionally a time for summer vacation for many people including elders and ministers.
4. Recommendation
Synod decide:
4.1 To deny Hamilton’s request.
ADOPTED
4. Recommendations:
4.4. If churches send female delegates to CanRC synods, they will not be given synod privilege;
ADOPTED
Part 1 – Recommending Names for Appointment
2. Observation:
There has been inconsistency in the way standing committees recommend replacements for their members. Some committees send their recommendations for appointments well in advance in their reports, others much later in sealed envelopes directly to a particular advisory committee of general synod and others not all.
3. Consideration:
It would be helpful if all synod committees would recommend suitable replacements so that general synod may be assisted in determining whom to appoint to the various committees. While such recommendations need not be publicized, they should be duly considered by all delegates to general synod in sufficient time.
4. Recommendation:
That Synod decide to mandate all committees of synod to send the names of recommended replacements for members of their respective committees to each general synod (for distribution to all delegates) at least 6 weeks in advance of general Synod.
ADOPTED
4. Considerations
4.1 Coaldale and Guelph are correct in emphasizing that the right to be part of the deliberative and decision making process of a general synod belongs only to those who have been delegated by a regional synod.
4.2 Those who have been delegated to represent churches with whom we have ecclesiastical fellowship have the right to be seated at the table of a general synod. They may participate in the deliberative process but not in voting.
4.3 Even though Synod Chatham 2004 was correct in stating that the place of an advisor is not specifically covered by the Church Order, the principles expressed in Articles 3, 47 and 49 of the Church Order indicate that while synod can ask anyone for advice, advisors should not be seated at the table of a synod as part of the deliberative process. Article III.A.9 of the Guidelines for General Synod states that “If anyone has been requested to advise Synod on any matter, he shall address Synod on this point only when asked to do so by the chair.”
4.4 Synod is not able to interact with the material mentioned in observation 5 because the material from Regional Synod East 2003 is not available to this body.
5. Recommendation
Synod decide:
5.1 Synod Chatham 2004 erred in rejecting the proposal of Regional Synod East 2003.
5.2 To add to the Guidelines Article 1.G as follows: “Although advice can be requested in particular matters, advisory members shall not be appointed.”
5.3 To allow Rev. J. VanSpronsen [minister of the convening church] to remain seated as advisory member for the duration of this synod.
ADOPTED
2. Observations:
2.1. Winnipeg-Redeemer expresses concern with Article 22 of Synod Burlington 2010. Winnipeg-Redeemer notes that the SCBP requested and received the privilege of the floor at Synod to participate in the discussion on their proposal and to demonstrate two new melodies. It notes that it is not contrary to the guidelines for Synod because the guidelines do not address this matter. They note that the guidelines only mention standing Synodical Committees in III.B.I. “All committees appointed by Synod shall see to it that they send as many copies of their report to the local churches as each has office-bearers.” They note that “although not stated it is understood that the requirement of guideline I.E. also applies to Standing Committees.” “For all 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 Synod.”
3. Considerations:
3.1. Winnipeg-Redeemer acknowledges that Article 22 of Synod Burlington 2010 is not contrary to the guidelines because the guidelines do not address this matter.
3.2. Winnipeg-Redeemer expresses concern because Synod Burlington 2010 used information to make decisions when the churches did not have prior access to that information. Winnipeg-Redeemer wants to use the Guidelines for Synod to prevent this from happening again. Yet Winnipeg-Redeemer does not fully consider the last article of the Guidelines for Synod which states that these guidelines may be suspended, amended, revised or abrogated by a majority vote of synod. It is impossible for one synod to use the guidelines to restrict the possible choices that a future synod might make.
3.3. Guideline I.I allows for synod to seek advice. As this article of the guideline indicates, normally the request for advice comes from synod once they have established that advice is needed. However, due to the nature of the material (the melodies of the hymns), the SCBP made the request to participate in the discussion of their proposals and to demonstrate the proposed new melodies. Synod heard merit in this request and agreed to it.
4. Recommendation:
That Synod decide not to adopt the proposed additions to the guidelines of general synod.
ADOPTED
3. Considerations
3.1 There is currently no regulation that requires that overtures adopted by a regional synod be distributed to all the churches of the federation.
3.2 Since the matters on the agenda of general synod involve the churches in common, it would be appropriate for regional synods to distribute copies of adopted overtures to all the churches in the federation.
3.3 Since regional synods meet in November, six months prior to the convening of a general synod, it would be appropriate to require that the overtures be sent to all the churches no later than five months prior to the convening of a general synod.
4. Recommendation
That Synod decide:
4.1 That Synod Smithers 2007 did not err in dealing with and deciding on the overture in question.
4.2 That any overture adopted by a regional synod for submission to a general synod be distributed to all the churches no later than five months prior to the general synod.
4.3 To add this provision to the Guidelines for Synod under the new heading, Overtures, between sections 3 and 4.
4.4 To instruct the clerk of Synod to notify the next Regional Synod East and Regional Synod West of this change in the Guidelines for Synod.
ADOPTED
3. Considerations
3.1 The submissions from the churches, whether presented as appeals or overtures, presume the availability of reports from synodical committees to all church members.
3.2 It is important to understand the context of the decision of Synod Smithers, and just what Synod actually restricted:
3.2.1 Synod Smithers in Article 74 did not deal generally with the matter of publication of synod reports, but rather with the publication of synod reports electronically on the website.
3.2.2 Synod Smithers in Article 74 dealt with a new reality, namely the possibility of publishing synod committee reports also on the website. Its decision, therefore, pertained only to the matter of electronic publication. Synod Smithers did not restrict consistories from passing out copies of reports to members.3.2.1 Synod Smithers in Article 74 did not deal generally with the matter of publication of synod reports, but rather with the publication of synod reports electronically on the website.
3.3 It is true that committee reports, which pertain to matters regarding the churches in common, were always sent to the churches – and that this did not mean “for the consistory only.”
3.4 It is important that the status of synod committee reports be kept in mind by all who review them. They are reports about which the churches (at general synod) still have to make decisions. Thus they belong to the churches in the first place. Therefore the consistories especially ought to receive these reports and deal with them. This does not, however, mean “to the exclusion of the members.” That would be contrary to the office of all believers and thus also with the considerations of Synod Chatham as listed in Observation 2.4.4 above. The members of the churches should therefore have these reports available to them and review them keeping in mind the above mentioned considerations of Synod Chatham.
3.5 It is true that making electronic copies of the committee reports available on the internet is a convenient and economical way of getting these reports into the hands of the delegates from these churches.
4. Recommendation
That Synod decide that reports from committees appointed by synod be made available on the internet before synod also for all members of the churches.
ADOPTED
The following was adopted:
4. Considerations
4.1 Synod agrees with these churches that matters submitted by these committees, as a rule, should be submitted at least six months before General Synod and that late submission causes undue difficulties to the churches.
4.2 Synod also agrees with the church at Yarrow that if there are good reasons for late arrival, such materials may still be admitted (Guidelines I.A and I.D).
4.3 In the case of these particular reports, a decision not to admit them would not be in the interest of the churches and of the work done by these committees. The latter applies especially to the Report from the Board of Governors of the Theological College, which arrived late without any reason being given.
5. Recommendations
Synod decide:
5.1 Not to accede to the request of the church at Fergus, but to admit the respective reports.
5.2 To remind the committees to prepare and present their reports within the timeframe, agreed upon in the “Guidelines for Synod” (Acts of Synod Abbotsford 1995, Appendix 2, p. 103).
The following was adopted:
4. Consideration
The practice of including the acronym in brackets the first time a name is mentioned is a better system to note the meaning of the acronym. However, if it is also helpful for the reader of the reports to include a glossary of the different acronyms, Synod could recommend it.
5. Recommendation
Synod decide to accede to the request of the church at Chatham.
3. Considerations
3.1 The cost of publishing the Acts of Synod is significant. As Langley points out, the cost for the Acts of Synod 2004 was $14,832.00. In addition, Synod 2010 learned that the cost of the Acts 2007 was $16,793.10 (See Acts of Synod 2010, Article 158).
3.2 People today are increasingly accustomed to accessing information digitally.
3.3 Synod 2010 has already decided to instruct the Website Committee to work towards publishing all the past Acts of Synod in digital form (see Article 73).
3.4 It would be good to keep in mind the needs of those who do not have access to the internet and the feelings of those who simply prefer to have a printed copy. As churches, we should encourage reading and study of the Acts to the fullest extent. For this reason, it would not be wise to publish the Acts only in digital form. Church members should have the possibility of ordering printed copies.
4. Recommendation
That Synod decide:
4.1 That the Acts of Synod 2010 should be published digitally on the federational website and that printed copies be made available upon request of the churches.
4.2 That the cost of printing the Acts be carried by the local churches which request them.
4.3 To direct the second clerk to advise the consistories of the churches of this policy change and cost allocation.
ADOPTED
The following is adopted:
3. Observation
The church at Burlington-East proposes to dispense with the procedure of acknowledging synodical correspondence and conveying the decision of synod with respect to it.
4. Consideration
Synod considers this practice common courtesy. It also encourages interaction from the churches with the material of the broader assemblies.
5. Recommendation
Synod decide not to accede to the proposal of the church at Burlington-East.
Regarding late submissions the executive recommended the following:
ADOPTED
When it comes to nomenclature and abbreviations, the practice of the CanRC over the decades has been quite inconsistent. An attempt to anglicize abbreviations in the recent past faltered. At GS 2016 the following principles were followed:
Because various abbreviations have been used over the years, the following list has the most common English and language of origin abbreviations, with notes where church federations have changed names in the course of time.
The following list attempts to cover the abbreviations used in the Acts of GS 2016 and GS 2013.
In this list, the first abbreviation is that in the language of origin (and the one recommended for us), the second abbreviation (in italics) is that in English.
ARC, ARC
American Reformed Church (affiliated with the CanRC)
ARTS, ARTS
Association of Reformed Theological Schools
ATS, ATS
Association of Theological Schools
BBK, RCA
Betrekkingen met Buitenlandse Kerken (Committee on Relations with Churches Abroad of a Dutch church federation)
BC, BC
Belgic Confession
CanRC, CanRC
Canadian Reformed Church(es)
CBT, CBT
Committee on Bible Translations (for the CanRC)
CBTNIV, CBTNIV
Committee on Bible Translation for the New International Version (of the Bible)
CCCNA, CCCNA
Committee for Contact with Churches in North America
CCU, CCU
Committee for Church Unity
CCU-C, CCU-C
Committee for Church Unity – Coordinators
CCU-SCO, CCU-SCO
Committee for Church Unity – Subcommittee for Church Order
CCU-STE, CCU-STE
Committee for Church Unity – Subcommittee for Theological Education
CEIR, CEIR
Committee on Ecumenical and Interchurch Relations (of the OPC)
CERCU, CERCU
Committee for Ecumenical Relations and Church Unity (of the URCNA)
CGKN, CRCN
Christelijk Gereformeerde Kerken in Nederland (Christian Reformed Churches in The Netherlands)
CICR, CICR
Committee on Inter-Church Relations (of the ERQ)
CNSF, CNSF
Committee for Needy Students’ Fund
CO, CO
Church Order
CPTPF, CPTPF
Committee for Pastoral Training Program Funding
CRCA, CRCA
Committee for Relations with Churches Abroad (of the CanRC)
CRCA-SRN, CRCA-SRN
Committee for Relations with Churches Abroad – Subcommittee for Relations with churches in The Netherlands
CRCAus, CRCAus
Christian Reformed Churches of Australia
CRCNA, CRCNA
Christian Reformed Church in North America
CRTS, CRTS
Canadian Reformed Theological Seminary
CWeb, CWeb
Committee for the Official Website (of the CanRC)
EF, EF
Ecclesiastical Fellowship
ERQ, RCQ
Reformed Church of Quebec / Église Réformée du Québec
ESV, ESV
English Standard Version (of the Bible)
FCC, FCC
Free Church of Scotland (Continuing)
FCS, FCS
Free Church of Scotland
FERC, FERC
First Evangelical Reformed Church (Singapore)
FRCA, FRCA
Free Reformed Churches of Australia
FRCSA, FRCSA
Free Reformed Churches of South Africa (English is now the preferred language; previously also known as VGKSA)
GGRC, CRCI
Gereja-Gereja Calvini Reformasi di Indonesia (Calvinist Reformed Churches of Indonesia)
GGRI, RCI
Gereja-Gereja Reformasi di Indonesia (Reformed Churches of Indonesia)
GGRI-KalBar, RCI-KalBar
Gereja-Gereja Reformasi di Indonesia – Kalimantan Barat (Reformed Churches of Indonesia in the Province of Kalimantan Barat)
GGRI-NTT, RCI-NTT
Gereja-Gereja Reformasi di Indonesia – Nusa Tenggara Timur (Reformed Churches of Indonesia in the Province of Nusa Tenggara Timor)
GGRI-Papua, RCI-Papua
Gereja-Gereja Reformasi di Indonesia – Papua (Reformed Churches of Indonesia in the Province of Papua)
GKH, DGK, RCR, TRC
Gereformeerde Kerken – Hersteld (Reformed Churches – Restored) – recently renamed De Gereformeerde Kerken (The Reformed Churches)
GKNvv, GKN, RCNtf
Gereformeerde Kerken in Nederland (voorlopig verband) – Reformed Churches in the Netherlands (temporary federation); Recently named: “Gereformeerde Kerken Nederland”
GKv, RCN
Gereformeerde Kerken in Nederland – vrijgemaakt (Reformed Churches in the Netherlands – liberated)
HC, HC
Heidelberg Catechism
ICRC, ICRC
International Conference of Reformed Churches
IPB, PCB
Igreja Presbiteriana do Brasil (Presbyterian Church of Brazil)
IRB, RCB
Igrejas Reformadas do Brazil (Reformed Churches in Brazil)
IRC, IRC
Inter-church Relations Committee (of the RPCNA)
IRCK, IRCK
Independent Reformed Church in Korea
KJV, KJV
King James Version (of the Bible)
KPCA-K, KPCA-K
Korean Presbyterian Church in America (Kosin)
KPCK, KPCK
Kosin Presbyterian Church in Korea (Previously cited as PCK (Kosin))
LRCA, LRCA
Liberated Reformed Church at Abbotsford
NAPARC, NAPARC
North American Presbyterian and Reformed Council
NASB, NASB
New American Standard Bible
NGK, NRC
Nederlands Gereformeerde Kerken (Netherlands Reformed Churches)
NIV/NIV84, NIV/NIV84
New International Version – 1984 Edition (of the Bible)
NIV2011, NIV2011
New International Version – 2011 Edition (of the Bible)
NKJV, NKJV
New King James Version (of the Bible)
NRSV, NRSV
New Revised Standard Version (of the Bible)
OPC, OPC
Orthodox Presbyterian Church
PCA, PCA
Presbyterian Church in America
PHC, PHC
Psalter-Hymnal Committee (of the URCNA)
PJCO, PJCO
Proposed Joint Church Order (for a merged CanRC & URCNA)
PRCA, PRCA
Presbyterian Reformed Church of Australia
PTP, PTP
Pastoral Training Program (of CRTS)
RCK, RCK
Reformed Churches in Korea
RCNZ, RCNZ
Reformed Churches of New Zealand
RCUS, RCUS
Reformed Church in the United States
RPCNA, RPCNA
Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America
RSE, RSE
Regional Synod East (of the CanRC)
RSW, RSW
Regional Synod West (of the CanRC)
SCBP, SCBP
Standing Committee for the Publication of the Book of Praise
SIP, SIP
Statement of Institutional Purpose (of the CRTS)
SRN, SRN
Subcommittee for Relations with churches in The Netherlands (subcommittee of the CRCA)
TUK, TUK
Theologische Universiteit Kampen (Theological University in Kampen (of the RCN))
URCNA, URCNA
United Reformed Churches in North America
4. Recommendations:
4.3 To involve the fraternal delegates in discussions at synods in such a way as to honour the sister-to-sister-church relationship;
2. Observations
2.1 The SCBP in its letter dated September 2009 asks that synod grant the privilege of the floor to representatives of the SCBP that they may participate in the discussion of their proposals.
2.2 The SCBP in its letter dated February 2010 asks that synod grant representatives of the committee half an hour of its time to demonstrate the proposed new melodies for Hymns 31 and 46.
3. Consideration
To expedite the work of synod, it would be beneficial to have the representatives of the SCBP respond to questions concerning their report, as well as to demonstrate the proposed new melodies for Hymn 31 and 46.
4. Recommendation
That Synod decide to grant these requests.
ADOPTED
4. Recommendation
That Synod decide:
4.1 To support the proposal of the church at Lincoln, taken over by the Coordinators, for a face-to-face meeting between the members of Synod and delegates from the United Reformed Churches.
4.2 To set aside at least one hour on Wednesday evening, May 19, 2010 for delegates from the United Reformed Churches to answer questions submitted to them by the churches and delegates.
4.3 To delegate the coordinators along with Dr. J.P. Van Vliet and Dr. G.H. Visscher to represent the Canadian Reformed Churches at a similar session proposed for the Synod of the United Reformed Churches that will meet in London, Ontario in July of 2010.
ADOPTED
2. Observation
2.1 Burlington-Ebenezer reported it received two requests from the publisher of The Yearbook of American and Canadian Churches to update the statistical information regarding the CanRC. Burlington-Ebenezer responded to each request with information taken from the most recent copy of the Yearbook of the Canadian and American Reformed Churches.
3. Consideration
3.1 It is clear from the report that Burlington-Ebenezer fulfilled its mandate.
4. Recommendations
That Synod decide:
4.1 To receive with thankfulness the report from Burlington-Ebenezer;
4.2 To reappoint Burlington-Ebenezer as Address Church for the CanRC.
ADOPTED
Synod adopted the following:
4. Consideration
Ebenezer Church could have supplied the Christian Info Society with our official website address (www.canrc.org).
5. Recommendation
Synod direct Ebenezer Church to supply the Christian Info Society with our official website address (www.canrc.org).
2. Admissibility
2.1 GS 2016 (Art. 53) agreed with GS 2013’s observation (Art. 62) that “The churches of the Canadian Reformed federation set the agenda for general synod. No church has asked us to address this issue. Synod also accepts correspondence received from churches with which we are in Ecclesiastical Fellowship. The letter from the LRCA does not fulfil either criterion.”
3. Recommendation
That Synod declare the appeal inadmissible.
ADOPTED
1. Material:
Letter from the Liberated Reformed Church at Abbotsford (LRCA), dated Feb. 28, 2013 (8.1.24)
2. Observations re: Admissibility:
2.1. The LRCA addresses Synod Carman 2013 out of a deep concern over “the deformation and apostasy that is growing in the Canadian Reformed Churches” which is rooted in the decisions of general synod dealing with inter-church relations. The LRCA conveys its “urgent call to reform the church and to return to its confessional basis as summarized in The Three Forms of Unity.”
2.2. The churches of the Canadian Reformed federation set the agenda for general synod. No church has asked us to address this issue. Synod also accepts correspondence received from churches with whom we are in Ecclesiastical Fellowship. The letter from the LRCA does not fulfil either criterion.
3. Recommendation:
That Synod decide to declare the letter from the LRCA inadmissible.
ADOPTED
1. Material:
Letter of appeal from sr. A. VanTil (8.5.17)
2. Observations re: Admissibility
2.1. Sr. VanTil appeals the four decisions of Regional East of November 14, 2012 pertaining to her appeal against the judgment of Classis Ontario West of Dec. 14, 2011.
2.2. Her first request to General Synod is to “determine that Regional Synod erred in upholding Hamilton Consistory’s new protocol for Lord’s Supper admittance.” She requests General Synod “to determine that this protocol for admitting members of NAPARC and ICRC churches as guests at the Lord’s Supper table is contrary to Scripture, Church Order and the confessions of the church.”
2.3. Her second request is that “General Synod determine that Regional Synod erred in upholding Hamilton Consistory’s procedure for announcing withdrawals”. She requests General Synod to “determine that this protocol Hamilton Consistory has adopted for announcing withdrawals from the Cornerstone Canadian Reformed Church to attend churches affiliated with NAPARC is contrary to Scripture, to the confessions of the church and the church order.”
2.4. Her third request is for General Synod to “determine that Regional Synod erred in not dealing with the concerns raised about NAPARC membership.” She requests “General Synod to interact with the concerns raised about NAPARC membership and ultimately to rescind our membership in NAPARC.”
2.5. Her fourth request is for General Synod to “determine that Regional Synod erred in upholding Hamilton consistory’s decision to request [her] to attend Lord’s Supper prior to interacting with [her] concerns.”
3. Considerations re: Admissibility:
3.1. In her first request, sr. VanTil merely reiterates the same grounds that she raised in her appeal to Regional Synod East (contra Article 33 CO).
3.2. In her second request, sr. VanTil provides no evidence to show that she has taken up the issue of withdrawal announcements with her consistory. This was pointed out to her by both Classis Ontario West (Article 9 Consideration 2) and Regional Synod East (Article 7, Request 2, Obs.2.1, 2.2). This has still not been finished at the minor assembly (contra Article 30 CO).
3.3. In her third request the appellant is basically expressing her disagreement with the Hamilton consistory’s acceptance of General Synod’s decision regarding membership in NAPARC and the implications of that membership. She requested both Classis and Regional Synod to direct Hamilton consistory to appeal General Synod’s decision to retain membership in NAPARC. Classis already pointed out to her, “It is not within the jurisdiction of a classis to direct a local consistory to appeal a decision of a general synod (for example, in the matter of inter-church relations), but such an action would have to originate from the consistory” (Article 8, Consideration 3). Regional Synod showed her the proper route to follow, “If the appellant is not able to convince the Hamilton consistory of the need to appeal the decision regarding NAPARC, the way is open for her to take up the matter with the major assemblies (see Synod 2001 Article 45; Synod 2004, Article 20).
3.4. In the appellant’s fourth request grounds 1 and 3 are the same as she brought forward in her appeal to Regional Synod. In ground 2 the appellant ignores the fact that even though the apostle reprimands the Corinthians by saying, “It is not the Lord’s Supper that you eat” (1 Cor. 11:20), he did not forbid them from attending but called every member to examine himself before partaking (1 Cor. 11: 28, 29). Sr. VanTil has not indicated how Consideration 4.2 of Regional Synod East and the texts mentioned there do not apply to her situation.
3.5. An integral element of an appeal is that it presents grounds to show how one has been wronged or grieved by the decision of an ecclesiastical assembly. Sr. VanTil has not submitted an appeal but simply a restatement of what she submitted to the minor assemblies.
4. Recommendation:
That Synod decide to declare the appeal of sr. A. VanTil inadmissible (Articles 30 and 33 CO).
ADOPTED
3. Considerations:
3.1. Though appealing the decision of Synod Burlington 2010 to deny Attercliffe’s appeal against Synod Smithers 2007and referring to this material throughout the present appeal (see Attercliffe’s considerations #1-6 and 9), Attercliffe does not provide any of this supporting documentation for synod’s judgment. Therefore this aspect of the appeal should be declared inadmissible.
4. Recommendations:
That Synod decide:
4.1. Insofar as the present appeal touches on the decision of Synod Smithers 2007 to apply for membership in NAPARC, the appeal be declared inadmissible.
ADOPTED
2. Observations and Considerations re: Admissibility
2.1. The CRCA of the RCR wrote their letter as an elaboration of their recent discussions with our CRCA. The letter attempts to justify their ‘liberation’ as well as that of the LRCA. It also urges the CanRC to evaluate our ecclesiastical relations in the light of Article 28 of the Belgic Confession. While this letter may serve members of synod for personal reflection, it does not require a response.
2.2. The letter from the LRCA purports to “provide clarification regarding a number of serious inaccuracies and misconceptions” in the report of the subcommittee. Where it disputes the historical record of events that transpired, it should be consulted. Beyond that, it is inadmissible.
2.3. The letter of greeting from the Gereformeerde Kerk in Dalfsen (of the RCR) expresses the desire that the CanRC continue to have contact with their church federation. This letter may be received for information only.
3. Consideration
The self-described “appeal” of Attercliffe is more like an overture than an appeal in that it challenges the decision of Smithers 2007 not in terms of the stated grounds of that decision but in terms of information that came to light subsequent to Synod 2007. For this reason, the appeal should be denied but the relevant content of Attercliffe’s submission can be considered along with other letters from the churches relating to the CCCNA Report on NAPARC.
4. Recommendation
That Synod decide to deny the appeal of Attercliffe.
ADOPTED
3. Consideration
The self-described “appeal” of Coaldale is more like an overture than an appeal in that it challenges the decision of Smithers 2007 not in terms of the stated grounds of that decision but in terms of information that came to light subsequent to Synod 2007. For this reason, the appeal should be denied but the content of Coaldale’s submission can be considered along with other letters from the churches relating to the CCCNA Report on NAPARC.
4. Recommendation
That Synod decide to deny the appeal of Coaldale.
ADOPTED
The following was adopted:
4. Considerations
4.1 The appellants claim Synod Neerlandia has applied a new interpretation to Articles 30 and 31 of the Church Order. Other than stating a historical perspective, the church at Attercliffe provides no evidence that the application of Articles 30 and 31 by Synod Neerlandia was incorrect. A review of previous Acts of Synods does give evidence of letters and/or appeals from individuals directed to general synods that have been declared admissible. However, this historical evidence in itself does not necessarily establish a clear understanding or precedence for the correct understanding of Articles 30 & 31 of the Church Order. Rather, it demonstrates an inconsistency in the practice of the admissibility of submissions from individuals, which became a cause of concern at Synod Abbotsford 1995. In various articles of the Acts, Synod Abbotsford states:
Several letters are from individuals and not from churches. This raises the question whether individual members have the right to address their concerns and views about a report directly to a General Synod, without first addressing them to their local consistory/council for consideration. However, it would be unfair to declare the personal submissions mentioned above invalid for this Synod because past Synods have been inconsistent on this (cf. Acts of Synod Abbotsford 1995, Art. 72, II. Admissibility; Art. 86, II. Admissibility).
4.2 The church at Attercliffe is correct that there is no evidence of a request from an individual or one of the churches to change the application of Article 30 & 31 C.O. However, this presupposes that a change of application has actually occurred. The underlying question is whether or not Synod Neerlandia’s application is correct as it relates to two distinct matters. The first deals with an individual’s right to submit letters or overtures directly to a general synod concerning the reports of various synodical committees. The second relates to an individual’s right to appeal a decision of a general synod directly on matters such as those pertaining to the churches in common.
4.3 The first matter deals with the individual’s right to make submissions to a general synod concerning the various reports from the synodical committees. Synod Neerlandia is correct in stating that an individual member cannot forward their comments or concerns directly to a general synod. The reason for this is that the reports from the various committees are for general synod to engage in a discussion and make the appropriate decisions. A synod does so representing all the churches within the federation. (cf. W.W.J. Van Oene, With Common Consent, pp. 133, 139; G. Van Rongen and K. Deddens, Decently and in Good Order, p. 58). Consistories have the opportunity to respond to these reports, as the local churches have ultimately placed these common matters on the agenda of a general synod (Art. 30). Synod Neerlandia was not consistent in this particular matter (cf. Acts of Synod Neerlandia 2001, Art. 96, p. 107). Individual members have opportunity to interact with these reports through their consistories. The way of the Church Order requires individuals to wait until a general synod actually makes decisions on the committee recommendations before they may begin an appeal process.
4.4 The second matter relates to an individual’s right to appeal a decision of a general synod directly on matters pertaining to the churches in common. Synod Neerlandia was correct in stating that an individual member cannot forward his appeals regarding matters that concern the churches in common directly to a general synod. This does not mean that Synod Neerlandia has taken away the right of individuals to appeal. Rather, Synod Neerlandia shows the appellants the correct way of appeal according to the Church Order. Individual members must follow the way of the Church Order by addressing their concerns to their local consistory who, should they concur with the concerns, direct an appeal to a general synod. Consistory, unlike individual members, has the right to deal directly with the matters that belong to the churches in common. Consistory may do so because these decisions are to be considered settled and binding by the consistory. A consistory cannot appeal a decision of a major assembly to a minor assembly. If the local consistory does not take over the individual’s appeal, he can appeal the local consistory’s decision to classis and thus begin the appeal process in accordance with Article 31 of the Church Order.
4.5 Article 30 of the Church Order provides clarity as to what is to be considered an ecclesiastical matter and what should be dealt with at the broader assemblies. Article 31 of the Church Order deals exclusively with the appeal process. Article 31 states clearly that “if anyone complains that he has been wronged by the decision of a minor assembly, he shall have the right to appeal to the major assembly.” For the individual, his local consistory is to be considered the minor assembly. When the consistory accepts a decision of a general synod, the individual’s appeal is against the consistory and, therefore, Article 31 directs his subsequent appeal to the broader assembly of classis, and then regional synod and general synod.
4.6 The church at Attercliffe asks how individuals in the future will be able to appeal a synodical decision. While this has been addressed in the considerations above, it is important to note the intent of Article 31. Individual church members have the duty to consider whatever may be agreed upon by majority vote in the church assemblies as settled and binding. If someone feels concerned about a decision of an assembly, then he ought to first engage in reflection with the consistory and commit to study the matter further. There is a possibility that an ecclesiastical assembly may make a wrong decision. Yet, in general, decisions of the major assemblies ought to be held in high esteem. After all, the ecclesiastical assembly is not a discussion partner for individuals, but rather it is through these assemblies that the churches have spoken according to their rightful responsibility. With this in mind, the individual should reconsider whether he may have come to the wrong conclusion.
4.7 The church at Grand Rapids correctly notes that the Acts of Synods are provided as public information and that the reports of the various committees may be made available to the membership via the local consistory. This does not automatically mean that individual members have the right to interact with these reports by going directly to general synod. Once a general synod has made its decision on these reports, and an individual member has concerns about it, he is obliged to interact with his local consistory and convince it of the need to begin the appeal process.
4.8 The church at Grand Rapids is incorrect by stating that all possibility for an appeal to the broadest assembly is ruled out. Individual members do have the opportunity to appeal; however, they must do so by following the way of the Church Order outlined above.
4.9 The church at Grand Rapids is incorrect by claiming that Synod Neerlandia’s application of Articles 30 and 31 may amount to incipient hierarchy. Since an individual member still has the right to appeal decisions of a general synod, in the prescribed way of the Church Order, the church at Grand Rapid’s fear of hierarchy is unfounded.
5. Recommendation
Synod decide to deny the appeals of the churches at Attercliffe and Grand Rapids.
1. Material
Letter of br.M.Noort,Berkel en Rodenrijs,The Netherlands.
2. Admissibility
Synod declares this letter inadmissible.
2.1 General Synod cannot deal with personal submissions from members of sister churches abroad (article 30 of the Church Order).
2.2 The Guidelines for Synod (1,C) state that … “ All material submitted to Synod … which quotes any foreign language source must provide… a full English translation.”
1. Material
2. Board of Governors of the CRTS (Canadian Reformed Theological Seminary)
2.1 Academic Committee:
2.1.1 From eastern Canada: the Rev. J. Ludwig (2019), the Rev. M. VanLuik (2022), the Rev. J. Louwerse (2025)
Substitute: the Rev. D. deBoer
2.1.2 From western Canada: the Rev. R. Aasman (2019), the Rev. J. Poppe (2025), the Rev. J. Slaa (2025)
Substitute: the Rev. R. Schouten
2.2 Finance and Property Committee: B. Hordyk (2019), C.H. Medemblik (2022), F. Oostdyk (2022), K. VanVeen (2025), P. Vandersluis (2025). Substitutes: A.B. Harsevoort, R. Hummel, in that order
3. CPTPF (Committee for Pastoral Training Program Funding)
3.1 The Guelph-Emmanuel CanRC
4. CRCA (Committee for Relations with Churches Abroad)
4.1 O. Bouwman (2022), the Rev. Dr. R.C. Janssen (convener) (2025), H. Schouten (2025), the Rev. S.C. Van Dam (2025), Jake VanLaar (2019), the Rev. A. Witten (2022)
4.2 Subcommittee for Contact with the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands: the Rev. J. DeGelder, the Rev. J. Moesker, G.J. Nordeman, the Rev. Dr. C. Van Dam
5. CCCNA (Committee for Contact with Churches in North America)
5.1 Subcommittee East: the Rev. D.W. Vandeburgt (2019), G. Bos (2022), the Rev. M. Jagt (convener) (2025), J. Temple (2025)
5.2 Subcommittee West: the Rev. S. Vandevelde (2025), H. VanDelden (2019), L. Vanderveen (convener) (2022), P. Veenendaal (2025)
6. CCU (Committee for Church Unity)
6.1 Coordinators for Canada East: the Rev. W. DenHollander, the Rev. C.J. Vandervelde
6.2 Coordinators for Canada West: the Rev. Dr. A.J. Pol, the Rev. W.B Slomp
6.3 Subcommittees:
6.2.1 Subcommittee for the Church Order: the Rev. Dr. G. Nederveen, G.J. Nordeman, the Rev. A.B. Roukema, the Rev. J. VanWoudenberg (convener), Dr. A. Witten
6.2.2 Subcommittee for Theological Education: Dr. B. Faber, the Rev. J.L. VanPopta (convener), K.J. Veldkamp, the Rev. Dr. G.H. Visscher
6.3 Common Songbook Committee: the Standing Committee for the Book of Praise
6.4 Creeds and Forms Committee: the Rev. C. Bouwman (convener), the Rev. Dr. J. VanVliet, the Rev. Dr. T.G. VanRaalte
7. SCBP (Standing Committee for the Publication of the Book of Praise)
7.1 A. DenHollander (2019), M. Jongsma (2025), the Rev. Dr. J. Smith (2022), the Rev. D. Wynia (2022) (convener)
8. CBT (Committee for Bible Translation)
8.1 The Rev. D. deBoer (2019), the Rev. R. Vermeulen (2022)
9. CWeb (Committee for the Official Website)
9.1 J. Koopmans (2022), J. Reinink (2019), the Rev. A.B. Roukema (2022), Darryl Shpak (2019)
10. Churches for Days of Prayer and CO 54
10.1 The Burlington-Rehoboth CanRC and the Edmonton-Providence CanRC
11. General Fund
11.1 The Carman-East CanRC
12. Auditing the General Fund
12.1 The Carman-West CanRC
13. CNSF (Committee for Needy Students’ Fund)
13.1 The Grassie-Covenant CanRC
14. Archive Church
14.1 The Burlington-Ebenezer CanRC
15. Church for inspecting the Archives
15.1 The Burlington-Rehoboth CanRC
16. Audit Finances of GS 2016
16.1 The Attercliffe CanRC
17. Address Church
17.1 The Burlington-Ebenezer CanRC
18. Committee for Publication of the Acts
18.1 The first and second clerk of GS 2016
19. Convening Church for the next General Synod
19.1 The Edmonton-Immanuel CanRC
1. Material
1.1 Letter from the Dunnville CanRC organizing committee (5.1)
2. Observations
2.1 The organizing committee of the Dunnville CanRC brings the following to the attention of Synod:
2.1.1 “All electronically submitted documents to Synod should include a file name that makes it distinguishable e.g. The file name of the document should include the name of the submitting church and the topic of the submission. As an example a letter would have been easier to organize with a filename like Langley Letter to Synod 2016 re CWeb
Rationale: Many submitted documents simply name the topic which makes it difficult to properly file and organize especially when there are several churches submitting on the same topic.”
2.1.2 “We would discourage the use of spiral bound or comb bound paper copies of a submission.
Rationale: The five paper copies are placed in binders. Removing the sheets from a bound submission creates significant additional work. Duo-Tang or similar type paper folders made of cardstock paper or 3 ring binders are preferred.”
2.1.3 “We recommend that if a submission is 15 pages or less no hard copy will be required.
Rationale: It is much easier and cost effective to print the hard copies from an email than to receive the documents, which often are folded papers, in an envelope. Subsequently trying to insert folded papers into a binder is cumbersome and unwieldy.”
2.1.4 “If submissions are scanned copies it is highly recommended that submissions dealing with separate topics be scanned as separate documents.
Rationale: To separate topics that have all been lumped into one scan creates extra unnecessary work.”
2.1.5 “All scanned submissions should be in .pdf, .doc. or .docx. file format.
Rationale: Some scanned copies were in formats that needed to be converted from photo and other picture formats. This creates extra unnecessary work.”
2.1.6 “Proper electronic signatures will be accepted as a suitable means of verifying the authenticity of a submission.
Rationale: A proper electronic signature created with a trustworthy software program designed with the capabilities to create a verifiable signature will diminish the need for scanned copies.”
2.1.7 “If at all possible and feasible submitters should stick to one topic in each of their submissions.
Rationale: We received submissions that covered more than one topic making it difficult to file and find an appropriate placement on the agenda.”
2.2 Synod Guideline J reads, “These Synodical Guidelines may be suspended, amended, revised or abrogated by a majority vote of Synod.”
3. Considerations
3.1 The experience of the organizing committee of Dunnville should not be lost. It has done well to bring this to the attention of the Synod.
3.2 The current officers of synod are best placed to judge how to implement the desires of this Synod with respect to these observations.
3.3 It is not clear why hard copies are needed, other than for archiving purposes. Hence it makes little sense to set a limit on the size of submissions as they would not require printing beforehand.
4. Recommendation
That Synod decide:
4.1 To mandate the officers of this Synod to take the necessary measures to have these suggestions acted upon.
ADOPTED
2. Observations
2.5 Orangeville expressed appreciation for the work of Carman-East in administering the General Fund. At the same time it expressed concern that two of Carman-East’s own office bearers audited the books. Orangeville proposed, “That the Church of Carman East ask the Church of Carman West do (sic) such audit of the record keeping of the books of the General Fund as administered by Carman East.” Orangeville expressed the sentiment that it would be good practice that audits of “financial aspects concerning Synod or the Churches as a whole, be done by Churches in close proximity to the administering Church of such funds, and not the same Church auditing its own records.”
3. Considerations
3.2 While in no way questioning the integrity of the audit completed by the brothers of Carman-East, Orangeville makes a valid point that it would be practical and proper to ask the neighbouring congregation of Carman-West to audit the books of the General Fund.
4. Recommendations
That Synod decide:
4.1 To receive with thankfulness the report from the Carman-East CanRC;
4.2 To express gratitude to the office-bearers who audited the books and to Br. G. Vandersluis for functioning as treasurer;
4.3 To authorize Carman-East to collect funds from the churches as required until the time of the next synod;
4.4 To discharge Carman-East for the duties completed during the period of January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2015;
4.5 To reappoint Carman-East to administer the General Fund;
4.6 To appoint Carman-West to audit the books of the General Fund.
ADOPTED
The following was adopted:
3. Observation
The church at Guelph requests that the assessment for the General Fund be approved by Synod itself (just like classical assessments are approved at Classis).
4. Considerations
4.1 The church at Carman (East) has always monitored the situation closely and requested regular assessments as time went on.
4.2 The increase in the number of committees due to our contact with the URCNA created a situation in which the expenses were less predictable. New committees cannot present a budget prior to commencing their work.
4.3 Classical assessments are more predictable than the expenses incurred by synodical deputies.
5. Recommendation
Synod decide not to accede to the request of the Emmanuel Church at Guelph.
The executive presented recommendations on housekeeping matters. Synod decided the following:
4. Recommendations
4.3 Regarding the concern of the church at Barrhead, Synod notes that Synod Neerlandia considered that the Finance Committee should assure that there is financial accountability. In light of this task, the Finance Committee should consist of at least three members.
4.4 Synod agrees with the recommendation of the church at Barrhead to make a standardized form for reimbursement. Synod also agrees with the church at Barrhead that it is important to include all possible receipts along with the request for reimbursements. Synod notes that the church at Chatham is already using a form for reimbursements. The church at Chatham should give a copy of this sheet to the convening church of the next General Synod.
[Note: There is no recommendation attached to the foregoing considerations. However, this would seem to be a decision.]
That Synod decide:
4.1 To thank the Committee for the Official Website (CWeb) for the work it has done from 2013-2016;
4.2 To give the CWeb a budget of $10,000 for the period 2016-2019;
4.3 To appoint two new members to the CWeb and to thank br. Jeremy Koopmans and the Rev. Dr. W. Bredenhof for the work which they did for this committee;
4.3 To mandate the committee:
4.3.1 To maintain the existing website and associated technical functions;
4.3.2 To revise the content of the website whenever necessary;
4.3.3 To continue the project of digitalizing Reports brought to past synods and to ensure that all reports for GS 2019 are available on the website before the next general synod;
4.3.4 To investigate the effectiveness of the website and to implement changes as considered necessary and desirable, focusing on the following matters: design and layout of the website, greater usability for smart phones and similar devices, menu structures, searching capabilities and greater use of graphics. The CWeb should also investigate whether or not it is possible to get permission for publishing links to the Psalms and Hymns of the Book of Praise on the website;
4.3.5 To use paid, professional services, if necessary, to complete 4.3.3 and 4.3.4 in a timely fashion;
4.3.6 To serve GS 2019 with a report to be sent to the churches at least six months before the beginning of Synod, including a financial statement and a proposed budget.
ADOPTED
4. Recommendations:
That Synod decide:
4.1. To thank the committee for its work.
4.2. To approve the budget to a maximum of $5,000 for the period 2013-2015.
4.3. To mandate the committee:
4.3.1. To maintain the existing website and associated technical functions.
4.3.2. To revise the content of the website whenever necessary, in particular ensuring that the text of the Book of Praise is the same as that most recently adopted and revised by general synod.
4.3.3. To make synod reports available on the web before the next synod.
4.3.4. To provide web services and email services to the churches and to serve the churches with advice with regard to possibilities of setting up their own websites.
4.3.5. To make all the Acts of all past general synods as well as all committee reports to those synods available on the website in searchable format.
4.3.6. To investigate the effectiveness of the website and to come with a proposal for improvement and include that in the report to the next general synod.
4.3.7. To serve Synod 2016 with a report to be sent to the churches at least six months prior to the beginning of synod, including a financial statement and a proposed budget and any recommendations regarding new content to be added to the website.
4.4. To appoint two new members to the committee for six year terms and to thank br. Sikkema and sr. Lane for their work.
4.5. To amend the terms of Rev. W. Bredenhof and br. J. Koopmans to six years, ending in 2016.
ADOPTED
4. Recommendation
4.2.4 That members as a rule do not serve more than two three-year terms.
ADOPTED
The following was adopted:
3. Observations
3.4 From the feedback of the survey, the committee makes the following recommendations to Synod regarding new content for the website and its associated technical functions:
3.4.1 More information regarding each local church, but limited – only basic information should be posted such as church contact information, church address, and directions.
3.4.2.Links to other websites, but limited – the churches want only links to websites from organizations and churches which have a clear and official relationship with our churches.
3.4.3.Posting of sermons – the committee recommends that the website host a repository of sermons, to be submitted voluntarily by ministers of the churches.
3.4.4.Posting of Press Releases of broader assemblies.
3.4.5.Posting the Acts of General Synods only. The committee does not favour including the Acts of Classes and Regional Synods, since these concern a limited number of churches; they are generally not publicly available; they could contain sensitive matters; they publish their own press releases.
3.4.6.Similar domain names for local church websites e.g. www.london.canrc.org . The committee’s finding is that this may not be technically possible. The committee recommends that if it is possible, this service could be offered to the churches for their use if desired, as a pointer to their local church website.
3.4.7 Provide a mailing list for consistory clerks, e.g. [email protected]; and a mailing list for synodical committees.
4. Considerations
4.2 Synod agrees with the committee that the internet is a powerful and popular medium of communication in our world. Our website serves to enhance the disseminating of material relating to what the churches have in common, as well as to point visitors to the websites of local churches.
4.3 Synod agrees with the committee that the composition of the committee should be maintained, consisting of three members with advanced technical abilities, as well as the librarian of the Theological College, and one minister.
4.4 Synod agrees with the committee to add to the website the items mentioned in Observations 3.4.
5. Recommendations
5.2 To continue the Committee for Official Website with the following mandate:
5.2.1.To maintain the existing hardware and associated technical functions of the website, purchasing new hardware only if necessary to meet the ongoing needs of the website and if financially responsible;
5.2.2.To maintain the existing content of the website, revising this content whenever necessary, in particular ensuring that the text of the Book of Praise is the same as that most recently adopted and revised by General Synod;
5.2.3.To add new content to the website as listed in Observations 3.4.1-3.4.5;
5.2.4.To provide web services and e-mail services to the churches such as listed in Observations 3.4.6-3.4.7;
Synod adopted the following:
3. Observations
3.1 The Hekman Library of Calvin College requests to purchase the “synodical reports” of “our organization” for their library collection.
3.2 The Church at Burlington informed the Hekman Library that our Acts historically have been filed for internal use and reference only, but that Synod Fergus 1998 has Acts available for public viewing on the Internet.
3.3 The Church at Burlington indicated that Synod 2001 would have to decide about publication of previous Acts for the Internet.
4. Considerations
4.1 The request from the Hekman Library is reasonable considering that the Acts of Fergus 1998 have been published for the general public on the Internet.
4.2 Synod has not decided to publish past Acts on the Internet.
4.3 Copies of Acts of past Synods can be obtained privately.
5. Recommendation
5.1 Synod direct the Church at Burlington-Ebenezer to assist the Hekman Library as best as it can,and as it deems advisable.
1. Material
1.1 Letter from the Rev. J. and sr. B. VanPopta (8.1.5)
2. Observation regarding admissibility
2.1 Br. and sr. VanPopta request that an act of a closed session of a previous synod be published in amended form in the Acts of this synod.
3. Consideration
3.1 A synod is an assembly of the churches and does not deal with proposals from individuals, but only from churches (CO 30).
4. Recommendation
That Synod decide:
4.1 To declare the letter inadmissible.
ADOPTED
Synod adopted the following:
2. Observations
2.1 The Church at Burlington-Ebenezer reports on its correspondence as Address Church.
2.2 The Church at Grand Rapids, our Address Church in the USA, has not submitted a report.
3. Considerations
3.1 The Church at Burlington-Ebenezer has fulfilled its mandate as Address Church.
3.2 It is not necessary to have two Address Churches.
1. Material:
1.1. Overture from br. VanWoudenberg forwarded by the consistory of the church at Chilliwack (8.4.2)
3. Considerations:
3.1. The Guidelines for General Synod specify that “individual churches may address proposals… directly to general synod” (emphasis added). Since the church at Chilliwack explicitly states that it does not support this overture, this is not an overture from an individual church but from an individual member.
3. Considerations re: Admissibility:
3.1 The right to appeal the decisions of church assemblies is a privilege of membership of the churches.
3.2. The decision of Mr. VanTil to withdraw himself or to secede from the church terminated the process meant to lead to reconciliation.
3. Considerations:
3.1. While Barrhead is appealing a decision made with respect to a church other than itself, Synod Burlington 2010’s considerations to Burlington-Ebenezer about taking into account whether an issue “lives in the churches” has the potential to relate more widely in the federation and at its broader assemblies.
3. Considerations:
3.1. Regional Synod West provides no proof that the prevailing system of providing “observations” is overly subjective. In general, it would appear that a conscientious effort is made by Synods to carefully summarize the material(s) under consideration. Even if it should happen inadvertently that certain points brought out in the material(s) are omitted in the “observations,” this is still better than not providing any summary at all. Likewise, if it should happen from time to time that an “observation” contains a “judgment” this would be a misapplication of a method but not a reason to reject the method.
3.2. While it may be true that “considerations” don’t always sufficiently support adopted “recommendations,” there is no reason to think that providing “grounds” would be more likely to provide a proper foundation for decisions made by Synod.
3.3. It is important for the well-being of the federation of churches that letters sent to General Synod are shown to have received due consideration; this is best accomplished by summarizing such communications in the form of “observations.”
3.4. It is important that the reasoning behind decisions of Synod is recorded and this goal is accomplished effectively by utilizing the category of “considerations.”
3.5. The current “Guidelines for Synod” have no stipulations regarding formatting of synodical decisions. It should be left in the freedom of each Synod to determine how its decisions should be recorded.
3. Considerations
3.1 A standing committee cannot and may not make changes to the Acts of a previous synod.
3. Considerations
3.2 The annual NAPARC meetings and meetings with delegates of the other churches at NAPARC occur in November. Changing the number of months that the CCCNA has to report on its work from 6 to 5 months would allow the committee to report on the most recent meetings at NAPARC.
3.3 A one-month delay for the CCCNA does not significantly impact the ability of the churches to respond to the CCCNA report and the delay is reasonable when measured against its benefit.
3.4 An exception to the CCCNA for the time allowed for reporting to the churches does not need to be given to other committees, considering they do not have to deal with the same time constraints.