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; and whatever may be agreed upon by a majority vote shall be considered settled and binding, unless it is proved to be in conflict with the Word of God or with the Church Order.
1. Material
1.1 Appeal from the Hamilton-Providence CanRC (8.6.7.1)
1.2 Letter from br. A. Sikkema (8.6.7.2)
2. Admissibility
2.1 The letter from br. Sikkema is admissible, since the appeal from Hamilton-Providence concerns his person.
ADOPTED with delegates involved in judging this matter at previous assemblies abstaining.
The committee advising synod on this appeal made the following recommendation:
2. Admissibility
2.1 The submission of brother and sister Vandenberg be declared inadmissible because:
2.1.1 Their submission is not an appeal against the decision of regional synod.
2.1.2 Individual members do not have access to general synod unless they are appealing.
ADOPTED
The committee advising synod on this appeal made the following recommendation:
2. Admissibility
2.1 The submission of brother and sister Endeman be declared inadmissible because:
2.1.1 Their submission is not an appeal against the decision of regional synod.
2.1.2 Individual members do not have access to general synod unless they are appealing.
ADOPTED
The committee advising synod on this appeal made the following recommendation:
2. Admissibility
2.1 Synod declare this appeal inadmissible on the grounds:
2.1.1 On page 1 of his appeal Mr. Kingma states that the subject of his appeal is the inability of he and his wife to visit with the consistory of Lynden or its elders with church visitors (or with witnesses in good standing within a sister CanRC). There is no indication in this correspondence that he is appealing a decision of a minor assembly (Art. 31 CO).
2.1.2 What he does request synod to do in his recommendation for Synod 2007 (p. 26) is not an appeal against a decision of Regional Synod West or of the previous general synod. Therefore synod can not deal with his requests.
ADOPTED
The following was adopted:
2. Admissibility
The appeal is declared inadmissible because the appellants do not interact with the actual decision of Synod Fergus 1998 and because no new grounds have been provided since Synod Fergus (cf. Articles 31, 33 C.O.).
The following was adopted:
2. Admissibility
The appeal is declared inadmissible since this brother has not presented this appeal to classis and regional synod (cf. Article 31 C.O.). As he himself states in his appeal: “because all discussion with his local consistory is finished concerning the point at issue in this appeal, the undersigned believes it best to send this appeal directly to Synod ’04.” (cf. Article 20, Acts of General Synod Chatham 2004).
The following was adopted:
2. Admissibility
Br. and sr. Vandeburgt ask General Synod to judge that they, as well as the churches of the federation, have been wronged by the assemblies’ method of interpreting Scriptures. Synod declares this part of the appeal inadmissible since it is not the task of General Synod to judge the validity of various exegetical statements (Acts of Synod Neerlandia 2001, Art. 70, Recommendation 5.1).
3. Considerations:
3.1. Attercliffe is correct in pointing out that the matter of confessional membership was not dealt with extensively by Synod Chatham 2004. However, they do not provide interaction with the other considerations of Synod Burlington 2010 (3.2-3.4).
3.2. Synod Burlington 2010’s considerations in Article 27, Considerations 3.2-3.4, remain valid grounds and as such Synod was correct in declaring the appeal inadmissible on the basis of Article 33 CO.
4. Recommendation:
That Synod deny the appeal.
ADOPTED
3. Considerations
3.2 Concerns about procedural injustice:
3.2.1 Hamilton’s concern about procedural injustice arise from its interpretation of Article 31 of the Church Order. According to Hamilton, a synod may only revise or overturn a decision of a previous synod if it is proved that the original decision went against Scripture or the Church Order. Churches of the federation are bound by the decisions of the major assemblies unless they are proven to be against the Word of God or the adopted Church Order. Article 31 does not prevent churches from approaching the major assemblies with a request to revise or revoke a decision of a synod on grounds other than the Word of God or the adopted Church Order.
3.2.2 Article 33 of the Church Order makes provision for the churches to approach subsequent assemblies with a request to revisit decisions on the basis of new grounds. It is not necessary that these new grounds prove the original decision to be in conflict with the Word of God or the adopted Church Order. It might be enough to show that the original decision was unwise or unhelpful or was made without due consideration of all the implications.
4. Recommendation
That Synod decide to deny the appeal of the church at Hamilton-Cornerstone.
ADOPTED
2. Observations
2.1 The church at Owen Sound appeals a decision of Regional Synod November 14, 2007, by stating that the Regional Synod East has “overstepped the boundaries of its jurisdiction by judging the actions of the consistory of the church at Owen Sound.”
2.2 The documentation supplied indicates that a number of appeals were addressed to Classis Northern Ontario of Dec 17, 2004, and Jan 21, 2005. Classis denied these appeals. The appellants then addressed themselves to Regional Synod East, Nov 9, 2005, and it sided with the appellants against the Classis Northern Ontario (and thereby the church at Owen Sound). When this matter was appealed by the church at Owen Sound to General Synod 2007, it sustained the appeal and based its decision on the fact that Regional Synod East had not proven that the decision of the church at Owen Sound (as sustained by Classis Northern Ontario) was in conflict with the Word of God or with the Church Order.
2.3 One of the appellants thereafter resubmitted an appeal to Regional Synod East, Nov. 14, 2007. This Regional Synod declared the appeal admissible and judged again that Classis Northern Ontario of Dec 17, 2004, and Jan 21, 2005, erred in upholding the decision of the church at Owen Sound.
3. Considerations
3.1 From the sequence of events noted in the observations it appears that the appellants decided to resubmit their appeal to Regional Synod East and that Regional Synod East 2007 upheld their appeal, added considerations that had been lacking in the decision of Regional Synod East 2005 and then restated the decision of Regional Synod East 2005 to the effect that Classis Northern Ontario erred. This is a most questionable procedure.
3.2 Here we have a case of an appellant addressing a minor assembly in view of the fact that a major assembly has decided against him. Seeing that the major assembly decided in favour of the church of Owen Sound and thus against the appellant, the appellant should have addressed his appeal to the next major assembly, in this case General Synod 2010.
4. Recommendation
That Synod decide:
4.1 That Regional Synod 2007, by declaring this matter admissible, acted contrary to Article 31 of the CO.
4.3 That the appeal of the church of Owen Sound is sustained.
ADOPTED
3. Considerations:
3.1. Br. Nordeman states repeatedly that he agrees that voting by the congregation does not mean that the consistory defers authority to the congregation, but his disagreement concerns the binding character of the vote. Because it is binding, br. Nordeman continues, women might outvote men and therefore should not be allowed to vote. Classis Central Ontario 2012 did not pick up this element and in its Consideration 3.4 stated that voting is not an exercise of authority. Classis Central Ontario 2012 clearly misunderstood br. Nordeman.
3.2. Br. Nordeman, in his appeal to Regional Synod East 2012, again made it clear that he never claimed that the vote for office bearers is an exercise of authority. In his appeal to Regional Synod East 2012 he asked Regional Synod to judge that Classis Central Ontario 2012 had erred by denying that the accepted Church Order allows for the “approval by the congregation” in the matter of voting for office bearer. However, Classis Central Ontario 2012 did not say this. What Classis Central Ontario 2012 considered in 3.3 and 3.4 was not relevant to the appeal of br. Nordeman. If br. Nordeman had simply asked Regional Synod to judge that Classis Central Ontario 2012 did not do justice to his appeal, he would have been correct. Considering the way br. Nordeman formulated his appeal, Regional Synod East 2012 was correct in its response to him. There is an inconsistency between br. Nordeman’s comments on the decision of Classis Central Ontario 2012 and his appeal regarding this decision to Regional Synod East 2012.
3.3. The request in the second part of the appeal of br. Nordeman is dependent on a decision regarding the first part of his appeal. Since the first part of br. Nordeman’s appeal cannot be sustained, the second part becomes irrelevant.
4. Recommendation:
That Synod decide to deny the appeal of br. G.J. Nordeman.
ADOPTED
3. Consideration
3.1 Synod Chatham 2004 found fault with Aldergrove consistory in Consideration 4.2 of Art. 114 in the Acts, for something the appellants were not contending and therefore made an unsubstantiated and unproven judgement concerning the pastoral wisdom and care of the consistory of Aldergrove.
4. Recommendation
Synod decide:
4.1 To sustain the appeal of Aldergrove.
ADOPTED
3. Consideration:
In regard to both requests of Burlington-Ebenezer, Synod Carman 2013 only received Burlington-Ebenezer’s letter of appeal and none of the actual documents that are important for the entire appeal process. Burlington-Ebenezer requests Synod Carman 2013 to come to a judgment based only on its own version of the entire situation. Although Burlington-Ebenezer did copy and paste several decisions of minor assemblies into its own letter, it did not provide copies of the material relevant to its appeal. It would not be appropriate to come to a judgement based on this letter from Burlington-Ebenezer only. In order to come to a full understanding of what is at stake Synod requires complete documentation to make a proper determination.
4. Recommendation:
That Synod declare the appeal of Burlington-Ebenezer inadmissible.
ADOPTED
3. Consideration:
3.1. It is not clear which decision Fergus-Maranatha is appealing, nor is there interaction with actual decisions of Synod Burlington 2010.
3.2. Using quotes from historical figures does not provide new evidence that the introduction of hymns is against Scripture or Church Order.
3.3. The quotes from Scripture do not speak about the use of hymns and are taken out of context. Fergus-Maranatha does not provide new Scriptural evidence which shows that the introduction of hymns is unbiblical (Article 31 CO)
That Synod deny the appeal of Fergus-Maranatha.
ADOPTED
3. Considerations
3.1 Synod Smithers 2007 indeed did not deal with the issue of confessional membership. However, this matter was dealt with extensively by Synod Chatham 2004. Attercliffe did not bring up any new grounds for revisiting this decision.
3.2 To simply state that the Acts of Synod Fergus contain the scriptural and confessional proof for both amended insertions is not an interaction with the considerations of Synod Chatham 2004, and thus cannot be considered “new grounds.”
3.3 To speak about a “historic continental Reformed position” is nebulous and not helpful. While Attercliffe speaks about the “burden of proof” lying with others, the decisions of Synod Neerlandia were based on lengthy considerations with which Attercliffe did not interact.
3.4 Using quotations from authors has its place but does not negate the necessity to interact with the lengthy considerations of Synod Neerlandia.
4. Recommendation
That Synod decide to declare the appeal inadmissible on the basis of Article 33 of the Church Order.
ADOPTED
3. Considerations
3.3 Regional Synod West has addressed these concerns, and Rev. Boersema should be able to work with them in his further interaction with the consistory in these matters. He gives no evidence that he has interacted with his consistory in light of the decisions of Regional Synod West.
4. Recommendation
That Synod decide to deny this appeal.
ADOPTED
2. Observations
2.1 Lincoln “requests a reconsideration of appeals addressed to General Synod Chatham 2004 from the following churches: Attercliffe, Abbotsford, Grand Rapids, Owen Sound and Blue Bell.” Lincoln feels that the divergencies mentioned in these appeals “need to be dealt with since they remain in violation of our scriptural principles.”
2.2 Lincoln also states that “the process to affect positive change is flawed at Synod,” so that “Synods’ failure to give clear answers on these matters… contribute to a suppression of Reformed thinking.”
3. Considerations
3.1 Though Lincoln requests reconsideration of appeals on grounds that “these divergencies need to be dealt with since they remain in violation of our scriptural principles,” Lincoln does not demonstrate how they violate the principles of Scripture.
3.3 Though Lincoln states that the “process to affect positive change is flawed at Synod,” Lincoln does not demonstrate its case.
4. Recommendation
Synod decide:
4.1 To deny Lincoln’s request to reconsider the five appeals.
ADOPTED
The following was adopted:
4. Considerations
4.1 The church at Grand Rapids’ appeal is, in fact, an appeal against Synod Lincoln 1992, Art. 72, Recommendation B.
4.2 Both Synod Abbotsford 1995 (Art. 106, pg. 69) and Synod Fergus 1998 (Art. 130) denied appeals concerning the same matter. The church at Grand Rapids does not interact with these decisions.
5. Recommendation
Synod decide to deny the appeal of the church at Grand Rapids.
3. Considerations
3.1 Defeated motions have no weight.
3.2 While it would have been helpful if GS 2013 had given examples to substantiate its claims, the provision of such examples is not required.
3.3 The stated contradiction identified by Burlington-Fellowship does appear to be present in the acts of GS 2013.
3.4 GS 2013 was wrong to judge Burlington-Fellowship’s appeal using as a consideration their previously held position.
4. Recommendation
4.1 That Synod decide to send the above considerations as an answer to the appeal of Burlington-Fellowship.
ADOPTED
2. Admissibility
2.1 GS 2013 (Art. 62) declared their letter inadmissible. GS 2013 observed, “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.” GS 2016 agrees with GS 2013’s observation.
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 re: Admissibility:
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).
3.5. 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.
3. Considerations re: Admissibility
3.1 The prose of the appeal lacks clarity to the point that much of it is beyond understanding.
3.3 When someone has been excommunicated, then his right of appeal pertains only to the excommunication.
4. Considerations
4.1 Since CO 31 states that “whatever may be agreed shall be considered settled and binding unless it is proved to be in conflict with the Word of God or the Church Order,” GS 2013 needed to prove that the decisions of Synod 2010 were in conflict with either Scripture or the Church Order. What follows will deal with Scripture and Church Order (CO 3 and CO 30), following the order of CO 31.
3. Considerations
3.2 In its Consideration 4, Regional Synod stated that Regional Synod must judge the work of classis and not directly the work of the Surrey consistory. Judgement of the consistory’s reasons “to restrict the proclamation of the word of the Lord” are indeed not in the jurisdiction of the Regional Synod.
GS 2004 – Article 114
4. Considerations
4.2 Article 31 C.O. states “whatever may be agreed upon by majority vote shall be considered settled and binding, unless it is proved to be in conflict with the Word of God or with the Church Order.” The question is: does the consistory need to give justification for not implementing the decision of classis? The appeal to Article 31 C.O. by the appellants does not provide sufficient grounds to demand proof. At the same time, the consistory would have helped the appellants in providing them with the proof. While this is not explicitly required in Art. 31 C.O., it is a matter of pastoral wisdom and care.
[Note: the (implicit) application of the foregoing in this particular case was considered inappropriate by GS 2007, article 95; cf. “The Focus of an Appeal” under CO Article 31 – Text of Application]
4. Considerations
4.11 The appellants raised many other issues with the decision of GS 2013 on women’s voting as expressed above in Observations 3.7.1-3.7.7. These correspond to GS 2013’s Considerations 3.6-3.8. Since CO 31 demands that decisions of previous assemblies be judged on the grounds of Scripture and Church Order, these issues raised by the appellants are not ultimately relevant for GS 2016 to render a judgment in this matter.
4. Considerations
4.1 Fergus North does not appeal a decision of synod, but expresses concern about a consideration.
5. Recommendation
Synod decide:
5.1 To give these considerations as response to the concerns of Fergus North.
ADOPTED